More Active Posts
Front Page
Pardon moi?
 |
 64 Comments |
As President Bush wraps up his final year in office, he is receiving a record number of pleas from felons seeking clemency–including former track star Marion Jones and John Walker Lindh, the so-called American Taliban. Thus far, Bush has only granted clemency 163 times during his tenure, as compared to Ronald Reagan’s 409 times and Bill Clinton’s 459 times.
In the midst of all these requests, legal analysts are wondering whether Bush will choose to grant pre-emptive pardons to officials involved in controversial counterterrorism program–in order to reduce the risk of a future administration launching a criminal investigation against them.
Some legal analysts said Mr. Bush might be reluctant to issue such pardons because they could be construed as an implicit admission of guilt. But several members of the conservative legal community in Washington said in interviews that they hoped Mr. Bush would issue such pardons - whether or not anyone made a specific request for one. They said people who carried out the president’s orders should not be exposed even to the risk of an investigation and expensive legal bills.
“The president should pre-empt any long-term investigations,” said Victoria Toensing, who was a Justice Department counterterrorism official in the Reagan administration. “If we don’t protect these people who are proceeding in good faith, no one will ever take chances.”
What’s your take?
 |
Topic: Featured, WorldMagBlog |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed. |  |
Share this: |
Soul searching
My take? I have no idea about these folks, but those two border guards that were tossed in the clink for shooting that illegal alien drug dealer, (who subsequently sued) should definitely be let go. And then the drug dealer should be hung at the nearest border patrol office.
I don’t know about the whole preemptive strike thing, but how can we have Marion Jones incarcerated while Barry Bonds walks free?
Contrary to the opinion of many members of Congress, some secrets need to remain secrets for good reason. I don’t need to know everything, and neither do those working to undermine the US. So, I say pardon them and release their families from the nightmare inflicted by politics, not reason.
Lindh was responsible for the death of Johnny Spahn–he needs to stay in jail. Marion Jones killed the innocence of a bunch of people. Maybe Bonds should be sent to jail. Can you have anti-clemency?
Michelle post 3,
but increasngly it is looking like these individuals may in some cases have violated international law, particularly with respect to torture.
And as the Nuremberg trials demonstrated, following orders is not in general a valid defense for such international laws.
Michelle:
Clemency is a pardon on executive order alone, with no due process. So anti-clemency would be a conviction on executive order alone, with no due process.
Yes, we already have that. It’s called “enemy combatant” status.
Michelle:
It would be better if the American people knew most everything. There are some legitimate state secrets — weapons development, troop movements, things like that — but by and large, ours is supposed to be an open, transparent government. The Founders understood that power corrupts. You cannot concentrate secret, unaccountable power in the hands of a few people and expect it to end well. It never will.
I think post-9/11 America is case in point. I have no doubt that Bush and Co. were acting on the best of intentions: they wanted to protect America. But in trying to do so, they made autocratic power grabs that critically hurt the spirit of America.
What do I mean by “critically hurt the spirit of America”? I mean we now live in an America in which the chief executive, on his order alone, can have an American citizen kidnapped, shipped oversees, tortured, and indefinitely held in a prison where he is systematically abused, no charges ever brought against him. So far it has only happened to brown-skinned citizens with Arabic names, but a line has been crossed, and our national honor has been tarnished.
That is not the America I know and love.
#1 MiM,
Yes! Those men have been treated shamefully. They should have been pardoned before they even reported for incarceration.
In general, I admire Pres. Bush’s character (not every action, before some of you pounce on me), but in this case it sure looks like he was badly influenced by his prosecutor friend.
As to Marion Jones/Barry Bonds/other drug users, I wonder if incarceration is the best way to go. We can’t seem to keep up with the “need” for prisons.
I’m inclined to support incarceration AND restitution for violent crimes (death penalty for vicious crimes), and just restitution of some sort for non-violent crimes.
Those who failed to make restitution would be subject to jail time.
JJF, #6
Your point is exactly what made me so nervous about a potential Pres. Clinton. She demonstrated as First Lady her willingness to research her “enemies” through the FBI…
I rest easy about Pres. Bush having these powers, but I don’t like the idea of subsequent presidents having the same powers. In some cases, it’s downright scary.
preemptive pardons, enemy combatant designation, habeas corpus suspended, …. While they are it, just ditch the rule of law as outdated concept.
#6 JJF
“I mean we now live in an America in which the chief executive, on his order alone, can have an American citizen kidnapped, shipped oversees, tortured, and indefinitely held in a prison where he is systematically abused, no charges ever brought against him.
