31 ms·

A Secretly Detained American Has Asked for a Lawyer – But Gov Won’t Give Him One

211 points by gehwartzen 9y ago

StudentStuff 9y ago
This is a crime that violates the 5th and 6th amendments, and we should be arresting and prosecuting those who gave the order to violate this man's constitutional rights. Are our rights worth less than the paper they are written on?
- rarec 9y ago
  Rights are only worth what people are willing to fight for. However, as most people don't care, rights for most are just ideas.
- frankharv 9y ago
  As an honorably discharged veteran I believe if you are caught by a local militia in a warzone you should be summarily executed. There is no magical USA constitutional fairy while on the Syrian battlefield. You wanted to fight for ISIS and now it time to pay the piper.
  - saagarjha 9y ago
    > You wanted to fight for ISIS and now it time to pay the piper. Wow…isn't that a bit of an extreme conclusion to jump to? How do you know they're trying to fight for ISIS?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - Tarq0n 9y ago
    And this is why the U.S. failing to adopt the universal declaration of human rights is such a travesty.
    - Mary-Jane 9y ago
      The US voted in favor of the declaration; can you elaborate on what you mean?
  - zbentley 9y ago
    Well, you may have a chance to act on that belief, if you are ever called to sit in judgement on a jury. Lots of things will prevent you from acting unilaterally (no total, sentencing authority; other members of the jury), but you'll be able to say your 2 cents. That's the beauty of the way our criminal justice system works . . . . . . or works in an ideal, happy-path case, at least. Exceptions like this one are far from uncommon. The military justice system in general is pretty far from that in a lot of cases. So are things like FISA courts etc. Whether we should be trying to move closer to that ideal (which, even when practiced perfectly, has its flaws) or not is anyone's guess.
  - matt4077 9y ago
    If you consider the US Constitution some sort of whimsical fancy in the domain of fairies, I am glad you're discharged. And saddened that anyone considered you honorable.
    - boomboomsubban 9y ago
      Not thinking the constitution applies in a foreign war zone isn't something someone should be discharged for, and that opinion should not be used to judge someone's entire life.
      - aplummer 9y ago
        Forget the constitution, ex/soldiers should know better than to dismiss the Geneva convention offhandedly like this, it isn’t a good look for a military without a stellar reputation as is.
        boomboomsubban 9y ago
        The US military has spent the past fifteen years saying the Geneva convention in these conflicts. I disagree, but it's not an insane position.
        saas_co_de 9y ago
        The Geneva Conventions are treaties between states that define how they will treat each other's soldiers if captured in war. The Geneva Conventions do not apply to wars with non-state actors or states who are not participants to the treaty. The Geneva Conventions would never apply to traitors on your own side, which is the case here. Perhaps military people know more about the Geneva Conventions than you give them credit for.
        syshum 9y ago
        >The Geneva Conventions are treaties between states that define how they will treat each other's soldiers if captured in war. The Geneva Conventions are a set of ethical standards that should apply to all persons, regardless of the legal application >The Geneva Conventions do not apply to wars with non-state actors or states who are not participants to the treaty. Any person that is of good moral and ethical character would apply them to all persons. >The Geneva Conventions would never apply to traitors on your own side, which is the case here. Has there been a trial convicting the person of Treason under US Law? I guess no only to you not believe in basic human rights, you also subscribe to the moronic ideology of "guilty until proven innocent" where the government only has to assert treason, not actually prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of your peers >Perhaps military people know more about the Geneva Conventions than you give them credit for. I am not really interested in the legal application of the Geneva Accords, I am interested in the moral and ethical foundation they are based on. Ethical and moral people believe that the Geneva Accords should apply to all persons at all times regardless of declarations of war or any other factors. This moronic idea that you should abuse, torture, or treat inhumanly a person simply because they are a "non-state" actor has no place in the modern world, it is an excuse to defend barbarism, barbarism we should be looking to expunge from the world not justify
  - parenthephobia 9y ago
    Apparently there's no magical Geneva Convention fairy, either. Just because you were honorably discharged doesn't mean you're right. If you'd summarily executed prisoners, you'd have committed a war crime.
  - EliRivers 9y ago
    You're the same as ISIS, just beholden to a different side.
    - tomjen3 9y ago
      ISIS says what he says about civilians. GP advocated it for soldiers. I have no problem with summary executions of soldiers caught by the enemy - that is something that happens in war and trying to make rules about it after is just silly. However given that he has been taken prisoners, we have to play by the book and give him a lawyer. It is not a big issue anyway it shouldn't be hard to prove him guilty.
      - EliRivers 9y ago
        Summary execution of captured soldiers (i.e. without adherence to the rule of law etc.) is a war crime. Fact. That you have no problem with it is not surprising, and pisses all over what America would like to believe it stands for. What some Americans wish it did stand for. Be better. Not just better at killing.
        cm2187 9y ago
