Going to War

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Dave
Is it the US navy?

Wow, that was quick. yes, indeed, the second largest air force in the world is the United States Naval Air Force. That means that we by definition have a combined air power over twice the nearest competitor, and I would guess that at least 2 out of 3-6 are allies of ours.

-m

[DHCJr]

I've heard the U.S. Army boast they have more Aircraft than the U.S. Air Force (mostly helicopers, I believe) and more ships (boats) than the U.S. Navy.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by DHCJr
I've heard the U.S. Army boast they have more Aircraft than the U.S. Air Force (mostly helicopers, I believe) and more ships (boats) than the U.S. Navy.

Which makes this even more ludicrous, though I am willing to neglect the helicopters for now, as gunships and personnel carrying helos serve VERY different purposes than most of the aircraft in the USAF and USNAF, and we do need some of both.

-m

[Philistine]

Originally posted by epeemike81
{snip}
How about suspending Habeus Corpis? you can feel free to point out that Lincoln did it too. the answer is that it was wrong when Lincoln did it, and it is wrong now.

Habeas corpus has not been suspended. At most, it has been found (by the Courts) to not apply to non-citizen aliens when they are located/held outside of the United States.

You can agree or disagree with this position (personally I disagree), however, it is not new.

--Philistine

[epeemike81]

They are holding Jose Padilla (a US citizen) as an "enemy combatant". he is being held indefinitely in a military brig without charges in sight. Mind you, when they first arrested him, they started to bring a case against him, and reclassified him when it became clear that they didn't have enough for a conviction. The day of his arraignment, his lawyer was informed that she no longer had a client, as he was no longer entitled to a lawyer. Being a conscientious person, she continued to work as his advocate, filing a writ of habeas corpis. the goverment argued against it as improper as it was not signed by Padilla. Well, when she had tried to get it signed, the military wouldn't allow her or the paper within a mile of Padilla. She has since forced them to at least allow her to talk to Padilla, but is still fighting issues of habeas and status.

This is a CLEAR example of EXACTLY what habeas is meant to protect against. As it turns out, when they investigated the dirty bomb plot, they found that it wasn't a plot at all, but just some loose talk on the part of padilla. Stupid, certainly, but hardly criminal. In countless other cases in the "war on terror" since 9/11, US citizens have been arrested and charged. the ONLY reason Padilla wasn't is that they couldn't prove the case. you do not call that a suspension of habeas??? I certainly do.

My favorite argument from the right on this is that the US citizens being held aren't entitled to attorneys because only people who are criminally charged have that right. Well, last time I checked, it was illegal to hold citizens without charge. They also had the gall to cite that the US Supreme Court had upheld the right of the government to detain its citizens during wartime without provocation. the case law that was based on?? the court had found Japanese interrnment camps legal! shouldn't it be a red flag when the case law you're citing is supporting internment camps?

-m

[Philistine]

Originally posted by epeemike81
They are holding Jose Padilla (a US citizen) as an "enemy combatant". he is being held indefinitely in a military brig without charges in sight. Mind you, when they first arrested him, they started to bring a case against him, and reclassified him when it became clear that they didn't have enough for a conviction. The day of his arraignment, his lawyer was informed that she no longer had a client, as he was no longer entitled to a lawyer. Being a conscientious person, she continued to work as his advocate, filing a writ of habeas corpis. the goverment argued against it as improper as it was not signed by Padilla. Well, when she had tried to get it signed, the military wouldn't allow her or the paper within a mile of Padilla. She has since forced them to at least allow her to talk to Padilla, but is still fighting issues of habeas and status.

This is a CLEAR example of EXACTLY what habeas is meant to protect against. As it turns out, when they investigated the dirty bomb plot, they found that it wasn't a plot at all, but just some loose talk on the part of padilla. Stupid, certainly, but hardly criminal. In countless other cases in the "war on terror" since 9/11, US citizens have been arrested and charged. the ONLY reason Padilla wasn't is that they couldn't prove the case. you do not call that a suspension of habeas??? I certainly do.
{snip}

I think you misunderstand what habeas corpus is. It is a mechanism to determine the legality of detention.

