Letters to the Editor
Greenlabormike
Published Letters: 16
-
@LiberalArtist and @kimocrossman
[Read the article: Al-Marri and the power to imprison U.S. citizens without charges]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]LiberalArtist said:
"My question is one I asked before but that I thinks bears repeating: does the appellate court's reference to the possibly "shredded" understanding of the duration-of-conflict issue provide an opening, at least as regards indefinite detention, in cases like this?"
Theoretically? Yes. But my guess is that the Supreme Court will not rely on that language when it issues a decision. Others are more familiar with the case law than I, but I suspect SC will rule that President *can* detain civilians (US Citizens or resident aliens) militarily under AUMF, but with enhanced due process rights (at least more than what Fourth Circuit provides). It will also likely decline to address the Bush Admin's argument that the President has "inherent authority" to detain civilians determined to be a national security threat, since AUMF is good law.
kimocrossman said:
"Please read whole Washington Post OpEd I referred to - Daschle said AUMF explicitly did not include US only foreign and only for 9/11 related"
I did read it. However, that's just Daschle's statement, not enforceable law. As I said, I didn't see any discussion of Daschle's statement in the decision (although I could have missed it), but presumably any of the parties filing an amicus brief could have raised this point, and did not do so - at least not in a way that the Fourth Circuit felt compelled to address. I'm not saying I agree with the Fourth Circuit's decision (it's detestable legally as well as morally), but just making an observation that this argument was not addressed by the court.
If you want my legal opinion, I don't think Daschle's statements make a difference. Accepting it at face value, Congress' refusal to include that language is of marginal value. His claims would only be useful to the extent that there was amibiguity in the text of the AUMF as it actually passed, and the court needed some guidance on how to resolve that amibiguity. But the language of the AUMF is unambiguous. The President may use appropriate force against persons determined to have aided the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Period. Not "persons in a location where it is legal for the President to seize them" or even "persons located outside the US." Just "persons." I don't like it, but that's what was passed.
Besides, insisting that the President acted illegally because of what Daschle said a few years ago is really just a distraction. There are other, stronger, more persuasive grounds to overturn this decision. And making this argument implicitly suggests that the President could detain civilians in a military prison if he caught them elsewhere. In international waters, for example. That's not a precedent I'm inclined to set.
-
@kimocrossman
[Read the article: Al-Marri and the power to imprison U.S. citizens without charges]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"My point is that I wonder if this is Legislative Intent which *does* modify legal interpretation."
Legislative intent is only relevant to the extent that there is any ambiguity in the law. If the text of a law is plain and unambiguous, then courts don't care about "legislative intent."
"Only if they were associated with 9/11."
Correction: Only if the President "determined" that they aided and abetted the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Which is the whole point. Under the AUMF and the Al-Marri decision of the Fourth Circuit, Bush gets to make that determination, which is only reviewable by a kangaroo court military tribunal that is rigged from the beginning.
Following your claim, you agree that if you take a cruise in the Caribbean, it's lawful for Bush to seize you, throw you in military prison after "determining" that you aided the 9/11 attackers, and your only right to a review of his claim is a military tribunal that uses secret evidence that you are not entitled to see. Oh, and this tribunal won't convene for approximately 7+ years, as in the case of Al Marri. And while you wait for the Tribunal to convene, Bush may use "enhanced interrogation techniques" to gather additional "evidence" that you did in fact aid the 9/11 attackers. What's wrong with this picture?
-
Barr Endorses = Dog Bites Man
[Read the article: Bob Barr endorses Accountability Now/Strange Bedfellows coalition]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Please understand that I actually agree with GG's larger point that the Strange Bedfellows/Accountability Now campaign is fantastic precisely because it is attracting support from across the political spectrum. And it's getting some traction in the media (however small, so far).
But as a specific example, Barr is just irrelevant. He is no more newsworthy than Nader or any other third party candidate if only because any media coverage of him will be strictly limited to "will he spoil the 2008 election for Republicans like Nader did for Democrats in 2000?" and that's it. There will be literally no coverage of his substantive positions, including this endorsement. If anything, his endorsement only detracts from the larger message. I'd hate to see this project be smeared as "fringe" because "Look who supports it! Third party kooks and angry bloggers - how much more irrelevant can you get?"
This is likely true for Traditional Media, but also for any internet/direct mail marketing. Barr's just a non-starter for most folks.
As a media strategy for Accountability Now and Strange Bedfellows, I think the money bomb angle is more intriguing to the Traditional Media. August 8 will generate a lot of coverage if it pulls in seven or more figures. It's frustrating that more bloggers haven't pushed this more aggressively, but as Atrios might say, nothing is more annoying than being told by others what he "should" cover. So I spread the word as best I can, and let others do the same without preaching at them. So even if I take issue with the Barr thing, words can't describe the praise GG deserves for pushing this pro-active plan of action to restore the rule of law so hard and relentlessly.