        This is very theoretical. Like if you send a platoon to get into some taliban fighter’s home and execute him in front of his kids it’s a war crime, but if instead you just flatten the house with a bomb it’s not. Well in option 1 the kids get to live, I’d argue it’s preferable to option 2.
        EliRivers 9y ago
        What if, when you captured this soldier, that apparently this platoon of yours can do, you just didn't summarily execute him? That's really my suggestion. Try to not murder people, when you have that option. As opposed to the OP option of summary execution of captured soldiers. I don't see that this is theoretical. We watched this play out in practice for many years. Turns out that running around executing people really doesn't help. Or maybe we just didn't do it enough? We do seem to be well beyond the point of listening to reality nowadays; maybe we just need to shout ideology louder. Like ISIS.
  - bhickey 9y ago
    Good thing no one has ever sold their rivals to American forces claiming that they were enemy combatants. https://www.propublica.org/article/uighurs-sold-to-us-military-for-bounty-109 https://www.propublica.org/article/uighurs-sold-to-us-milita...
    - arca_vorago 9y ago
      Can confirm I saw this happen in Iraq way too often.
- jhkdwbkjlf 9y ago
  Most ppl didn't care/do anything when the previous Nobel Prize winning guy droned an American and his son (and other crimes). Why should ppl care now about this if the guys doing it are quite honest in their contempt for the rule of law? Say what you will about DJT, but he's quite honest (mostly 'cause he can't control the diarrhea from his mouth). If one is unwilling to raise one's voice for political expediency reasons when the "good guys" are doing "bad" things then all this hoopla about this admin pulling back const. protections is a bit of a laugh, aint it?
  - Angostura 9y ago
    Except of course that people that the ACLU and others absolutely did raise their voices about the targeting of Anwar al-Awlaki. Indeed there was quite a lot of legal back and forth about its legality. Personally, I see pragmatic difference. It is easily within the within the U.S' capabilities to give this person a lawyer. It's not clear how the U.S would have bought Anwar al-Awlaki to justice for the crimes that he was proud of committing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
    - revelation 9y ago
      Yes, a "lot of legal back and forth" by Government lawyers writing secretive memos that are nothing but a sham. Throw them in the same cell. They also of course killed his U.S. citizen son ("I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father") and 8 year old daughter (not a U.S. citizen, so clearly worthless).
      - Angostura 9y ago
        It must be comforting to live in a world that is so black and white. That legal back and forth isn’t worthless. It’s what systems based on the rule of law do when faced with knotty problems. You’ve decided that they are a sham and that the lawyers should be thrown in jail without due process. Find me anyone other than the people in your head who believe the daughter was worthless.
- ajmurmann 9y ago
  What makes this even more annoying is that people making these decisions will not be held personally responsible. Instead the government (aka "all US citizens and tax payers") will have to pay for this. There are people undermining our democracy and they likely will get away with a fraction of the punishment a petty criminal gets. To me this kind of behavior should be prosecuted tougher than murder. Edit: typo pretty -> petty
- wfo 9y ago
  >This is a crime that violates the 5th and 6th amendments, and we should be arresting and prosecuting those who gave the order to violate this man's constitutional rights. Funny. They can get in line behind John Yoo, J. Edgar Hoover, Henry Kissinger and thousands of others. They'll have to pull Yoo away from the prestigious appointment at UC Berkeley he got as a reward for his crimes, strip the name Hoover got to place on the FBI building for his, and take away the adoration and respect murderous war criminal Kissinger gets from politicians of all stripes first. There has been an argument going on for some time about whether or not the domestic legal system is capable of handling terrorism cases -- cases have recently been prosecuted in civil courts like the Boston Bombing, etc. Perhaps it's time to think about whether or not the domestic legal system is capable of handling crimes committed by the powerful (rich, politically powerful, etc). The answer is obviously no, but what could we do to make it so? Would that be good?
  - nasredin 9y ago
    Do you think Mueller indictments and guilty pleas contradict you? These are powerful people who had to go to court just like an average person.
    - StudentStuff 9y ago
      Powerful people get much better treatment and representation than the common person, despite the best intentions of equality in front of the law that our court system was meant to create.
thisacctforreal 9y ago
Great on the ACLU for making progress :)
YouAreGreat 9y ago
Enemy combatant "held without charges" sounds a lot like any vanilla prisoner of war. So they took in some POWs, one says "no, wait, I'm really one of you, just kidding about the shooting and stuff" and the military needs some time to figure out whether normal rules of war apply in this case. Hard to get too worked up over this, if you ask me.
- rtpg 9y ago
  I undrestand that there's a good amount of carve outs for wartime stuff. However, if there's any doubt about whether they even belong in the "enemy combatant" category, it seems pretty basic to allow them their attorney. Otherwise the gov't could claim you're an enemy combatant every time they want to take your rights away, and then lock you up forever. Sure, eventually it will be overturned, but if the gov't just wants you in there for a bit then that's enough. There's perhaps a more ambitious argument to be made here about the AUMF, what is actually a war, the classification of ISIS as such, etc. But good luck making that argument in this environment