I have never read or heard this. Fact or Opinion?
Hey HRW, Mark Steyn might credibly make the case that Canada doesn’t have a rule of law in regards to freedom of speech. He has suggested that it is all made up according to the whims of whoever.
Bob Buckles post 10,
maybe I am confused, but I believe the Supreme court just noted that the executive branch cannot, just by classifying a person an enemy combatant, imprison them and remove the right of habeus corpus.
The observation that the Supreme Court ruled on this issue would seem to imply that it was going on.
Or are you arguing that the Supreme Court was merely ruling to amuse themselves?
MomOf5:
What about President Bush’s character do you admire?
And you raise a good point about the executive powers that Bush has claimed being passed on to other presidents whom you might not trust, but even the best intentioned and most upright man should not be trusted with them. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
If you don’t mind the Lord of the Rings analogy, remember the scene where Gandalf refuses to take the ring from Frodo? It was too much power, he would intend to use it for good, but it would corrupt him and turn all his ends to evil. I suggest Tolkien and the American Founders shared the same insight into fallen human nature.
post# 1 (Make It Man): I have no idea about these folks, but those two border guards that were tossed in the clink for shooting that illegal alien drug dealer, (who subsequently sued) should definitely be let go.
In the case of Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos, two former Border Patrol agents whose case has become a cause célèbre among some conservatives, including me, there is no petition for clemency.
Make It Man, I am in 100% agreement with you, brother. These 2 guys were doing what we paid them to do, and now President Bush won’t grow some cajones to free them? I’ve already e-mailed President Bush on this issue, demanding he set them free. Yeah, and to think since I voted for this guy, he’d take that into consideration……
but NOOOOOO!
By the way, the 2 aforementioned border agents are not felons! THEY are the victims of a totally depraved administration only looking out for themselves……and just so you all will know, I am a staunch conservative.
MUSING post 12
You are confused.
The Supreme Court ruling about the right to habeas corpus for unlawful combatants is not germane to an allegation that the US government has kidnapped American citizens of Arabic ethnicity and shipped them to overseas prisons for outsourced torture. Nothing in its ruling implies that senario.
An American citizen taken up on a foreign battlefield engaged in hostilities against the US would be a traitor, not an unlawful combatant. He would automatically have all rights any citizens would have charged with a capital offense.
There has never been any legal immunity for any government agent that performed the actions alleged by JJF in post 6. The allegation is scurrilous and without foundation.
Thank you, Ken.
MICHELLE: Lindh was responsible for the death of Johnny Spahn.
Lindh pleaded not guilty to conspiracy to murder. The government subsequently dropped this (and other) charges when Lindh pleaded guilty to serving in the Taliban and carrying weapons and agreed to a gag order which prevents him from discussing the circumstances for 20 years.
Therefore, Lindh’s plea of innocence and our government’s course of action make it speculative for Michelle to assert Lindh’s responsibility for Spahn’s unfortunate death in combat. Michelle has to wait until December 2021 to know Lindh’s story, but she’ll probably never learn what the government is ashamed to admit.
Ken post 15,
so you would instead rather consider the Padilla case:
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200406300915.asp
as an example of the Federal government performing these actions?
And we can of course continue until we have entered the litanny of cases which are being pursued.
All of which demonstrate the nature of the basic behavior being described: you in general can’t bring a case until there is something to adjudicate.
And of course we can then go to the renditions issue. This could be fun.
Hmmm, pre-emptive pardons. Well that should certainly improve the respect for law.
At least if that were done, The Hague would have a list of war criminals ready made.
#11 Bob
As much as I think Mark Steyn is an idiot I support his right to continue to reveal his idiocy. Even the left wing Toronto Star supports Mark Steyn. There isn’t much debate that the Human Rights Commission should have dismissed this case without a hearing.
Bob Buckles & Ken:
I’ve documented some evidence of systematic torture in the U.S. on my blog. It includes links to sources.
General Anthony Taguba, the military officer with a record of honorable service who was put in charge of the Abu Ghraib investigation, concluded the following back in 2004:
In 2008, General Taguba wrote the preface for the Physicians for Human Rights report. Physicians for Human Rights examined released detainees and found clear and unmistakable evidence of torture. Taguba wrote:
As for extraordinary rendition to countries known to torture, it is well documented. I went to Fox News just so you conservatives wouldn’t dismiss my source:
JJF at 6. Well said. Apart from the “good intentions” part. My perception is that quite a few of the people surrounding Bush have been venal, paranoid, partisans whose primary loyalty has been to corporate profits or countries other than the US.
