It is real interesting that these men are detained in conditions that do not conform to the Geneva Accords because they are "unlawful combatants".
NOW they are saying they are entitled to hold their own citizens that way.
If they can do that to an American they picked up in Afganistan make no mistake - they can treat one of us the same after arresting us here. The place you or they are arrested is a minor point. If you are accused of aiding a terrorist group be aware what may happen to you ---
Indefinite detainment with no lawyer no access to the usual criminal justice system while you face Capital charges. No privacy in what amounts to a dog run. No freedom to communicate even by mail. Forced feeding. Isolation in chains in solitary confinement. Transported masked in tight restraints and with ears covered. Confiscation of all personal property. Interogation with no restraint on what may be asked or how it may be extracted.
posted on April 3, 2002 08:31:38 PM new Try Lindh for Treason
Its not too late.
By Douglas W. Kmiec, dean, the Catholic University of America School of Law & former constitutional legal counsel to former Presidents Reagan & Bush
The indictment against John Walker Lindh should be expanded. He has committed acts that merit treason, not a lesser charge. The principal lesser charge conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals abroad is likely no easier to prove, and strategically, if the case is ultimately to be plea bargained (as many suspect), it makes no sense for the Department of Justice to start the bargaining from anything other than a position of strength. Indeed, given that treason relies primarily on proof of acts, rather than conspiratorial agreements that may only be provable with the possibly inadmissible statements of the defendant himself, the treason charge can even be argued to be less, not more, difficult.
U.S. vs. Walker Lindh is no easy case. By constitutional design, treason the only crime described explicitly in the Constitution, itself was intended to be a rarity reserved for those who by both word and deed betrayed their nation. Our Founders did not want treason charges lightly or casually brought.
But Walker Lindh, or Suleyman al-Faris as he wanted to be known, was not engaging in rights of protected speech or association, he was "levying war against" the United States. He was giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy. Yes, treason is difficult to prove. An open confession in court is required or two witnesses to overt acts of treason along with the requisite intent to betray. Surely two witnesses, however, can be found among the hundreds of detainees of Walker Lindh's overt acts of preparing to levy war through his ready embrace of training to "shoulder weapons, pistols, and rocket propelled grenades" and Walker Lindh's desire to be assigned to the front of the war against the United States. If that is not enough to make the case, what is?
So why have there only been a handful of treason prosecutions in our history? Because most prior cases were not taking up arms against the United States nearly as directly and obviously as Walker Lindh. Chief Justice John Marshall explained in the early case of Ex parte Bollman (1807) that a treason charge must be premised upon the actual levying or waging of war. Marshall was not saying that to observe some ultra formal distinction between a declaration of war and the extant joint resolution of equal congressional resolve, but to highlight a difference between advocacy and "a body of men actually assembl[ing] for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose. . ." Marshall was careful to say that he did not mean that a person must actually appear bearing arms against the United States to be guilty of treason. Rather it was enough if a body of men assemble to forcefully attack the United States, and then "all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who actually leagued in the general conspiracy are to be considered as traitors." John Walker Lindh played that part, and he was not remote from the scene, but pleading to be introduced into it to be as it were in the "front lines" against his countrymen.
Of course, history buffs also remember that the notorious Aaron Burr was also let off of his treason charge. Burr had not been present at the alleged assemblage of men, so he could only be convicted of the lesser charge of conspiracy. It is now textbook law that: "After Marshall's opinion, it has become extremely difficult to convict for levying war against the United States without proof of personal participation in actual hostilities." Thus, the government did obtain treason convictions in the Whiskey Rebellion and against members of the confederacy in the Civil War both subsequently handled by amnesty proclamations or pardons. Walker Lindh ought to also be considered in light of two World War II cases one unsuccessful and one only dubiously a success. In Cramer v. U.S. (1945), the government accused Anthony Cramer of treason because of his drinking and talking with the German saboteurs. Quite obviously, there were no sufficient overt acts or two witnesses thereof and no treason. However, there was a conviction in 1947 in Haupt v. U.S. because the Court chose to construe "aid and comfort given to the enemy" quite broadly to include sheltering and helping a son (saboteur) get employment and a car. Justice Jackson said it was enough that the overt acts actually helped the enemy. So, even more powerfully, it would seem, did John Walker Lindh. If the ultimate objective of the government is to dispose of this case via plea bargain, it makes no sense to start the bargaining from the middle, rather than the strongest, case.
Attorney General Ashcroft was right not to try Walker Lindh before a special military tribunal. By presidential design, these special tribunals are for noncitizens, and by reasonable inference, the supposed captains of al Qaeda or other terrorist leadership. At the moment, unless an action is brought to establish in law, what seems apparent in fact, that Mr. Walker Lindh relinquished his citizenship; he deserves his day in a regular tribunal.
But here is the problem with the charges brought: They all depend on Walker Lindh's statements. There is already an aggressive effort to exclude all of these conversations though it will be novel to see how freely talking to CNN can be blunted by defense counsel. True, the government claims that Walker Lindh was informed of his Miranda rights to remain silent and to have counsel, and that he knowingly waived them. Factually, however, his waiver came only after his parentally distant folks found him legal counsel. A legal counsel who was stiff-armed by the Pentagon.
