[Lerkfish]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/08/colum...try.detainees/

If Padilla and Hamdi are feeling lonely, they may soon have company. Attorney General Ashcroft and the White House are considering creating a military detention camps for all U.S. citizens deemed by the administration to be enemy combatants.


Internees in this special camp will be treated just as Padilla and Hamdi have been so far -- as if they did not possess the basic, traditional rights that can be invoked by U.S. citizens suspected of crimes. Even persons accused of treason have the right to these protections. (The Rosenbergs, to take one example). But according to the government, Padilla, Hamdi, and other American citizens interned in the camps do not.


Why not? Because the internees will be deemed enemy combatants. By whom? By the military alone -- without any right to judicial review in a federal court or otherwise. The government's position is that its own decision as to who is an enemy combatant is binding on federal courts, and that it need not even offer the courts individualized facts to support particular detention decisions. The government made this position crystal clear recently in the Hamdi case.


We now are faced with a scary prospect -- indefinite detention of multiple citizens because the government decides they are dangerous. The mere suggestion of camps or group detention facilities implies that the Executive is, in fact, considering using its newfound citizen-combatant detention program on a broader scale.


If this sounds frightening, that's because it is. As a country, we still remember the government's shameful internment of Japanese Americans during World War II -- a measure the U.S. Supreme Court, in a blot on the Court's record, approved in Korematsu v. United States.

[djohnson]

[itai195]

WTF?

[PacHead]

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/08/colum...try.detainees/

Lerk: did you realize that is dated from September 2002. The Padilla and Hamdi cases went to the Supreme Court. I know, I was there the day the Justices announced the decisions.

The article is simply out of date.

[PacHead]

2002 ? Wow, somebody is certainly getting desperate now.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Lerk: did you realize that is dated from September 2002. The Padilla and Hamdi cases went to the Supreme Court. I know, I was there the day the Justices announced the decisions.

The article is simply out of date.

Stop changing the subject.

[itai195]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The article is simply out of date.

LOL, good call. I missed that dateline, and thought this was an issue that had been settled...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by itai195:
LOL, good call. I missed that dateline, and thought this was an issue that had been settled...

Maybe Lerk is unstuck in time, like the Kurt Vonnegut character?

[chris v]

Down the memory hole it goes, I guess.

[Luca Rescigno]

Wow. I'm pretty liberal, but I find myself agreeing with the conservatives here. I do think it is a scary prospect, but it's silly to reach so far back. Makes you look desperate.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:
Wow. I'm pretty liberal, but I find myself agreeing with the conservatives here. I do think it is a scary prospect, but it's silly to reach so far back. Makes you look desperate.

ahhh..my bad. someone sent me the link and I missed the date on it.

never mind (/emily latella)

[CreepingDeth]

Don't worry Lerk, ya made worse.

[MacGorilla]

Where's the timeline when you need it?

[Cadaver]

IBTTL!

(in before the timeline)