As for Bush, I remain convinced that he is a dullard, ill-equipped to lead a parade, much less a country, and that while his patriotism cannot be questioned, his incompetence has allowed many evil things to happen. He has been used as a tool by a lot of this country’s enemies.
And I have little doubt that he will pardon, pre-emptively or otherwise, quite a few who have done us harm.
Here’s some red meat:
I hope one of those pardoned is Scooter Libby. I know his sentence was commuted, but his name should be cleared as well. Obvious case of a witch hunt.
I beg your pardon, Scroop Moth is correct, Lindh did not actually kill Johnny Spahn, Lindh just “happened” to be in the prison at the time Spahn was interogating prisoners. Lindh did not pick up a weapon.
But, Lindh’s “innocence” is part of the problem–what was he doing there in the first place? As a fellow traveler, he bears some responsibility for his behavior. No, he didn’t kill, but his ignorance of history, American policy and so forth, contributed to the problem.
I’m a military wife, and I do not condone torture, but I don’t need to know every facet of American foreign policy and I don’t think it’s healthy for all our “secrets” to be exposed. Certainly, many people need to know and make decisions, but there is a lot of information necessary for the efficient functioning of government that frankly no one except the people involved need to know.
Sure, you need to trust your leaders. Sure, there need to be checks and balances. Sure, politics is an ugly business–and that, frankly, is why I’m not so sure our leaders need to be Christians. The things that sometimes need to be stomached to protect a nation, a people, may not fit in well with a Christian world view.
But as someone noted above, if you start prosecuting everyone for decisions made to defend our country which are not politically correct with others, you’ll handicap yourself so badly little will be done and the nation remains wide open for attack. We need to obey the Constitution. We need to obey the UCMJ (Uniformed Code of Military Justice). We need to respect the Geneva Convention.
And when good people get caught in situations that often look like witch hunts, maybe someone does need to play the “get out of jail free” card.
And more about torture: Just yesterday, the Today the British House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee advised the following:
If you prefer more visual evidence of systematic torture, have a look at this picture leaked to wikileaks.org from a Department of Defense computer on July 17th:
detainee with mouth sewn shut and wires stuck in his face
As to why I admire Pres. Bush, I can only go on perceptions, as Arcadia has done.
I perceive him to be in this job not for the power trip, but rather for the good of the country.
I perceive that in most cases (I’ve listed 2 to the contrary on this thread), he balances justice and protection of the country well. (Sometimes you really can’t have both.)
I perceive that he is driven not by popularity, but by conviction, and that his convictions are grounded in Judeo-Christian roots.
I perceive that he is concerned not with the short-term preoccupations of the country, but rather with the long-term effects of policies on future generations. (I’d also say he blew it with the No Child Left Behind Act, which made the education monster even bigger and more powerful.)
I perceive that he is a man of his word.
Can Bush preemptively pardon himself?
MICHELLE: The things that sometimes need to be stomached to protect a nation, a people, may not fit in well with a Christian world view.
Somehow, I feel like it’s worse when Christians don’t love to do justice.
And when good people get caught in situations that often look like witch hunts, maybe someone does need to play the “get out of jail free” card.
Innocent people caught in false prosecutions don’t have much to fear from our legal system, if they’re white people in the military and law enforcement. Even egregiously culpable people get easy breaks if they wear a uniform.
What about good people who willfully make bad choices and commit crimes — do you think society has an obligation to investigate wrongdoing in a sincere pursuit of justice and accountability?
The crime of Scooter Libby was that he arrogated to himself the right to prevent the legitimate efforts of a prosecutor to learn the truth. Once you allow that, God help you. Libby was a loyal man. That may be good enough for you to consider him good.
I perceive that he is driven not by popularity, but by conviction, and that his convictions are grounded in Judeo-Christian roots.
I’m still trying to figure out what’s “Judeo-Christian” about torturing people.
Bottom line - this is about Bush pre-pardoning those who approved or engaged in torture and other human rights violations.
Again JJF: What is the policy authorizing the above allegation you mentioned above. Is there a directive by the WH or by any executive order that you are aware of, that authorized that an American brown-skinned citizen be “kidnapped, shipped oversees, tortured, and indefinitely held in a prison where he is systematically abused, no charges ever brought against him.” That is the retarded claim you constantly make here, and you are yet to substantiate. Where is the record, so that we can look it up. You got nothing. Nothing but a typical case of leftard hysteria.