In the Padilla case, the case is progressing based upon a petition for habeas corpus--unlike the cases of aliens being held in Cuba, whose habeas petitions were dismissed for lack of standing Padilla (and Hamdi) are being allowed to contest their detention under habeas corpus.

Suspension of habeas corpus means not allowing them to even get into court to contest it.

For reference, Here is the Court's Opinion (Dec. 4, 2002) allowing the habeas case to go forward, requiring access to a lawyer and explaining the standard under which his detention will be determined.

Similiarly, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals (which is likely the most conservative Circuit) said this in discussing habeas corpus relating to Hamdi (who has also a U.S. Citizen and been designated an "enemy combatant" but unlike Padilla was captured in Afghanistan):

The duty of the judicial branch to protect our individual freedoms does not simply cease whenever our military forces are committed by the political branches to armed conflict. The Founders "foresaw that troublous times would arise, when rulers and people would . . . seek by sharp and decisive measures to accomplish ends deemed just and proper; and that the principles of constitutional liberty would be in peril, unless established by irrepealable law." Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2, 120 (1866). While that recognition does not dispose of this case, it does indicate one thing: The detention of United States citizens must be subject to judicial review. See Hamdi II, 296 F.3d at 283.

It is significant, moreover, that the form of relief sought by Hamdi
is a writ of habeas corpus. In war as in peace, habeas corpus provides one of the firmest bulwarks against unconstitutional detentions. As early as 1789, Congress reaffirmed the courts' common law authority to review detentions of federal prisoners, giving its explicit blessing to the judiciary's power to "grant writs of habeas corpus for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of commitment" for federal detainees. Act of Sept. 24, 1789, ch. 20, § 14, 1 Stat. 81-82. While the scope of habeas review has expanded and contracted over the succeeding centuries, its essential function of assuring that restraint accords with the rule of law, not the whim of authority, remains unchanged.

Hamdi's petition falls squarely within the Great Writ's purview, since he is an American citizen challenging his summary detention for reasons of state necessity.

Opinion (1/13/03)

In this Opinion, the Court upheld Hamdi's detention as lawful under the President's War Powers, specifically because Hamdi was captured in "a zone of active combat in a foreign theater of conflict."

--Philistine

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Philistine
I think you misunderstand what habeas corpus is. It is a mechanism to determine the legality of detention.

I know.

In the Padilla case, the case is progressing based upon a petition for habeas corpus--unlike the cases of aliens being held in Cuba, whose habeas petitions were dismissed for lack of standing Padilla (and Hamdi) are being allowed to contest their detention under habeas corpus.

now they are. Originally, Padilla's lawyer was told she didn't have a client and she (along with everybody else) was denied access to him. this was a clear violation of habeas. Also, you are looking at the most common use of habeas. litterally, habeas corpus means "show the body". One of its other stipulations essentially states that detention must be transparent to the public. you cannot hold US citizens in "undisclosed" locations.

Suspension of habeas corpus means not allowing them to even get into court to contest it.

which they very much tried to do. luckily, not ALL of our judicial system is as disturbingly overzealous as the executive branch and the agencies.

For reference, Here is the Court's Opinion (Dec. 4, 2002) allowing the habeas case to go forward, requiring access to a lawyer and explaining the standard under which his detention will be determined.

Fine, I revise. I object to the ATTEMPTED suspension of habeas corpus.

In this Opinion, the Court upheld Hamdi's detention as lawful under the President's War Powers, specifically because Hamdi was captured in "a zone of active combat in a foreign theater of conflict."

--Philistine

And the fact that he was captured on a foreign battlefield makes it at least SLIGHTLY debatable. As I'm sure you know, Padilla was "captured" in O'Hare Airport.