  - morganvachon 9y ago
    > "Otherwise the gov't could claim you're an enemy combatant every time they want to take your rights away, and then lock you up forever." Which is exactly what the judge in this case is afraid of: Judge Chutkan recognized how dangerous the government’s claims are. “The government could snatch any U.S. citizen off the street and hold them as an enemy combatant… for as long as it took to come to some ‘final disposition,’” she posited. “That kind of unchecked power is, quite frankly, frightening.”
- rajacombinator 9y ago
  It’s an American citizen, not an enemy combatant. But sure, not worth getting worked up over - the concept of rights under the American empire is laughable.
- _0ffh 9y ago
  No, not at all! The US doesn't give it's "detainees" official POW status because, POWs actually got rights, too! So they are held without legal basis or recourse. That's all fine and dandy, as far as foreigners are concerned. Except, of course, that USians are special and have special rights, so it's bad to treat them the same way. Reminds me of when a USian was droned in 2011. Suddenly there's an outcry in the US! Never mind that guy was probably more guilty than hundred-thousands of other victims of the US "bringing peace and democracy".
ak39 9y ago
https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/7631-a-republic-if-you-can-keep-it https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/7631... The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."
- cryoshon 9y ago
  we couldn't keep it because we thought we could just leave it in a corner and do nothing with it turns out democracy is hard work
  - geggam 9y ago
    Democracy != Republic They aren't even close to the same Republic : Rule of Law Democracy : Rule ( tyranny) of majority
    - dennis_jeeves 9y ago
      >Democracy : Rule ( tyranny) of majority Thanks! That's accurate. Majority= asses.
      - coldtea 9y ago
        First, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect Second, doesn't matter whether a person is an ass or not. When it comes to deciding things that affect their life too, they should have a say. And that's the whole point of actual democracy. It's not for deciding on some BS "best course" (which doesn't even exist, different people want different things and see them as best), but of giving people an equal say to public matters. Saying: these people shouldn't have a say because they're "asses" is not really different that saying these people shouldn't have a say because they are blacks, women, etc.
jacquesm 9y ago
Why does it even matter te person is American, anybody in detention should have the right to some kind of legal assistance.
- sshine 9y ago
  Because the purpose of a government is to keep its citizens safe, not act as world police.
  - tgb 9y ago
    Do you really believe that giving lawyers to people you have already detained is acting as "world police"?
  - morganvachon 9y ago
    The detainee is a citizen and as such is afforded the same protections as any other citizen. By definition, not providing him with an attorney is not keeping him safe.
- rayiner 9y ago
  People dispute what the government “should” do, but when it comes to citizens, there are certain things the government “must” do, regardless of what people think.
- tdb7893 9y ago
  I think everyone should have rights but him being American is significant because most people's impression is that as an American the right to a lawyer is protected by the Bill of Rights to our Constitution and Americans take any violation of the Bill of Rights very very seriously.
  - 1_2__4 9y ago
    Those protect people not citizens. You’re right that’s not how it’s popularly understood but it’s why we have Gitmo: it’s an attempt to apply a thin veneer of legitimacy by pretending it’s a military proceeding (as if theres exceptions for those in the documents you mentioned) and keeping it as far outside the purview of judicial legal analysis as possible.
MechEStudent 9y ago
I don't trust the ACLU. Black lives matter is about the dragon-king of poverty and crime, not police. They don't get that, and so no solution they offer is capable of engaging the root cause. They don't understand because they are unwilling to ask.
dennis_jeeves 9y ago
Incredible, the average HNer here is naive enough to thinks he has 'rights'. Rights are something that governments 'grant' when it is convenient so that citizens do not rebel and can be exploited appropriately. You generally have no protection form the state if they decide to make your life miserable.
- jstanley 9y ago
  Rights aren't granted to you by any government, they're universal, even if you happen to be living under a regime which violates them.
  - crankylinuxuser 9y ago
    Hate to break it to you, but this very thing happening is proof of the grandparent. Unless you have lots of guns and are willing to go to war with $government , you're going to have a very bad time. And even if you armed to the teeth, you still going to have a very bad time, but instead you're shot at.
    - ColanR 9y ago
      That's why people use the phrase 'defending their rights'.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- jadell 9y ago
  Governments can not "grant" rights, they can only "violate" them.
ringaroundthetx 9y ago
American citizen Enemy combatant and Trump didn’t just drone him? Wow his guy respects more rights than Obama Let’s see if he lasts long enough to get a lawyer! Anyone got a prediction market we can bet with?
module0000 9y ago
Want to join the ranks of political prisoners? It's really easy, just get worked up and be outspoken about it publicly. You have everything to lose, and nothing to gain. If you must meet about it, do so in secret, not here in front of everyone.