Presidential pardons are severely abused. Since presidents are rarely capable of using pardons responsibly perhaps this power should be overturned.
Fyne:
Given that the directive is still classified, I obviously can’t give you more.
Furthermore, it is clear from Maher Arar’s testimony (see post #22) that we do in fact send suspects oversees where they are tortured.
It is also clear from General Taguba’s testimony (see post #21)that it is the policy of the United States to torture detainees.
The issue of torture is critically important to me, especially given American Christians’ silence or tacit, and sometimes even explicit, approval. I have provided evidence and testimony that it is the policy of the United States to torture detainees in its oversees prison and to extradite detainees to countries where they will be tortured. I’d appreciate a substantial response to that evidence and those testimonies.
Correction:
It is also clear from General Taguba’s testimony and the physical examinations conducted by Physicians for Human Rights (see post #21) that it is the policy of the United States to torture detainees.
Xion, #32
While I usually agree with your take, I have to disagree here. At least the Pres. is elected. Judges are (mostly) appointed, and the power to pardon is a check/balance of the judiciary, which in my opinion is now the most powerful branch of gov’t. The Pres. is one last place to appeal for justice.
Even though it is abused, there are valid reasons/extenuating circumstances to pardon some convicts, and some convictions are based not on evidence, but on politics.
It also gives some leeway in nullifying legislated sentences that were out of proportion to the crime.
Pardons are an opportunity to overturn injustice, or to temper justice with mercy.
#35 MomOf5 Pardons are an opportunity to overturn injustice, or to temper justice with mercy.
I agree with the principle, but would you say this is how they are used? They tend to be partisan repayment for campaign gifts or loyalty to the president. Is that justice or injustice?
Xion,
I agree pardons are not always appropriately used, but I’m reluctant to do away with the principle just because it’s been used badly in the past.
That’s like revoking the right to homeschool because a few bad actors haven’t been consciencious.
Or like outlawing guns because some folks commit crimes with them.
BTW, I’d say Pres. Bush has been much more careful than his predecessors. In fact, it appears that if you’re close to the President, he’s less likely to issue a full pardon so as not to abuse the privilege (Libby). I doubt if previous administrations would have left a “loyal” man like him out in the cold.
Better to have the option of mercy for those who really need it. Politics will be corrupt with or without the pardon system.
What I was getting at was that we shouldn’t do away with a tool if it’s used wrongly.
Deal with the abuser. Don’t outlaw the tool.
I don’t know why torture of enemy combatants is news to you, or why you think it’s news to us. It is not only recognized, but for the most part recommended. Your above claim which I referenced in post 31 is what I need documentation of. It just isn’t there. Try again.
#21 JJF
“I’ve documented some evidence of systematic torture in the U.S. on my blog.”
So now Abu Ghraib is in the US and the detainees were American citizens?
#22 JJF
“The United States “very likely” sent a Canadian software engineer to Syria, where he was tortured.”
Canadian, not American citizen. Do you really believe Syria is going to torture for the US? If this is the best you’ve got…
The words “very likely” were used probably because Arar is suing the US gov’t. However, he was sent to Syria after his name appeared on a terrorism watch list. His name originated from a CSIS list but the Canadian intelligence were only observing him. He was arrested and deported after arriving at JFK airport to transfer on a Ottawa flight. The question is why did they deport him to Syria when he was a resident of Canada since he was 17 and was flying home anyway.
Fyne:
In post 31, you asked for “a directive by the WH or by any executive order that you are aware of, that authorized that an American brown-skinned citizen be ‘kidnapped, shipped oversees, tortured, and indefinitely held in a prison where he is systematically abused, no charges ever brought against him.’” I responded in post 33 with the New York Times article referencing an executive order which allows the President “to transfer suspected terrorists to foreign countries for interrogation.” The “suspected terrorists” may be American citizens or not, may be of any race or skin color. I have given you the executive order you asked for, at least as much of it as I can given that it is classified.
What specifically are you looking for? An order in Bush’s handwriting saying “torture this American citizen”? If so, you’re setting your standard of evidence outside the realm of the plausible. What we do have, though, is (1) an executive order broadening extraordinary rendition, (2) testimony from an innocent person who was renditioned to a country known for torture and was tortured.
This is a pretty one-sided debate so far. I keep putting up evidence and testimonies, and all I get from you is “nuh uh, not good enough.” Why don’t you respond to the specific evidence with something of substance?