-m

[pkt]

Here's my 2-cent worth:

From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: ha·be·as cor·pus
Pronunciation: 'hA-bE-&s-'kor-p&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin, literally, you should have the body (the opening words of the writ)
Date: 15th century
1 : any of several common-law writs issued to bring a party before a court or judge; especially : HABEAS CORPUS AD SUBJICIENDUM
2 : the right of a citizen to obtain a writ of habeas corpus as a protection against illegal imprisonment

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As a result of the 'special situation' in the US of A, application for immigration staus from people from Arab countries have increased in Canada. So has the application for refugee staus from Arab people in the US increased.

PK

[Philistine]

Originally posted by epeemike81
{snip}
which they very much tried to do. luckily, not ALL of our judicial system is as disturbingly overzealous as the executive branch and the agencies.
{snip}

Fine, I revise. I object to the ATTEMPTED suspension of habeas corpus.

Oh, please. In one case in the Southern District of New York, the AG's office got overzealous and tried to limit contact between Padilla and his lawyer (who had been apointed by the Court). The Court shot them down.

And the fact that he was captured on a foreign battlefield makes it at least SLIGHTLY debatable. As I'm sure you know, Padilla was "captured" in O'Hare Airport.

Yes, I was aware of that. Hence my statement that Hamdi "unlike Padilla was captured in Afghanistan."

There are (IMHO) justified complaints about the amorphous treatment of anyone who the administration decides to designate an "enemy combatant" given the fact that any "war on terror" is likely to never actually have an end--but they have nothing to do with habeas corpus--which is alive and well (for U.S. citizens, anyway).

--Philistine

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by epeemike81

the one thing I WOULD like you, and others on this board who think the US is reacting correctly, to respond directly to is the point that the placement of burden of proof on Iraq instead of the weapons inspectors is illogical and impossible to meet. How is it that this point hasn't been brought up more often? every time I hear somebody speaking against the war, they fail to raise the issue of impossible burden. To me, this is a HUGE issue, as it shows that our position is a mere pretext, and that the reasoning we claim to have isn't actually there.

-m

I imagine this is not the response you've been looking for - I simply disagree with your statement.

Let's look at it this way: If the burden of proof were on the UN Inspection Commitees, what would be entailed? They would have to prove that the weapons, chemicals, etc. were not destroyed. Let me add here, that they've been turning up pretty good evidence to this end already. In any case, what would be required to prove this? They would have to find said weapons, and present them as evidence. Let me remind you that these weapons are relatively very small, and not by any real means hard to conceal. Iraq is a large country; it is also not very densely populated, and thus there are plenty of areas in which to hide, well, anything. Further, the Inspection Commitees are not simply allowed to look; they are hindered by guards, lied to, held back from locations, and frequently just plain thrown out. Finally, much of what they seek is easily mobile.

On the other hand, what if the burden of proof were on Iraq? Then they would merely have to convince us that they had in fact, or were in the process of, destroying these weapons, chemicals, etc. What would be required to achieve this? Let us see them being destroyed. Let inspectors in. Don't try to hold them back. If Iraq is doing nothing wrong, after all, then what have they to hide? Let the inspectors see the destruction facilities. Make videos of it; present records of it.

Is that really so hard? It sure sounds a hell of a lot easier to me than putting the burden of proof on the UN.

I don't think that placing the burden of proof on Iraq is "impossible to meet", and if it is not in fact "impossible to meet", then I don't see how it is illogical.



Now: What is incorrect in the argument I just presented?

[magma]

pronunciation off? maybe he had a little stroke? mispronounciations are common....that's the whole superman thing, gotta have everything JUST right. You have to give a little. I liked carter and clinton, until clinton and the girl in the blue dress thing; and kenneth starr, who stirred everything up into such a HUGH thing, we lost a president - democrat, who was elected by the people and who, at that time, was pretty good at bringing people closer together; and now we had to go republican, and people went for it, and now we at war! but i hate like heck to punish pres. bush for this, i don't know if it's too late here, but there must be a way for him to learn to do what the democrates do....Chill. They know how to relax and step back. For George, i feel very sorry, his daughters give him the worst time, they should get a grip! hey fence with us or something, the president shouldnt' be jogging right now, just stay in and chill a little, invite some friends over. The only problem with that is having someone snoop in your living room and write a story about it. Maybe get friends with american islam people?

