Bush's disrespect for the law

[Jason McCullough]

Link (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007828.php)

TRIVIALIZING TERROR....Remember Jose Padilla, the "dirty bomber"? Last September, in a major victory for the Bush administration, the 4th Circuit Court ruled that the government could detain Padilla in a military brig indefinitely without charges even though he was a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil. It was an expansive ruling that gave the administration broad powers to treat suspected enemy combatants in virtually any way they wanted.

This should have made the government happy, right? Unfortunately, there was one hitch: this being the United States, wartime or no, Padilla could appeal his detention to the Supreme Court, and there was a chance that the Supremes might not be as accomodating as the conservative 4th Circuit.

So the Justice Department came up with a brainstorm: at the last minute, it asked the 4th Circuit to vacate the government's big victory and transfer Padilla to the civilian court system, where they planned to charge him not with being a dirty bomber, not even with planning to blow up apartment buildings, but with a humdrum variety of low-level conspiracy charges.

Today, the 4th Circuit announced that it was not amused:

The government has held Padilla militarily for three and a half years, steadfastly maintaining that it was imperative in the interest of national security that he be so held. However, a short time after our decision issued on the government’s representation that Padilla’s military custody was indeed necessary in the interest of national security, the government determined that it was no longer necessary that Padilla be held militarily.

....In a plea that was notable given that the government had held Padilla militarily for three and a half years and that the Supreme Court was expected within only days either to deny certiorari or to assume jurisdiction over the case for eventual disposition on the merits, the government urged that we act as expeditiously as possible to authorize the transfer [to a civilian court]. The government styled its motion as an “emergency application,” but it provided no explanation as to what comprised the asserted exigency.

The opinion, which denied the transfer and sent the case to the Supreme Court, was written by conservative darling Michael Luttig, who until today was considered a possible contender for a spot on the Supreme Court. Now, probably not. In fact, he's probably not even a conservative darling anymore.

It's worth reading Luttig's whole opinion. It's not very long and it pretty clearly indicates that Luttig and his colleagues were seriously pissed. They want to know why the government claimed it was absolutely essential to national security that Padilla be detained indefinitely and then suddenly changed their minds without so much as an explanation. They want to know why this change of heart came only two business days before Padilla's appeal was scheduled to be filed with the Supreme Court.

Damn it already. Do these guys have any shame at all?

[TylerG]

Ok so assuming that the Bush administration's fears are true and the Supreme Court says in the most polite legalese they can muster: "No shit holding an American citizen indefinitely is illegal." What happens to Padilla? I want to say that if the state violates your right to a speedy trial the state loses its case. But Padilla hasn't been charged yet so I don't think that applies. What’s the precedence for arresting somebody but not charging them?

Edit: Was he even arrested?

[Unicorn McGriddle]

What’s the precedence for arresting somebody but not charging them?

I think you're supposed to put them in a labor camp and work them to death.

[bago]

Well, there IS the constitutional right to a speedy trial...

[Euri]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Gee willickers!

[Jasper]

The founding fathers apparently didn't value their "security" quite as highly as we do today.

[extarbags]

Yeah well the founding fathers didn't have to deal with a bunch of to--you know what, screw it. You can't even be cynical and sarcastic about this anymore.

And you know what? Fuck the founding fathers for designing a government that even lets this happen.

[Flowers]

Ok so assuming that the Bush administration's fears are true and the Supreme Court says in the most polite legalese they can muster: "No shit holding an American citizen indefinitely is illegal." What happens to Padilla? I want to say that if the state violates your right to a speedy trial the state loses its case. But Padilla hasn't been charged yet so I don't think that applies. What’s the precedence for arresting somebody but not charging them?

Edit: Was he even arrested?

In most states the remedy to a violation of your right to a speedy trial is the lifting of your bond conditions. Weak, I know.

[Euri]

Yeah well the founding fathers didn't have to deal with a bunch of to--you know what, screw it. You can't even be cynical and sarcastic about this anymore.

And you know what? Fuck the founding fathers for designing a government that even lets this happen.

I am 80% sure if they were alive today, or at least more people like them, we'd have overthrown this current government. What is happening to Padilla is unconstitutional. Therefore, they did not design a government where "this could happen." We have people operating outside the constitution. So, illegal. I personally wish all people responsible for holding him, including his jailors and all the way up to anyone in the government that have said anything other than "Release him immediately or charge him with something" were thrown into prison.

Bush is a traitor to our nation. I am not sure how anyone, anywhere, can't see or understand this :/

[MattKeil]

Bush is a traitor to our nation. I am not sure how anyone, anywhere, can't see or understand this :/

In a country where Intelligent Design is actually taken seriously enough to go to court, people unable to perceive the obvious really shouldn't surprise anyone.

All this and it's only one year into the term. Let's turn this around a bit: If you're Bush at this point, what the hell do you do?

[Backov]

Bush is a traitor to our nation. I am not sure how anyone, anywhere, can't see or understand this :/

In a country where Intelligent Design is actually taken seriously enough to go to court, people unable to perceive the obvious really shouldn't surprise anyone.

All this and it's only one year into the term. Let's turn this around a bit: If you're Bush at this point, what the hell do you do?

No reelection to worry about? No reasonable threat of impeachment?

Whatever the fuck you want.

[bago]

Spy on the gays (http://www.wonkette.com/politics/top/the-pentagon-casts-a-queer-eye-144585.php)!

[Uncle Larry]

Spy on the gays (http://www.wonkette.com/politics/top/the-pentagon-casts-a-queer-eye-144585.php)!