It is clear that Maher Arar was kidnapped by the United States, shipped to Syria, and tortured. Do you deny this? Do you believe Arar was an exception, and normally the U.S. would not ship detainees to a country known for its harsh treatment of prisoners?
General Taguba attests to systematic torture within U.S. facilities. Physicians for Human Rights confirmed, with physical exams of released (and never charged) detainees, that the prisoners were tortured. Given that, do you deny that detainees are tortured in U.S. facilities? Do you deny that it is in fact the policy of the United States all the way from the top (as Taguba attests)?
Bob Buckles:
Bob, Abu Ghraib is a US facility. And Syria quite evidently did torture for the U.S. The man was a Canadian citizen, we sent him there, they tortured him while questioning him in regards to supposed terrorist activities.
And does the nationality of the victims make a moral difference to you? Are you suggesting that it would be bad to torture American citizens, but only Canadians and Arabs, well, “is that the best you’ve got?”
The point is not whether they are American citizens. The point is that they were tortured by the United States government.
Anyway, Jose Padilla was an American citizen and he was reportedly tortured while being indefinitely detained without charges.
I agree with pentamom. Scooter Libby deserves a full pardon. The charges against him were a travesty of justice.
Also, note that Pres. Bush has used his power of pardon sparingly compared to Pres. Reagan and Clinton . Another sign that, despite the Yahoos who bash him, he is a man of careful judgment.
Fyne Jr post 39,
I actually think the latest Army field manual forbids torture.
It is also of course against the Geneva convention.
So I am not sure where your “but for the most part recommended.” statement comes from.
JJF post 42,
and you expect otherwise?
When there is a lack of evidence on the part of the poster the discusison does indeed become surreal.
Relax, you are doing a service with your clear presentaiton of the documented material.
And over time, I find that the lack of data does eventually result in a degree of quiet.
#42 JJF
None of your examples have been of an American citizen who was kidnapped in the US and has been tortured or sent to another country. This is what I originally complained about.
I have only complained about your suggestion that the US and specifically the Bush administration have kidnapped, tortured or sent US citizens to another country.
Of course, it shouldn’t matter whether an individual is a citizen of the USA or any other country. Torture is immoral and a violation of international law, of which the USA is a signatory nation.
It’s time for American to recover it’s moral standing in the world.
Bob:
The president has claimed the authority to declare anyone an enemy combatant, which would allow them to be renditioned to brutal regimes (which the U.S. does, c.f. Maher Arar) and tortured (which the U.S. does, c.f. General Taguba and Physicians for Human Rights).
To my knowledge, the only American citizen to be detained without charges and tortured was Jose Padilla. He was not extradited outside the United States.
But the victim’s nationality makes no moral difference. Torturing anyone, or having someone else torture them for us, is anathema to what America should stand for.
“It’s time for American to recover it’s moral standing in the world.”
Yes. Yes, it is. And that will not happen under a McCain administration.
“he [Bush] is a man of careful judgment.”
Lindh will not get a pardon from GWB. Scooter Libby probably will. I would suggest that those who are concerned as MIM is regarding those border agents should email the President, not once (but certainly not every day) or make some phone calls to the White House or to other government officials. State your case simply and keep it short.
I agree with Momof5 regarding her assessment of GWB. This is someone who really has not acted in response to polls, nor has he pandered.
Solon; Also, note that Pres. Bush has used his power of pardon sparingly compared to Pres. Reagan and Clinton . Another sign that, despite the Yahoos who bash him, he is a man of careful judgment.
Or a slow reader.
Yeehaw!
Arcadia, give the guy a break. He went to Yale, a school for notoriously slow readers.
Musing. Where did you get that? I could be wrong but from what I read, some things were deemed unacceptable. There are also other exceptions here and there, but torture in general is not prohibited. Just procedural modifications. Try again.
PL: Lots of dissolute sons of rich and powerful men have been there. Most of them were smarter than this guy, but what’s an admissions officer to do…
JJF: I’ll try to yell this past musing, your self avowed cheerleader.
“The point is not whether they are American citizens. The point is that they were tortured by the United States government.”
