[aburva.org]

Well, from my perspective it behooves us to err towards following the Constitution. There are several reasons I can think of. Perhaps the best one is that it'd be a damn shame for the SCOTUS to throw out the case because the individual wasn't given due process. Also, if we're seen to be following the highest standard possible, it gives less fuel to the fires that feed recruitment for those who would do us harm.

wellI finds this hard to mesh. We are bombing and killing guys ( 7 yesterday?) with predators, there is no due process to be had. They could be , what everything from goat herders with an ak to serious guys we need to hit. They get kablooyed all over the countryside.
We have a guy whom should be dead but isn’t, pulled the trigger on the murder of 275-300 (?) people…. He could whom could have given us good actionable intel, and now we are saying we might get info. As we plea bargain?

You’re worried about due process…? He will never see the light of day again….

I am trying to square that circle but can’t…

[P3bWjm1j]

What article?

at the top of the page.....

[jinnamys]

He was arrested on a US common carrier vehicle, bound for the US. This makes him subject to US law - and also means the government is bound by the Constitution to provide access to counsel, due process, etc.

To do otherwise is to head down a very slippery path.

Mukasey appears to disagree....I don't 'know' but after hearing Brennan and reading this, it appears we do have an out that would allow us to hold him outside his ability to get shut down by counsel (according to them).
to wit;

Holding Abdulmutallab for a time in military custody, regardless of where he is ultimately to be charged, would have been entirely lawful—even in the view of the current administration, which has taken the position that it needs no further legislative authority to hold dangerous detainees even for a lengthy period in the United States. Then we could decide at relative leisure where to charge him—whether before a military commission or before a civilian court.

[myspauyijbv]

wellI finds this hard to mesh. We are bombing and killing guys ( 7 yesterday?) with predators, there is no due process to be had. They could be , what everything from goat herders with an ak to serious guys we need to hit. They get kablooyed all over the countryside.
We have a guy whom should be dead but isn’t, pulled the trigger on the murder of 275-300 (?) people…. He could whom could have given us good actionable intel, and now we are saying we might get info. As we plea bargain?

You’re worried about due process…? He will never see the light of day again….

I am trying to square that circle but can’t…

Well, were it up to me, we'd capture those guys that we're killing, but for many reasons.

You do raise an interesting point. But, I think that the difference is that you're talking about an individual captured on American soil in an American conveyance, with an American visa. If we don't give him the due process required by our own laws, we set a precedent that scares the hell out of me. When our government is not subject to its own laws, it stops being a deomocracy and becomes a dictatorship.

[zueqhbyhp]

at the top of the page.....

Oh, you mean the editorial, which is in no way, shape or form an article. For a second there when you said article I actually thought you meant article.

My bad.

[attlawqa]

wellI finds this hard to mesh. We are bombing and killing guys ( 7 yesterday?) with predators, there is no due process to be had. They could be , what everything from goat herders with an ak to serious guys we need to hit. They get kablooyed all over the countryside.
We have a guy whom should be dead but isn’t, pulled the trigger on the murder of 275-300 (?) people…. He could whom could have given us good actionable intel, and now we are saying we might get info. As we plea bargain?

You’re worried about due process…? He will never see the light of day again….

I am trying to square that circle but can’t…

I would think the answer would be obvious...

Stop blowing up goatherds.

[mp3 free]

Mukasey appears to disagree....I don't 'know' but after hearing Brennan and reading this, it appears we do have an out that would allow us to hold him outside his ability to get shut down by counsel (according to them).
to wit;

Holding Abdulmutallab for a time in military custody, regardless of where he is ultimately to be charged, would have been entirely lawful—even in the view of the current administration, which has taken the position that it needs no further legislative authority to hold dangerous detainees even for a lengthy period in the United States. Then we could decide at relative leisure where to charge him—whether before a military commission or before a civilian court.

I don't really buy that. He was, IIRC, arrested by civilian law enforcement. This isn't a guy who was bagged on the battlefield by the military.

I can't think of a more horrible precedent to set than allowing civilian law enforcement to arrest someone on US soil, then send them into the black hole of detention as an enemy combatant. It's completely antithetical to our system of laws.

Matt

[EtellaObtaite]

I don't really buy that. He was, IIRC, arrested by civilian law enforcement. This isn't a guy who was bagged on the battlefield by the military.

I can't think of a more horrible precedent to set than allowing civilian law enforcement to arrest someone on US soil, then send them into the black hole of detention as an enemy combatant. It's completely antithetical to our system of laws.

Matt

It's basically an invitation for a military state.

[HcMkOKiz]

Oh, you mean the editorial, which is in no way, shape or form an article. For a second there when you said article I actually thought you meant article.

My bad.

Yes and its written by a former AG (sppted by democrats btw_) at that...what, because it didn't come from a 'reporter' from newsweek its not valid...or worthy?

[GueseVekdet]

Yes and its written by a former AG (sppted by democrats btw_) at that...what, because it didn't come from a 'reporter' from newsweek its not valid...or worthy?

I don't care whom it is written by, or whom they support. It's still not an article. It's an editorial.

[yarita]

I would think the answer would be obvious...

Stop blowing up goatherds.

But the goats are the voices of Satan. Those voices are what drive the herders to organize into radical groups that stuff bombs in people's underwear.

Stop the goat madness!

[ordercigsnick]

I don't really buy that. He was, IIRC, arrested by civilian law enforcement. This isn't a guy who was bagged on the battlefield by the military.

I can't think of a more horrible precedent to set than allowing civilian law enforcement to arrest someone on US soil, then send them into the black hole of detention as an enemy combatant. It's completely antithetical to our system of laws.