211 points by gehwartzen 9y ago

This is a crime that violates the 5th and 6th amendments, and we should be arresting and prosecuting those who gave the order to violate this man's constitutional rights. Are our rights worth less than the paper they are written on?

rarec 9y ago
Rights are only worth what people are willing to fight for. However, as most people don't care, rights for most are just ideas.
frankharv 9y ago
As an honorably discharged veteran I believe if you are caught by a local militia in a warzone you should be summarily executed. There is no magical USA constitutional fairy while on the Syrian battlefield. You wanted to fight for ISIS and now it time to pay the piper.
- saagarjha 9y ago
  > You wanted to fight for ISIS and now it time to pay the piper. Wow…isn't that a bit of an extreme conclusion to jump to? How do you know they're trying to fight for ISIS?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- Tarq0n 9y ago
  And this is why the U.S. failing to adopt the universal declaration of human rights is such a travesty.
  - Mary-Jane 9y ago
    The US voted in favor of the declaration; can you elaborate on what you mean?
- zbentley 9y ago
  Well, you may have a chance to act on that belief, if you are ever called to sit in judgement on a jury. Lots of things will prevent you from acting unilaterally (no total, sentencing authority; other members of the jury), but you'll be able to say your 2 cents. That's the beauty of the way our criminal justice system works . . . . . . or works in an ideal, happy-path case, at least. Exceptions like this one are far from uncommon. The military justice system in general is pretty far from that in a lot of cases. So are things like FISA courts etc. Whether we should be trying to move closer to that ideal (which, even when practiced perfectly, has its flaws) or not is anyone's guess.
- matt4077 9y ago
  If you consider the US Constitution some sort of whimsical fancy in the domain of fairies, I am glad you're discharged. And saddened that anyone considered you honorable.
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    Not thinking the constitution applies in a foreign war zone isn't something someone should be discharged for, and that opinion should not be used to judge someone's entire life.
    - aplummer 9y ago
      Forget the constitution, ex/soldiers should know better than to dismiss the Geneva convention offhandedly like this, it isn’t a good look for a military without a stellar reputation as is.
      - boomboomsubban 9y ago
        The US military has spent the past fifteen years saying the Geneva convention in these conflicts. I disagree, but it's not an insane position.
      - saas_co_de 9y ago
        The Geneva Conventions are treaties between states that define how they will treat each other's soldiers if captured in war. The Geneva Conventions do not apply to wars with non-state actors or states who are not participants to the treaty. The Geneva Conventions would never apply to traitors on your own side, which is the case here. Perhaps military people know more about the Geneva Conventions than you give them credit for.
        syshum 9y ago
        >The Geneva Conventions are treaties between states that define how they will treat each other's soldiers if captured in war. The Geneva Conventions are a set of ethical standards that should apply to all persons, regardless of the legal application >The Geneva Conventions do not apply to wars with non-state actors or states who are not participants to the treaty. Any person that is of good moral and ethical character would apply them to all persons. >The Geneva Conventions would never apply to traitors on your own side, which is the case here. Has there been a trial convicting the person of Treason under US Law? I guess no only to you not believe in basic human rights, you also subscribe to the moronic ideology of "guilty until proven innocent" where the government only has to assert treason, not actually prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of your peers >Perhaps military people know more about the Geneva Conventions than you give them credit for. I am not really interested in the legal application of the Geneva Accords, I am interested in the moral and ethical foundation they are based on. Ethical and moral people believe that the Geneva Accords should apply to all persons at all times regardless of declarations of war or any other factors. This moronic idea that you should abuse, torture, or treat inhumanly a person simply because they are a "non-state" actor has no place in the modern world, it is an excuse to defend barbarism, barbarism we should be looking to expunge from the world not justify
- parenthephobia 9y ago
  Apparently there's no magical Geneva Convention fairy, either. Just because you were honorably discharged doesn't mean you're right. If you'd summarily executed prisoners, you'd have committed a war crime.
- EliRivers 9y ago
  You're the same as ISIS, just beholden to a different side.
  - tomjen3 9y ago
    ISIS says what he says about civilians. GP advocated it for soldiers. I have no problem with summary executions of soldiers caught by the enemy - that is something that happens in war and trying to make rules about it after is just silly. However given that he has been taken prisoners, we have to play by the book and give him a lawyer. It is not a big issue anyway it shouldn't be hard to prove him guilty.
