Homeland Security Gets Brigade for Domestic Use

[BloodEclipse]

1. Does the President get to decide what laws are consistent with the unified executive rights? If so, how is he bound by law?

2. Padilla was convicted on terrorism charges, but not on the dirty bomb charge that was the excuse given for 3.5 years for his incarceration without habeus corpus. Furthermore, does any conviction excuse the violation of a right? Does the ends justify the means?

3. If the President gets to do anything because he was "granted the right" as the President and has a "responsibility to act", then how is he not the King? And how, exactly, are there then, still three branches of government? And how, praytel, are we expecting to keep our firearm longer than some guy's decision that he "has to act" to protect us? Is the President granted the power to ignore the Constitution in the Constitution?

Good questions. I want to add that I have no emotion behind this set of posts. I am enjoying a good discussion and always see things like this as a learning experience. I learn more about topics like this from having to do research.

1. It would be my guess that he would have to be challenged. A Federal Court would have to decide and it would be subject to the same set of appeals and such as any case. The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on those matters I would think.

2. I was suprised to find that the Padilla Case is not the first time American Citizens have been classified "Enemy Combatants".

Ex parte Quirin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), is a Supreme Court of the United States case that upheld the jurisdiction of a United States military tribunal over the trial of several Operation Pastorius German saboteurs in the United States. Quirin has been cited as a precedent for the trial by military commission of any unlawful combatant against the United States.
It was argued July 29 and July 30, 1942 and decided July 31, 1942 with an extended opinion filed October 29, 1942.
This decision states:
“…the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.

The eight men involved in the case were Ernest Peter Burger, George John Dasch, Herbert Hans Haupt, Heinrich Heinck, Edward Keiling, Herman Neubauer, Richard Quirin and Werner Thiel, Burger and Haupt being US citizens.

PresidentFranklin D. Roosevelt convened a secret military tribunal on July 2, 1942 which sentenced the eight men to death.[1] The President later commuted the death sentences of Dasch and Burger to life in prison, as they had both confessed and assisted in capturing the others.

http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria21_1b.htm

The war on terror has brought forward many questions of due process. In 2004, the Supreme Court dealt with the case of a U.S. citizen named by the president as an “enemy combatant” and locked in prison. The man had been held incommunicado with no charges filed against him.

Once again, the government appealed. The Court of Appeals ordered the habeas petition dismissed. It ruled that the facts stated in the Mobbs declaration were sufficient to support Hamdi’s detention. Hamdi appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.


The Supreme Court faced two issues:

1. Did the president have the authority to name U.S. citizens as enemy combatants and hold them in prison without filing criminal charges?

2. If the president has this authority, what manner of habeas corpus review is due to citizens who contest their status as enemy combatants?


The court was fragmented on the issues and published four separate opinions. On the first issue, five justices concluded that the president had the authority to hold U.S. citizens in prison as enemy combatants.

So Hamdi was classified and it went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Bush administration did the classification, yes but it was not just the Executive Branch that oversaw this.


3. Same answer as #1. I'm sure there are those who can shed some more light on the legalities here. I am no expert in these matters. I might also add that if Bush was shown to have broken a law that was not related to National Security he could be impeached and prosecuted.

I still think all three branches have the checks and balances in place. Not that they are all completely functional, but in place none the less.

 

[techres]

Good questions. I want to add that I have no emotion behind this set of posts. I am enjoying a good discussion and always see things like this as a learning experience. I learn more about topics like this from having to do research.

My answers are also not meant to be emotional and I am enjoying the intellectual challenge.

And in respect, I will wait until I get off of work to read your sources and respond intelligently.

Delayed popcorn it is.

 

[quiggly]

Aside from all of the Constitutional issues here.

Isn't this what the National Guard is generally tasked for?

It seems funny that we have been sending the National Guard into foreign lands to do things that we would normally send the Army for, now we are taking the Army and doing things that the National Guard normally handles?

From the Militia discussions, I was under the impression that the standing State Militia was NG. Can the governors of a State call in the Army now?

 

[rhino]

I disagree. The post 911 period has been an acceleration of power and intrusion on the rights of individuals unlike any time before in my lifetime (37 years). Given the "war on drugs" that is impressive.

I think that's a little naive. The difference is that the gov't is just more overt about their actions now. They don't have to be as secretive because they can get away with it now in the name of "homeland security." Another factor is that available technology has changed things rapidly in the last 15 years or so. If you think these things weren't snowballing since at least the mid 1970s, you haven't had information from the "right" people.

I'd feel fine if the homeland security was actually being directed at protecting the homeland and its people from outside threats. Far too many of the resources are specifically intended to use against US.

 

[Disposable Heart]

Naw, the National Guard is for shooting students on campus or bayoneting "protesters".

If I remember, the state calls in the standing army (not National Guard) if the situation has degerated into something that the National Guard cannot handle. While relatively separate entities in application, the Army/National Guard are pretty much the same, so its more of a matter of how much of the nation's resources they are willing to use to quell people/save the day (local folks or call in the big leagues).

In other words, I dont think the Gov. calls in the main army, I believe the NG commanders do.

Someone have info on this?

 

[jeremy]

The Feds call the Army in. It is kinda like how they decide state and fed legal jurisdictions.

The differance between the Guard and the Active Military Troops ( other than budget) The guard answers first to the Governor then to the Pres. Active Duty takes its direction from the Pres.

This is a reult of the way the state and local La guys totally screwed the pooch over Katrina. Originally the only thing the active duty was used for was to provide transport out of New Orleans.