Matt

I hear you, I agree that like posse comitatus for example there should be limits always when it comes to something along these and those lines.
But I am thinking past this, we have not had to address nor think ahead facing whom and what we are now facing.




Example, lets play suppose for a moment. Lets us suppose we find a foreign national flying in on an American carrier, information says hes got some type of material that may gotten past a previous search in his bags, he gets his bags, or maybe hes found with it getting on in NYC going to say LA?
We bag him and theres a nuclear trigger device inside.

What do we do? How do we approach this?

Sound crazy? Sure, I guess. Think it won’t ever happen? Or something along these lines, where in the lines disappear? Maybe. Maybe not, but we had better start thinking ahead and outside the box and lines, they certainly are. We cannot be hamstrung when it does.

If a plane goes down next week and it is discovered that a guy this guy may have known did it, using this methodology and from the same grp. of folks, someone he could have described or fingered, question 1; why didn’t we know everything he did by sweating him and making sure?

[averkif]

I hear you, I agree that like posse comitatus for example there should be limits always when it comes to something along these and those lines.
But I am thinking past this, we have not had to address nor think ahead facing whom and what we are now facing.




Example, lets play suppose for a moment. Lets us suppose we find a foreign national flying in on an American carrier, information says hes got some type of material that may gotten past a previous search in his bags, he gets his bags, or maybe hes found with it getting on in NYC going to say LA?
We bag him and theres a nuclear trigger device inside.

What do we do? How do we approach this?

Sound crazy? Sure, I guess. Think it won’t ever happen? Or something along these lines, where in the lines disappear? Maybe. Maybe not, but we had better start thinking ahead and outside the box and lines, they certainly are. We cannot be hamstrung when it does.

If a plane goes down next week and it is discovered that a guy this guy may have known did it, using this methodology and from the same grp. of folks, someone he could have described or fingered, question 1; why didn’t we know everything he did by sweating him and making sure?

"Sweating" or "torturing?"

Not trying to pick a fight - it's a reasonable question. And, yes, I consider waterboarding to be torture.

[Woziwfaq]

"Sweating" or "torturing?"

Not trying to pick a fight - it's a reasonable question. And, yes, I consider waterboarding to be torture.

no your question is very valid.

no, not in this case. UNLESS we had a dead certainty that there were others in airports ready to get on planes and even then....but no, no waterboarding.

Now, the nuclear trigger or an alike object? Yes, period.

[OgrGlgHu]

Just for giggles, all US flag airliners are also part of the military reserve, since they can be ordered into service as troop transports, the carriers receive a payment to make this a contractual obligation, some 747's are reinforced to allow them to carry tanks, and the government pays the airlines for the extra fuel the planes use carrying the extra weight.

So technically, if someone wanted to, you could argue that he was arrested for a crime that took place on a US military aircraft, if you wanted to put this into the military justice system.

Personally, I think the FBI is better equipped to extract information from him with perfectly legal methods that will hold up in court, than the kind of amateur torture show thrown together in Guantanamo.

Seriously, you are questioning a guy who just blew his nuts off, he's on heavy pain killers, he'll give up anything and everything he knows to a skillful interrogator who knows how to ask the questions.
And he should get a lawyer, when he requests one, which if they keep the morphine drip going might not be for a couple of weeks.

[infarrelisam]

How exactly would a military interrogation yield more fruitful information? Are you saying that we can't hire people to interrogate? What exactly is having a lawyer in the room going to do to help him? He did it. That's not even really a question. He has nothing to gain from hiding anything, in terms of his own sentencing. Indeed, a lawyer could probably work out a way for his life to be spared, for instance, if he spilled on co-conspirators and other useful information.

Shit, in terms of strategic information gathering, damn right get him a lawyer.

[pimbertiemoft]

He was arrested on a US common carrier vehicle, bound for the US. This makes him subject to US law - and also means the government is bound by the Constitution to provide access to counsel, due process, etc.

To do otherwise is to head down a very slippery path.

In most cases the constitution does not specifically apply to non-american citizens abroad. Is being on an airplane over the ocean considered being abroad?

If the identical thing had happened during WWII only by a German sympathizer or German citizen do you really think it would have been inappropriate to throw him in military prison with other German POWs?

I'm not disappointed that he's being treated through the civilian system, but given the evidence in this particular incident I wouldn't have a huge problem if it was decided to have the military incarcerate him ---- with the caveat that I DO have a problem that we don't actually have POWs, we have unlawful combatants (which is a slippery crock of shit IMO).

Here's some info about whether the constitution applies to non-US citizens or not.... it appears mixed:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/comment...raustiala.html

[boltondd]

How exactly would a military interrogation yield more fruitful information? Are you saying that we can't hire people to interrogate? What exactly is having a lawyer in the room going to do to help him? He did it. That's not even really a question. He has nothing to gain from hiding anything, in terms of his own sentencing. Indeed, a lawyer could probably work out a way for his life to be spared, for instance, if he spilled on co-conspirators and other useful information.

Shit, in terms of strategic information gathering, damn right get him a lawyer.

Actually, I don't think any of the charges carry the possibility of the death penalty, since nobody died.

[casinobonbone]

Actually, I don't think any of the charges carry the possibility of the death penalty, since nobody died.

I remember someone saying something about terrorism charges being able to relate in the death penalty? Maybe not.

[maysubers]

What is important in this case is not only to convict this guy, but to get from him valuable intel that could save lives. You won't get that as long as he has the right to keep quiet.

Why not hand him over to the military so they can get what they need, then turn him over for a civilian trial?

What I see here is a failure to do everything possible to ensure the security of US citizens, which is supposed to be job one for the government.