    - EliRivers 9y ago
      Summary execution of captured soldiers (i.e. without adherence to the rule of law etc.) is a war crime. Fact. That you have no problem with it is not surprising, and pisses all over what America would like to believe it stands for. What some Americans wish it did stand for. Be better. Not just better at killing.
      - cm2187 9y ago
        This is very theoretical. Like if you send a platoon to get into some taliban fighter’s home and execute him in front of his kids it’s a war crime, but if instead you just flatten the house with a bomb it’s not. Well in option 1 the kids get to live, I’d argue it’s preferable to option 2.
        EliRivers 9y ago
        What if, when you captured this soldier, that apparently this platoon of yours can do, you just didn't summarily execute him? That's really my suggestion. Try to not murder people, when you have that option. As opposed to the OP option of summary execution of captured soldiers. I don't see that this is theoretical. We watched this play out in practice for many years. Turns out that running around executing people really doesn't help. Or maybe we just didn't do it enough? We do seem to be well beyond the point of listening to reality nowadays; maybe we just need to shout ideology louder. Like ISIS.
- bhickey 9y ago
  Good thing no one has ever sold their rivals to American forces claiming that they were enemy combatants. https://www.propublica.org/article/uighurs-sold-to-us-military-for-bounty-109 https://www.propublica.org/article/uighurs-sold-to-us-milita...
  - arca_vorago 9y ago
    Can confirm I saw this happen in Iraq way too often.
jhkdwbkjlf 9y ago
Most ppl didn't care/do anything when the previous Nobel Prize winning guy droned an American and his son (and other crimes). Why should ppl care now about this if the guys doing it are quite honest in their contempt for the rule of law? Say what you will about DJT, but he's quite honest (mostly 'cause he can't control the diarrhea from his mouth). If one is unwilling to raise one's voice for political expediency reasons when the "good guys" are doing "bad" things then all this hoopla about this admin pulling back const. protections is a bit of a laugh, aint it?
- Angostura 9y ago
  Except of course that people that the ACLU and others absolutely did raise their voices about the targeting of Anwar al-Awlaki. Indeed there was quite a lot of legal back and forth about its legality. Personally, I see pragmatic difference. It is easily within the within the U.S' capabilities to give this person a lawyer. It's not clear how the U.S would have bought Anwar al-Awlaki to justice for the crimes that he was proud of committing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
  - revelation 9y ago
    Yes, a "lot of legal back and forth" by Government lawyers writing secretive memos that are nothing but a sham. Throw them in the same cell. They also of course killed his U.S. citizen son ("I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father") and 8 year old daughter (not a U.S. citizen, so clearly worthless).
    - Angostura 9y ago
      It must be comforting to live in a world that is so black and white. That legal back and forth isn’t worthless. It’s what systems based on the rule of law do when faced with knotty problems. You’ve decided that they are a sham and that the lawyers should be thrown in jail without due process. Find me anyone other than the people in your head who believe the daughter was worthless.
ajmurmann 9y ago
What makes this even more annoying is that people making these decisions will not be held personally responsible. Instead the government (aka "all US citizens and tax payers") will have to pay for this. There are people undermining our democracy and they likely will get away with a fraction of the punishment a petty criminal gets. To me this kind of behavior should be prosecuted tougher than murder. Edit: typo pretty -> petty
wfo 9y ago
>This is a crime that violates the 5th and 6th amendments, and we should be arresting and prosecuting those who gave the order to violate this man's constitutional rights. Funny. They can get in line behind John Yoo, J. Edgar Hoover, Henry Kissinger and thousands of others. They'll have to pull Yoo away from the prestigious appointment at UC Berkeley he got as a reward for his crimes, strip the name Hoover got to place on the FBI building for his, and take away the adoration and respect murderous war criminal Kissinger gets from politicians of all stripes first. There has been an argument going on for some time about whether or not the domestic legal system is capable of handling terrorism cases -- cases have recently been prosecuted in civil courts like the Boston Bombing, etc. Perhaps it's time to think about whether or not the domestic legal system is capable of handling crimes committed by the powerful (rich, politically powerful, etc). The answer is obviously no, but what could we do to make it so? Would that be good?
- nasredin 9y ago
  Do you think Mueller indictments and guilty pleas contradict you? These are powerful people who had to go to court just like an average person.
  - StudentStuff 9y ago
    Powerful people get much better treatment and representation than the common person, despite the best intentions of equality in front of the law that our court system was meant to create.