Why not? They're a fairly reliable source of fashion trends. A few more wiretaps and BAM! no more Hulk-ties.

[extarbags]

Yeah well the founding fathers didn't have to deal with a bunch of to--you know what, screw it. You can't even be cynical and sarcastic about this anymore.

And you know what? Fuck the founding fathers for designing a government that even lets this happen.

I am 80% sure if they were alive today, or at least more people like them, we'd have overthrown this current government. What is happening to Padilla is unconstitutional. Therefore, they did not design a government where "this could happen." We have people operating outside the constitution. So, illegal.

Yeah, but wait, when the President does something illegal, isn't there someone who's supposed to do something about it? Oh but wait, I guess those guys are mostly part of the President's party right now, so he gets a free pass to do whatever, I guess. Yeah. Broken system.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Yeah, Montesquieu never addressed that problem either. It's the great failing of modern representative government. My wild-eyed hobo theory is that because the smoke and mirrors of representational politics give the illusion of citizen participation and the rule of law, they in fact deeply weaken the chief check against a wholly corrupt and/or incompetent government, which is a popular uprising. The mandate of heaven doesn't speak with a hole-punch.

[Andrew Mayer]

Yeah, Montesquieu never addressed that problem either. It's the great failing of modern representative government. My wild-eyed hobo theory is that because the smoke and mirrors of representational politics give the illusion of citizen participation and the rule of law, they in fact deeply weaken the chief check against a wholly corrupt and/or incompetent government, which is a popular uprising. The mandate of heaven doesn't speak with a hole-punch.

You could say the same thing about capitalism. The fact that our class system is (mostly) based on wealth means that you have a good buffer against revolution, since people don't want to destroy the dream (even though most of them will never achieve it). Cheap consumer goods help also.

I think in the case of America though, the strict two party system also helps with corruption.

[Tim Partlett]

In a country where Intelligent Design is actually taken seriously enough to go to court, people unable to perceive the obvious really shouldn't surprise anyone.

All this and it's only one year into the term. Let's turn this around a bit: If you're Bush at this point, what the hell do you do?

Personally I don't think you should be beating yourself up over what amounts to be a bunch of lousy crooks. They might represent America politically, but I don't think they represent America fundamentally. ID went to court, but it was thrown out. Bush spies on Americans, but it has caused outrage on both sides of the political divide. That has impressed me greatly. It would be so easy (and some have done it) to just say "oh it doesn't matter they are probably terrorists anyway", but that doesn't seem to be the case overall. I respect that.

I think when American governments, and its people, start to act with the belief that the rights they so highly value for themselves are deserved by all the people of the world, I think they will find there's a lot of love out there.

[MattKeil]

Personally I don't think you should be beating yourself up over what amounts to be a bunch of lousy crooks. They might represent America politically, but I don't think they represent America fundamentally. ID went to court, but it was thrown out. Bush spies on Americans, but it has caused outrage on both sides of the political divide. That has impressed me greatly. It would be so easy (and some have done it) to just say "oh it doesn't matter they are probably terrorists anyway", but that doesn't seem to be the case overall. I respect that.

Hopefully the rest of the world will share your point of view. The new administration in 2009 should maybe run some kind of PR campaign along the lines of "Those Idiots You've Been Dealing With For Eight Years Weren't Really America" or something.

[Ex-S Woo]

I think when American governments, and its people, start to act with the belief that the rights they so highly value for themselves are deserved by all the people of the world, I think they will find there's a lot of love out there.

I think we've seen these past four years that there is a huge divide in the country as to exactly what those values are.

[Brian Koontz]

I think we've seen these past four years that there is a huge divide in the country as to exactly what those values are.

Not really. There's just a divide between people who believe values are worth having and those who believe that values are already lost.

A battle between different values is a debate. You can't fight with someone who sees no value in a war.

Take a look historically at people who capitulate to Fascism. These aren't the most vibrant, intellectually and morally active, able and caring people. These are the despairing, despondent, amoral or petty moral, centerless, valueless.

Its not weakness that leads to Fascism... its self-perceived weakness that demands a display of excessive strength... its the man who envisions himself with a 14-inch cock because his own cock (his own *life*) isn't nearly good enough (even though, of course, it *is*). He reaches out to whoever can provide him with a 14-inch cock...

Fascist: "Make my dreams come true."

Fascism wins when the populace is beaten down, when the populace demands the fulfillment of their dreams (and their dreams are always excessive and/or immoral), when the populace is taught what they CANNOT do and restricted, prevented from what they CAN do.

Fascism wins when the populace loses confidence in society, when it needs to replace that society with an outside agency, when it needs to become controlled. Fascism wins when the populace believes in an "evil world", believes that the lie that is their life must be protected from being revealed.

There are no good men who demand that America force democracy upon the world. There are no good men who think that domination proves their own worth. These are bad men, hopeless, and those who act as tools of their desperation and vanity serve the emptiness with an equally empty will.

Its not weakness that leads to Fascism... its an Idealization and Adoration of misguided strength... its a desperation, a demanding that that strength be brought to life...

I said that the way to destroy Fascism is to forgive them. That's not quite true (a very good first step though, death by hug). The way to destroy Fascism is for the Fascists to forgive themselves. To laugh and live again!

To do that? Well, the past wasn't sober, was it?... that great error that Fascism is built upon...

Color will return to the cheeks of the bloodless Fascists. They will again smile, and we will bask in its radiance.