[Inquartata]

I think it would be very simple for Iraq to meet the burden of proof...or at least enough of it to convince the world that they were making a good-faith effort. If they wanted to, that is. Which of course they don't.

They claim they have no WOMD. They admitted to having them after the Gulf War, but now claim to have destroyed them. So fine, show us where they were destroyed. There will be remnants. Debris. Chemical traces. Radiation. Something. Let us talk, really talk, to the people who supposedly did the destroying, maybe on a polygraph. For that matter, let us talk to the scientists and officials and commanders involved with these programs on polygraph.

As to the inspectors being able to find anything, I am beginning to think it's worse than that. I begin to wonder whether they haven't been instructed NOT to find any "smoking guns". To put on a plausible show of searching, but not to make waves which might upset French and Russian oil development contracts and Chinese arms sales and risk stirring up the much-feared "Arab street" against despotic regimes in the area...in other words, to appease the nation which was attacked, namely the US, with smoke and mirrors but to frustrate its pursuit of malefactors as far as possible so as not to rock the boats of its "betters"...

[veeco]

Originally posted by Inquartata
As to the inspectors being able to find anything, I am beginning to think it's worse than that. I begin to wonder whether they haven't been instructed NOT to find any "smoking guns". To put on a plausible show of searching, but not to make waves which might upset French and Russian oil development contracts and Chinese arms sales and risk stirring up the much-feared "Arab street" against despotic regimes in the area...in other words, to appease the nation which was attacked, namely the US, with smoke and mirrors but to frustrate its pursuit of malefactors as far as possible so as not to rock the boats of its "betters"...

Actually, I think that most of the weapons inspectors in Iraq are Americans, so I doubt that this is the case, unless they are the unpatriotic type...

Also, you are saying "to appease the nation which was attacked, namely te US". When was the US attacked by Iraq??? I mean, really attacked, I'm not talking about minor scuffles in the no-fly zone. It seems to me that this kind of thing happens no matter what the country and no matter what the countries involved are...

[Catlady]

Originally posted by Swordsman
My signature is a quote from Father E. O'Brien, USMC. It should not be denegrating to anyone; it merely reinforces that A) a military is required if we are to have the freedoms that we so cherish, and B) they're frequently not only unappreciated, but denounced and attacked outright. The military should not have to defend itself against its own fellow citizens.

And I too am with EpeeMike, anti-war, should not be anti-military. I do not blame the people in the military for the wars they have to fight, I blame the leaders for getting them into those wars, except for cases where gross misconduct has occurred. In those cases I wonder why "Just following orders" is a valid justification for following along when a commanding officer makes a questionable order when it's our side, but not when it's the side of our enemies, but I really don't want to start an argument. After all, if the world is going to get along in general--nation to nation-- we have to learn to get along better on an individual--person to person--basis. Or at least that's what I've realize recently, and I"m trying to control myself better.

And just as you are tired of the military having to defend itself from society, I'm tired of us "intellectuals" having to defend ourselves from society too. I"m just a bit sensitive because it seems like where I am, in a pretty conservative, thought also a pretty great, state, intellectual is a dirty word almost beyond all other dirty words. Granted, there are some people who call themselves intellectuals who are out and out blazing loonies, but we are not in fact utterly useless, or ignorant of society either.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by veeco
Actually, I think that most of the weapons inspectors in Iraq are Americans, so I doubt that this is the case, unless they are the unpatriotic type...

Somehow this strikes me as unlikely. Certainly none of the leadership seems to be American. But at any rate, technicians only see what they are shown. It's the leadership, under UN orders, which decides where to go and what to inspect. you could have a whole team of hawkish American inspectors poring over a site where nothing was ever done, and where the leaders know nothing was ever done, and what are they going to find?