thisacctforreal 9y ago

Great on the ACLU for making progress :)

YouAreGreat 9y ago

Enemy combatant "held without charges" sounds a lot like any vanilla prisoner of war. So they took in some POWs, one says "no, wait, I'm really one of you, just kidding about the shooting and stuff" and the military needs some time to figure out whether normal rules of war apply in this case. Hard to get too worked up over this, if you ask me.

rtpg 9y ago
I undrestand that there's a good amount of carve outs for wartime stuff. However, if there's any doubt about whether they even belong in the "enemy combatant" category, it seems pretty basic to allow them their attorney. Otherwise the gov't could claim you're an enemy combatant every time they want to take your rights away, and then lock you up forever. Sure, eventually it will be overturned, but if the gov't just wants you in there for a bit then that's enough. There's perhaps a more ambitious argument to be made here about the AUMF, what is actually a war, the classification of ISIS as such, etc. But good luck making that argument in this environment
- morganvachon 9y ago
  > "Otherwise the gov't could claim you're an enemy combatant every time they want to take your rights away, and then lock you up forever." Which is exactly what the judge in this case is afraid of: Judge Chutkan recognized how dangerous the government’s claims are. “The government could snatch any U.S. citizen off the street and hold them as an enemy combatant… for as long as it took to come to some ‘final disposition,’” she posited. “That kind of unchecked power is, quite frankly, frightening.”
rajacombinator 9y ago
It’s an American citizen, not an enemy combatant. But sure, not worth getting worked up over - the concept of rights under the American empire is laughable.
_0ffh 9y ago
No, not at all! The US doesn't give it's "detainees" official POW status because, POWs actually got rights, too! So they are held without legal basis or recourse. That's all fine and dandy, as far as foreigners are concerned. Except, of course, that USians are special and have special rights, so it's bad to treat them the same way. Reminds me of when a USian was droned in 2011. Suddenly there's an outcry in the US! Never mind that guy was probably more guilty than hundred-thousands of other victims of the US "bringing peace and democracy".

