Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 04:32 PM Jan 2012

Bush arrested a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil and held him without a trial [View all]

Human Rights Watch, 2003:

<...>

The line between war and law enforcement gained importance as the U.S. government extended its military efforts against terrorism outside of Afghanistan and Pakistan. In November, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency used a missile to kill Qaid Salim Sinan al-Harethi, an alleged senior al-Qaeda official, and five companions as they were driving in a remote and lawless area of Yemen controlled by tribal chiefs. Washington accused al-Harethi of masterminding the October 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole which had killed seventeen sailors. Based on the limited information available, Human Rights Watch did not criticize the attack on al-Harethi as an extra-judicial execution because his alleged al-Qaeda role arguably made him a combatant, the government apparently lacked control over the area in question, and there evidently was no reasonable law enforcement alternative. Indeed, eighteen Yemeni soldiers had reportedly been killed in a prior attempt to arrest al-Harethi. However, the U.S. government made no public effort to justify this use of its war powers or to articulate the legal limits to such powers. It is Human Rights Watch's position that even someone who might be classified as an enemy combatant should not be subject to military attack when reasonable law enforcement means are available. The failure to respect this principle would risk creating a huge loophole in due process protections worldwide. It would leave everyone open to being summarily killed anyplace in the world upon the unilateral determination by the United States (or, as the approach is inevitably emulated, by any other government) that he or she is an enemy combatant.

<...>

The appropriate line between war and law enforcement was crossed in the case of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen who the Bush administration claimed had flown from Pakistan to the United States to investigate creating a radiological bomb. The Bush administration arrested him as he arrived in the United States, but instead of charging him with this serious criminal offense and bringing him to trial, it unilaterally declared him an "enemy combatant." That designation, it claimed, permitted it to hold him without access to counsel and without charge or trial until the end of the war against terrorism, which may never come. With no link to a discernible battlefield, that assertion of power, again, threatens to create a giant exception to the most basic criminal justice guarantees. Anyone could be picked up and detained forever as an "enemy combatant" upon the unverified claim of the Bush administration or any other government. As the year ended, the U.S. courts were considering this radical claim.

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/wr2k3/introduction.html


José Padilla (born October 18, 1970), also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir or Muhajir Abdullah, is a United States citizen convicted of aiding terrorists.

Padilla was arrested in Chicago on May 8, 2002 on suspicion of plotting a radiological bomb ("dirty bomb&quot attack. He was detained as a material witness until June 9, 2002, when President George W. Bush designated him an enemy combatant and, arguing that he was thereby not entitled to trial in civilian courts, had him transferred to a military prison. Padilla was held for three and a half years as an "enemy combatant" until, after pressure from civil liberties groups, the charge was dropped and his case was moved to a civilian court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(prisoner)



Obama signed NDAA and issued a signing statement, pledging:

"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100295851
35 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Bush and his cronies should've been tried for war crimes, and any possibility of a repeat should've Lionessa Jan 2012 #1
and further, because they haven't been tried ixion Jan 2012 #2
And the US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, ruled he could not do so frazzled Jan 2012 #3
So if Bush already claimed the authority, it's good that Congress passed a law now to back him up? limpyhobbler Jan 2012 #4
How ProSense Jan 2012 #5
I understand the OP says Bush did this bad thing and Obama promises not to do it. limpyhobbler Jan 2012 #17
Feinstein's provision is not in effect and only a fool has any confidence in the fascist courts TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #22
Hmmm? ProSense Jan 2012 #30
Obama Said? RetroLounge Jan 2012 #6
. ProSense Jan 2012 #7
C'mon. He said he would veto the NDAA bill and he....didn't. Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2012 #11
Now ProSense Jan 2012 #12
"to do what Bush did" RetroLounge Jan 2012 #31
You ProSense Jan 2012 #32
You RetroLounge Jan 2012 #34
This message was self-deleted by its author cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #8
We invade Iraq and the first thing we do is disband their military. RC Jan 2012 #9
And the next "Bush" may authorize indefinite military detention. Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #10
That simple. And won't even have to tell the people about it either!! L. Coyote Jan 2012 #13
Like ProSense Jan 2012 #14
Why are you so certain of future SCOTUS rulings? former9thward Jan 2012 #16
Maybe ProSense Jan 2012 #19
and Obama codified this frontal assault on our bill of rights magical thyme Jan 2012 #15
And your point would be? The law as now signed says it is A-OK. WinkyDink Jan 2012 #18
Actually ProSense Jan 2012 #20
FDR arrested thousands and put them in internment camps, without trial, indefinitely bhikkhu Jan 2012 #21
Ending the war how? The war itself is a figment, a campaign against a tactic with no defined TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #23
There will never be an end to the war on terror, or the war on drugs, or the war on the middle class rhett o rick Jan 2012 #24
This utter apathy and mental paralysis at the idea of ending the war... bhikkhu Jan 2012 #26
I agree that we need to work to end the war in Afghanistan. rhett o rick Jan 2012 #27
Sadly in lieu of fixing the problem, he simply stated he would not use rhett o rick Jan 2012 #25
Well ProSense Jan 2012 #28
I agree with you. Dont be so shocked, it happens. nm rhett o rick Jan 2012 #29
And ... Obama Assassinates U.S. Citizen slipslidingaway Jan 2012 #33
Are presidential signing statements binding on future presidents? Bonobo Jan 2012 #35
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Bush arrested a U.S. citi...