Of course, the fact that his parents were hiring counsel in San Francisco may turn out to be just a little a bit of late parenting and irrelevant. In the eyes of the law, this troubled young man is an adult who makes his own representational choices. Yet, whoever comes to represent Walker Lindh will say that he was in custody and could not effectively waive anything at the time his statements were given.
It is not clear Walker Lindh's hypothetical defense will prevail. Yet, there is precious little settled about the law as it applies to this odd duck from Marin County. But this much is clear: Given the war that has been thrust upon the United States, Walker Lindh is no ordinary criminal defendant. However, neither is he a prisoner of war in any formal sense under the Geneva Convention, since he was fighting as an unlawful combatant, out of uniform, engaging in warfare aimed at civilians and civilian targets.
It can, and should be, strenuously advocated that Walker Lindh as a battlefield detainee is not entitled to counsel in the trenches. Whatever the hybrid detainee status proves to mean that normal conceptions of custodial interrogation or rights to counsel should not be unthinkingly accorded to Walker Lindh. As an "American Taliban," he does not have the immunity from prosecution for battlefield assault that the exigencies of war give to those in a regular army. Legitimate questions can be asked of unlawful combatants. If such noncoercive interrogation yields damaging answers, they should not be excluded from a subsequent trial whether or not Miranda was effectively raised. But again, it's anyone's guess whether the federal judiciary will concur, and charges premised solely upon detainee admissions, not provable overt acts of treachery, magnify the difficulty.
In disclosing the charges against Walker Lindh, the attorney general indicated that the investigation was continuing, and additional charges may yet be sought in the formal indictment. With or without Walker Lindh's own statements, he can factually be shown to have given material assistance to terrorists and engaged in prohibited transactions with terrorist organizations. This will yield a significantly extended or life sentence, but without the additional treason charge, it may not bring justice.
posted on April 4, 2002 05:39:39 AM new
Most of gravid's assertions are just not true and the rest are isolated cases of necessary actions. gravids methods are well known- search out every comment or 'news' brief for isolated items and statements (none of which are substantiated) and fit them into his own special brand of 'truth'. Forced feeding?- would he rather let the prisoner die?.... Chained in isolation?- some of these prisoners planned, promised and attempted the murder of our soldiers......Privacy?- with privacy, they get together and plan the murder of our soldiers.....etc. etc. etc. It is not our system of justice or our military or our police that frighten me, it is the poison pen of people like Gravid.
posted on April 4, 2002 05:56:30 AM new
I hardly think CNN is an obscure unreliable source.
Would I let a prisoner die rather than force feed them?
You bet I would. They have removed the most basic elements of human dignity.
These things don't have to be substantiated.
They are not denying them.
They are just saying - tough - we have the right to do them.
They are needed actions?
Is there ANY behavior that can't be excused this way? Have they -or you - no shame?
People always seem to think that such neccesity will never be directed against THEM. Then when they are hauled away in the middle of the night it is too late. No wait guys - I'm on your side! You only do this to the evil doers! What do you mean someone denounced me?
posted on April 4, 2002 06:51:31 AM new
I read your opinion with interest. I am just thankful that 281,000,000 residents out of 281,422,000 disagree with you. At least, as I travel this wonderful land and associate with Americans, that would be my rough estimate (it is probably more than 281 mill.). I promised myself a couple of months ago not to come back to this board, and to just let you dozen or so folks preach to each other. Nothing much changes here in 2 months, anyway. See you in June.
[ edited by rgrem on Apr 4, 2002 06:53 AM ]
posted on April 4, 2002 07:26:07 AM new
I have to say that numbrs of people who agree or disagree don't much matter to me.
For years the VAST majority of people felt it was correct to enslave people and treat them as animals if they were black skinned and had little defense.
For years most men felt it was right to treat their women as property and give them very little respect or property rights.
Popular opinion does not make right.
The only comfort that numbers give is that something will continue if there is enough support for it. Right or wrong.
posted on April 4, 2002 09:02:35 AM new
rgrem, let me straighten this out for you and gravid.
What not so many Americans know about is the clause in the U.S. Constitution that states, more or less, that anyone accused of Treason is not entitled to protection under the U.S. Constitution. That is why in espionage cases, the government displays such wide, sweeping powers to arrest, search, detain, and to convict the accused.
Now, Ashcroft makes an extension of that.
Ashcroft infers that if espionage = Treason, then Terrorism = Treason, therefore, any America actively belonging to a "terrorist" organization is guilty of Treason and has no protections under the law and is not entitled to Due Process.
The fact that said "treasonous" incidents took place while an American invasion was going on does not change the fact, merely the description of the charges.
The sad fact that since Congress, and ONLY Congress has the Constitutional Authority to declare War and involve us in the sort of military action as we have had in Afghanistan recently. That since Congress DID NOT declare a state of War and the head of the Executive Branch took it upon himself to commit an illegal act of his own and declare War with no legal authority to do so and to direct troops into and to invade Afghanistan which he legally can not do, does not change the fact that the government can legally do as they please with those accused of Treason or potentially so.
Lastly, this new American is to be tried in a Military Tribunal away from the press and outside, prying eyes.
So, if they can do this to them, they can do it to us? You bet they can! And they have always been able to; although no past President would dare to do such things or to allow his A.G. to create such pandemonium. From the evidence, Bush is more than capable of it and so is Ashcroft.