Because when you say that, the arguement changes. You made the claim that typical American citizens where kidnapped (a crime), shipped somewhere abroad, tortured (sorry, abused), and yada yada yada… Oh and that this was done specifically to brown-skinned folks (I’m guessing you were going for the racism angle here. Of course I could be wrong). So far, you’ve presented as evidence, some guy who thinks so, a leftard newspaper that thinks so, and a bunch of anti-american foreign politicians who think so. They have opinions all articulate I’m sure. But that specific accusation was one you made, and have not proven. It’s not my fault that you stupidly made an accusation that you couldn’t prove. It’s not my fault you stupidly adopted a theory for which you had seen no evidence of. You knew that information was classified before you made that claim. Everything you showed me has pointed to suspected terrorists being tortured for information. I can understand some people got too close to the action and became mixed up in it. That’s a legit complaint, and stories like that do bother me. But your accusation was more intense than that. Musing cheerleading you on can’t take that away.
Fyne:
“Some guy” is General Anthony Taguba, the Major-General in the United States Army who was tasked by the Department of Defense with investigating the Abu Ghraib abuse. He did, and he concluded that torture was the policy of the United States. You can’t dismiss that as just “some guy.”
I don’t know which source you’re dismissing as a “leftard paper,” but I’ve cited the Washington Post on Taguba’s explosive charges in the preface to the Physicians for Human Rights report, the New York Times on Bush’s executive order expanding extraordinary rendition, and Fox News on Maher Arar’s extradition and torture. Are they all “leftards”?
And the “anti-American foreign politicians” are the Parliament of Great Britain, our largest and most significant ally in the war on terror. When even your allies are saying you screwed up, chances are you screwed up.
You, on the other hand, have done no research and presented no counter-evidence demonstrating that Taguba was untruthful, that the physicians were in error, that Maher was lying, etc. All you’ve done is resort to cheap and easy name-calling. That might impress a room full of sixth graders, but it’s entirely devoid of substance.
“Try again.” You like that phrase, evidently because it removes any responsibility from you and just bounces the ball back into your opponent’s court. You don’t have to address arguments or make any of your own, you just have to snip “try again” at the end of posts filled with nothing but seething hostility.
JJF: I like that phrase because it defines to my opponents the absurdity of unsubstantiated claims without me having to waste so much words. And what the heck do you mean I don’t have to address arguements. I use those phrases at the END of my arguements. Are you blind? Try again.
Again, I made it clear that innoncent guys (as they claim they are) who are tortured is discomforting. The general may know some of them. The Canadian (I guess when you said American citizen, you meant the whole American contintent)But again, you can’t change accusations you made, without admitting you were wrong to begin with. You made false accusations. I repeated them above. So far, you had nothing in response to that. As for your other concern for innocent men being tortured, that’s a problem and I agree. But that is not the point. That was never the point.
(Ahem) try again.
Your objection, which you believe unanswered, is that I made a false accusation because I said that American citizens were kidnapped and tortured?
I said this:
This is true, and substantiated by my posts. President Bush has claimed the authority to unilaterally declare anyone, even an American citizen, an “enemy combatant.” And it is the policy of the United States to torture “enemy combatants.” Therefore, the President, on his authority alone, can have an American citizen kidnapped, shipped oversees, tortured, and indefinitely held in a prison where he is systematically abused.
Then I went on to say this, which I gather is the heart of your objection:
Jose Padilla is an American citizen who was “picked up” at an airport, detained for years without charges, and (he claims) tortured. Charges were finally brought against him and he was convicted.
Yaser Esam Hamdi is an American citizen who was picked up in Afghanistan, held for years without charges (some of that time was spent in Camp X-Ray and Gitmo), and finally released when the Supreme Court overruled the Bush administration’s attempts to hold him indefinitely.
Do you consider your objection answered now?
The point most important to me was never who was being tortured, but that the United States was torturing. I will grant that as far as we know, only two American citizens have been declared “enemy combatants,” and only one of those (Padilla) claims to have been tortured. That matters very little to me. What matters to me is first that it is the policy of the United States to torture its detainees and second that the President has claimed the power to unilaterally detain anyone, even American citizens.
The United States should not torture innocent or guilty men, citizens or aliens. It is immoral, and it is illegal under U.S. and international law.
You made the claim that typical American citizens where kidnapped (a crime), shipped somewhere abroad, tortured (sorry, abused), and yada yada yada…
Shame on you, JJF. Fyne Jr. knows what you said, and look what it’s done to him. You must have done something, JJF, for him to make that noise.
BTW, it’s clear that also John Walker Lindh was tortured and is gagged.
BTW, it’s clear that also John Walker Lindh was tortured and is gagged.
Sweeeet!!!
From what I understand, Lindh’s case was heard before a regular federal court, he had representation, and he allocuted in his own words. One can only wonder why his counsel allowed him to plead guilty, but he did just that. He took a plea deal fully aware of its requirements. That was stupid.