Also, you are saying "to appease the nation which was attacked, namely te US". When was the US attacked by Iraq??? I mean, really attacked, I'm not talking about minor scuffles in the no-fly zone. It seems to me that this kind of thing happens no matter what the country and no matter what the countries involved are...

Although the repeated, consistent, defiant attempts to shhot down American planes ARE in my estimation quite sufficient, and though I do not see why you dismiss them as insignificant nothings which ought to "go with the territory", I was referring primarily to the fact that the effort to rid Iraq of WOMD is part and parcel of the post 9-11 antiterrorism effort.

Had airliners gone into buildings in Paris instead of the US, we would probably be seeing France keen to go after terrorists and their enablers wherever they might be found, and maybe we would be dragging OUR feet. This is what I mean when I say that it is always the injured party who is most motivated to DO SOMETHING, while everyone else examines their interests and hems and haws and temporizes...

[135711]

due to a conversation only a few moments ago, i'm editing things. good luck everyone!

[veeco]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Somehow this strikes me as unlikely. Certainly none of the leadership seems to be American. But at any rate, technicians only see what they are shown. It's the leadership, under UN orders, which decides where to go and what to inspect. you could have a whole team of hawkish American inspectors poring over a site where nothing was ever done, and where the leaders know nothing was ever done, and what are they going to find?

http://demo.baseview.com/dm4/main/276463181953904.php

"Eventually more than 300 inspectors, from 48 countries, will be deployed. At least 30 are American — making them the most numerous by nationality "
So you're right, the Americans are not the majority, but it still seems to me like they are well represented. If each country had an equal participation, there would be 6 or 7 Americans... That's three times as many... May I also say that this time inspectors are allowed to see places that they weren't allowed to see before (presidential palaces). I still agree with you that the credibility of these inspections can be contested, but not because of the inspectors, more because Iraqi leaders would be good at hiding things... I truly believe that these inspectors take their job seriously and will tell people of what their findings are, not hide them...

Although the repeated, consistent, defiant attempts to shhot down American planes ARE in my estimation quite sufficient, and though I do not see why you dismiss them as insignificant nothings which ought to "go with the territory", I was referring primarily to the fact that the effort to rid Iraq of WOMD is part and parcel of the post 9-11 antiterrorism effort.

Well that's where I knew you were coming at, and I disagree with you. There has been no proven link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. None at all that I know of. US already has had their shot at getting rid of Bin Laden, and Saddam, I might add. It did not work out, and in the process Afghanistan was bombed and people had to live in fear in that country. Iraqi leaders and Saddam are not good people and there are definitely numerous good reasons to attack him, but attacking him because it is a part of the antiterrorism effort is THE wrong reason, I think. If you want to find a good reason, ask the Kurds, but don't say that Iraq is responsible for 9/11 when there hasn't been any proof of it yet. That's basically going a little bit too much over the edge. You go from holding Al Qaeda responsible, to the Taliban, to Iraq. And what next? Egypt? Jordania? Iran?

Had airliners gone into buildings in Paris instead of the US, we would probably be seeing France keen to go after terrorists and their enablers wherever they might be found, and maybe we would be dragging OUR feet. This is what I mean when I say that it is always the injured party who is most motivated to DO SOMETHING, while everyone else examines their interests and hems and haws and temporizes...

Paris has seen it's share of terrorist attacks too, I might say, in the 90s... We did not go all out against Algeria because the terrorist organizations that did those attacks were from there. We've done some bad stuff, like any country, and I sure that unfortunately we will do some bad stuff, and I am not trying to say that our foreign policy is perfect, but at least in that case, I think we did the right thing. Our police forces tracked the terrorist cells in our country and shut them down. Then we got some help from other European countries and shut down cells there too. Finally, we made sure through political pressure that Algeria was given a chance to have democratic elections and that the country chose their leaders. Things have been better since...