ak39 9y ago

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/7631-a-republic-if-you-can-keep-it https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/7631... The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."

cryoshon 9y ago
we couldn't keep it because we thought we could just leave it in a corner and do nothing with it turns out democracy is hard work
- geggam 9y ago
  Democracy != Republic They aren't even close to the same Republic : Rule of Law Democracy : Rule ( tyranny) of majority
  - dennis_jeeves 9y ago
    >Democracy : Rule ( tyranny) of majority Thanks! That's accurate. Majority= asses.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      First, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect Second, doesn't matter whether a person is an ass or not. When it comes to deciding things that affect their life too, they should have a say. And that's the whole point of actual democracy. It's not for deciding on some BS "best course" (which doesn't even exist, different people want different things and see them as best), but of giving people an equal say to public matters. Saying: these people shouldn't have a say because they're "asses" is not really different that saying these people shouldn't have a say because they are blacks, women, etc.

jacquesm 9y ago

Why does it even matter te person is American, anybody in detention should have the right to some kind of legal assistance.

sshine 9y ago
Because the purpose of a government is to keep its citizens safe, not act as world police.
- tgb 9y ago
  Do you really believe that giving lawyers to people you have already detained is acting as "world police"?
- morganvachon 9y ago
  The detainee is a citizen and as such is afforded the same protections as any other citizen. By definition, not providing him with an attorney is not keeping him safe.
rayiner 9y ago
People dispute what the government “should” do, but when it comes to citizens, there are certain things the government “must” do, regardless of what people think.
tdb7893 9y ago
I think everyone should have rights but him being American is significant because most people's impression is that as an American the right to a lawyer is protected by the Bill of Rights to our Constitution and Americans take any violation of the Bill of Rights very very seriously.
- 1_2__4 9y ago
  Those protect people not citizens. You’re right that’s not how it’s popularly understood but it’s why we have Gitmo: it’s an attempt to apply a thin veneer of legitimacy by pretending it’s a military proceeding (as if theres exceptions for those in the documents you mentioned) and keeping it as far outside the purview of judicial legal analysis as possible.

MechEStudent 9y ago

I don't trust the ACLU. Black lives matter is about the dragon-king of poverty and crime, not police. They don't get that, and so no solution they offer is capable of engaging the root cause. They don't understand because they are unwilling to ask.

dennis_jeeves 9y ago

Incredible, the average HNer here is naive enough to thinks he has 'rights'. Rights are something that governments 'grant' when it is convenient so that citizens do not rebel and can be exploited appropriately. You generally have no protection form the state if they decide to make your life miserable.

jstanley 9y ago
Rights aren't granted to you by any government, they're universal, even if you happen to be living under a regime which violates them.
- crankylinuxuser 9y ago
  Hate to break it to you, but this very thing happening is proof of the grandparent. Unless you have lots of guns and are willing to go to war with $government , you're going to have a very bad time. And even if you armed to the teeth, you still going to have a very bad time, but instead you're shot at.
  - ColanR 9y ago
    That's why people use the phrase 'defending their rights'.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
jadell 9y ago
Governments can not "grant" rights, they can only "violate" them.

ringaroundthetx 9y ago

American citizen Enemy combatant and Trump didn’t just drone him? Wow his guy respects more rights than Obama Let’s see if he lasts long enough to get a lawyer! Anyone got a prediction market we can bet with?

module0000 9y ago

Want to join the ranks of political prisoners? It's really easy, just get worked up and be outspoken about it publicly. You have everything to lose, and nothing to gain. If you must meet about it, do so in secret, not here in front of everyone.