Tuesday, October 03, 2006

What Process is Due for a Non-Citizen Suspected Terrorist?

Congress finally passed the terror suspect detainee bill, setting up military commissions to determine the status of detainees. Is it enough? Are we being too nice? Are they POWs? Join the discussion already in progress...
Posted by at
Labels: ,

6 comments:

Orrin Johnson said...

Publius, my skepticism was actually more of the Bush Administration's use of NO fact findings - I'm fine with an administrative/military finding of fact, even a fairly cursory one. But nothing at all? But I think that the recent bill the House passed addressed that. And I do agree about that full constitutional rights for non-citizen detainees of any type is an absurdity.

But that's a totally different tangent that wasn't really the point of my post, or even, I think, of Publius'.

But even if Bush and Rumsfeld really WERE war criminals, the main thrust of the point remains: these main stream liberal groups only care about civil rights when it suits them. Pointing to bad behavior doesn't justify other bad behavior. The ACS and ACLU don't care about a fair finding of facts or "holding people accountable," they care about firing up their voting base for partisan gain.

Can one even imagine the Fedralist Society putting something like this on? It would never be accepted by our membership, local or national. And even if we sponsored such a thing, we would insist on having a "defense attorney" to at least pretend to allow for a fair hearing of both points of view. It's why I'm proud to be part of this organization. At the very least, we would invite people we know would disagree with us to do some tough Q&A, because, frankly, we have the guts to allow the other side to attack our ideas and conclusions. And that, not dissent against The Man for its own sake, is the heart of a continuing and healthy democracy.

October 03, 2006 6:04 PM
Orrin Johnson said...

Even Skorzeny had a real war crimes trial. And his men were subjected to a fact finding that was unassailable, as they couldn't hide the uniforms they were wearing, unlike our detainees, some of whom were picked up after being falsley accused by their neighbor to settle some other grudge. Although I think such non-trial, military fact finding hearings are far more common than the media knows or is willing to report.

But this is all irrelevant to the absurdity of ACS' event, and better suited to its own post. And besides - I'm really curious if the ACS folks I forwarded this post to will have anything to say about their event. Let's not hijack the actual post.

October 03, 2006 7:51 PM
Orrin Johnson said...

Alright - its in it's own post. Ready - FIGHT!

I think that in military environments during active hostilities, that it's not inappropriate to have sole executive commissions to determine their status. I don't think a court-martial or non-judicial punishment deprives a soldier of due process. And I don't think those picked up on the field of combat are entitled to judicial review. Courts have long held that military operations are outside their competence.

It would be an unjust irony if a combatant who refuses to play by the rules and wear a uniform is, by that very reason, accorded greater rights than an actual POW.

There have been too many stories of "innocent" detainees being released, only to fight again. And frankly, just as I think civilian casualties in war, while terrible and brutally unfair, are preferable to the alternative of refusing to interrogate these suspects, or allowing them to return to their terror ways. One Jihadist can simply do too much damage.

That doesn't mean I don't think some kind of formal and procedurally consistent fact finding hearing shouldn't take place. I just don't have a problem entrusting that to the Executive, where I think it belongs. And from what I've read of the Detainee Bill, I think the correct ballance has been struck between securing the nation and guarding against "false positive" terror detainees.

October 03, 2006 9:21 PM
Orrin Johnson said...

I don't think it's a sham. And a lot of these guys we get because some equally shady nieghbor turns them in, making vague claims. If they really are caught on the battlefield, I'm with you. But unfortunately, that's not always the circumstances. Remember, Germans surrendered. These guys we kick in their doors after getting a tip from an informant who's likely an informant because he's been involved in some of the stuff before, and may have a grudge to pick with the guy protesting al Qaida, or campaigning for the "wrong" candidate. I think having a formal fact finding of sime kind, with pre-determined rules, is not unreasonable, and wouldn't be unreasonably burdensome.

October 03, 2006 11:13 PM
Orrin Johnson said...

I think once a distinction between more traditional battlefield detainees and ones captured by kicking a door in on a tip has been acknowledged, none of us are really disagreeing.

Field of battle: let them rot in GITMO. Dragged from their house: conduct and investigation (not bound by full Constitutional criminal protections), and then let the guilty rot in GITMO.

Interestingly, it looks like we'll have an expert to talk about some of these very things in November, as Ranjit is pulling in the speakers like drift nets kill tuna.

October 04, 2006 2:07 PM
Orrin Johnson said...

I agree with SW's last, there. It's where I stand, too. But the problem is beyond that. These people have a ton of vital information. How far can we go to get it? Does that factor in to the hearing process? Is it a completely seperate issue? Personally, I'm pretty OK with cold rooms and Red Hot Chilly Peppers. And then a little.

POWs can't be harrassed for information, which I think is one of the reasons we don't call them that. To me, not exploiting that source of information is an unacceptably dangerous road to travel down.

October 05, 2006 3:20 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)