NYT: In Terror Cases, Administration Sets Own Rules

[Pirate Smile]

In Terror Cases, Administration Sets Own Rules

By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: November 27, 2005

When Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales announced last week that Jose Padilla would be transferred to the federal justice system from military detention, he said almost nothing about the standards the administration used in deciding whether to charge terrorism suspects like Mr. Padilla with crimes or to hold them in military facilities as enemy combatants.
"We take each individual, each case, case by case," Mr. Gonzales said.

The upshot of that approach, underscored by the decision in Mr. Padilla's case, is that no one outside the administration knows just how the determination is made whether to handle a terror suspect as an enemy combatant or as a common criminal, to hold him indefinitely without charges in a military facility or to charge him in court.

Indeed, citing the need to combat terrorism, the administration has argued, with varying degrees of success, that judges should have essentially no role in reviewing its decisions. The change in Mr. Padilla's status, just days before the government's legal papers were due in his appeal to the Supreme Court, suggested to many legal observers that the administration wanted to keep the court out of the case.

"The position of the executive branch," said Eric M. Freedman, a law professor at Hofstra University who has consulted with lawyers for several detainees, "is that it can be judge, jury and executioner."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/27/national/nationalspecial3/27enemy.html

[babylonsister]

1. This would explain the vaccuum surrounding Abu Ghraib.

The executive branch should NOT have the power to be judge, jury and executioner. :grr:

[madrchsod]

2. magna charta

http://www.magnacharta.com/articles/article04.htm
Magna Charta and American Law
over turning a principal of law since 1215 and as the article states an integrable base of our constitution

[TankLV]

14. I thought it was Mangna "Carta" - not "Charta".

[unblock]

3. shame on the judges who fall for this crap

on the other hand, the judges who "fall" for this crap are probably banana republican stooges anyway....

[Rex]

4. Answerable to no one and able to take American citizens

captive for any reason that can be called terrorism. A term which gets defined by the WH.

Republic my ASS!

[daleo]

5. They set their own rules

In other words, there is no rule of law, but rule of men - corrupt, lying men (and Rice).

[antonialee839]

6. The administration sets its own rules for everything else

why should terror cases be any different?

[indepat]

7. Why does the executive branch hate our justice system, our freedoms,

our way of life? What type of government are they trying to implement?

[UpInArms]

8. it's the PNAC plan running amok

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/13268733.htm

excerpt:

In another example of Cheney's tough posture, Wilkerson said Cheney and Rumsfeld encouraged Bush to wield unbridled power in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

"The vice president, the secretary of defense and others ... made this tremendous pitch for new world: `Mr. President, in this new world you are all-powerful. There is no power of the Congress that can stop you. You are commander in chief of the armed forces. You have the perfect right in this new world, where we are seeking security against this new and unprecedented threat, to make any rules or regulations you want.'"

[Straight Shooter]

11. Well, that's scary, but it's not a quote that can be attributed to them.

That quote alarmed me enough that I read the article to see the context. I agree, it certainly paraphrases and encompasses their attitude in a most persuasive and accurate manner to those of us who understand the implications of their agenda, but Wilkerson was putting words in their mouth, if you will.

--------------------

No way on earth would those freaks ever come out and say exactly what their intention is. Otherwise, the eyes of Americans might be opened. Can't have that. :sarcasm:

[annabanana]

9. we have become a government of men, not laws....

These criminals are now officially above the law, and have been since the Patriot Act was pushed through a confused, nervous and somnabulent Congress.

They have put de jure in place, and are rapidly working on de facto. We have been put on the defensive and must RETRIEVE our rights.

on edit: nominated

[UpInArms]

12. you reminded me of this article (from 2001)

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1205/p1s2-uspo.html

excerpt:

Others counter that an important constitutional issue is at stake. "This isn't just about Congress complaining: It's about the Constitution, which sets up three branches of government," says Neal Katyal, a law professor at Yale University in New Haven, Conn. Having Congress play its role as a check on the executive branch is crucial, he says.

For instance, the military tribunals allow the executive branch to carry out functions usually reserved for the other branches: making the law (by designing rules for the tribunals) and carrying out the law (by using judges who are under the president).

He notes that when President Franklin Roosevelt imposed stiff civil-liberties restrictions - such as interning Japanese Americans - the declaration of war from Congress backed up his actions. "Compared to earlier presidents, this administration has taken a far more unilateralist course of action," says Professor Katyal.

...more...

[Covalentbonded]

19. Yoo's version of Presidential powers.

Yoo wrote that the President has the ultimate in power during
war-time.  Congress and the Judiciary must be subordinate to
the President.  And in his "torture" memos Yoo makes
clear that "might makes right" because he claims the
US decides who is and who isn't a failed state, who is and who
isn't an enemy combatant.  He also argues all treaties are
applicable only during peacetime.

This is one dangerous Professor of Law.

[converted_democrat]

10. kick n/t

[TankLV]

13. By itself, this policy is very disturbing. But couple it with the fact

that these criminals were never actually elected in the first place and hold onto power WITHOUT the "consent of the governed" makes it the most outrageous circumstance in our lifetimes, and possibly the entire history of our country.

[rodeodance]

18. kick

[pberq]

15. Kick! - Recommended

[annabanana]

16. kick for evening.... . . n/t

[rodeodance]

17. --and this does not only apply to terror cases!!-(setting their own rules)

[Loonman]

20. Like a dictator would

Yah?