Comments on: Reviewing Detentions http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006/02/reviewing_deten.html Dispatches from a Small Business Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:27:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Max Lybbert http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006/02/reviewing_deten.html/comment-page-1#comment-3114 Max Lybbert Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:06:58 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2006/02/reviewing_deten.html #comment-3114 <p>I couldn't think of how to best word this last night. However, the Constitutional prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure, or the requirement that the accused know the charges against him, and have the ability to face his accusers, etc. are all based on criminal law. For instance, Courts have sometimes forcibly committed insane people, but there were no charges, and there was no warrant, and the insane person didn't get a jury, and the insane person probably didn't even get a chance to speak in his defense. Even so, it was perfectly acceptable under the Constitution.</p> <p>POWs (or enemy combatents, since POW has a specific meaning) are captured and put into prisons, but they aren't accused of doing anything wrong. It's common to *not* lock up POWs (aside from keeping them inside a farm, but not locking them into cells), to give them access to a bar, and to let them write letters home. Yes, I know the Gitmo detainees don't get these priveleges -- I'm getting to that. The issue is that saying "they've been held for four years without being charged" is true, but beside the point. They aren't being held for being criminals, they're being held as part of war operations. If Al Qaeda bothered to capture some of their own prisoners, we could even trade POWs.</p> <p>However, these recent revelations are troubling. And the reason they're troubling actually can be found in the Constitution's "due process" clause. When the state commits an insance citizen (or non citizen, for that matter), there aren't any criminal charges, but there is a legal process. Likewise, the Geneva Conventions permit classifying detainees as something other than POWs, but after some sort of legal process. Hamdi permits the military to sweep up prisoners as that's as much a part of war as shooting bullets without a lawyer's approval, but to continue to hold those prisoners requires a legal process. I'm troubled by the numbers of detainees that are apparently not enemy combatents, and I think the root fo that is the fact that they haven't had due process.</p> I couldn’t think of how to best word this last night. However, the Constitutional prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure, or the requirement that the accused know the charges against him, and have the ability to face his accusers, etc. are all based on criminal law. For instance, Courts have sometimes forcibly committed insane people, but there were no charges, and there was no warrant, and the insane person didn’t get a jury, and the insane person probably didn’t even get a chance to speak in his defense. Even so, it was perfectly acceptable under the Constitution.

POWs (or enemy combatents, since POW has a specific meaning) are captured and put into prisons, but they aren’t accused of doing anything wrong. It’s common to *not* lock up POWs (aside from keeping them inside a farm, but not locking them into cells), to give them access to a bar, and to let them write letters home. Yes, I know the Gitmo detainees don’t get these priveleges — I’m getting to that. The issue is that saying “they’ve been held for four years without being charged” is true, but beside the point. They aren’t being held for being criminals, they’re being held as part of war operations. If Al Qaeda bothered to capture some of their own prisoners, we could even trade POWs.

However, these recent revelations are troubling. And the reason they’re troubling actually can be found in the Constitution’s “due process” clause. When the state commits an insance citizen (or non citizen, for that matter), there aren’t any criminal charges, but there is a legal process. Likewise, the Geneva Conventions permit classifying detainees as something other than POWs, but after some sort of legal process. Hamdi permits the military to sweep up prisoners as that’s as much a part of war as shooting bullets without a lawyer’s approval, but to continue to hold those prisoners requires a legal process. I’m troubled by the numbers of detainees that are apparently not enemy combatents, and I think the root fo that is the fact that they haven’t had due process.

]]> By: Matt http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006/02/reviewing_deten.html/comment-page-1#comment-3113 Matt Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:25:53 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2006/02/reviewing_deten.html #comment-3113 <p>I for one have no problem with the detention of enemy combatants. My problem is with the expansion of the definition of "enemy combatant" so far that it's capable of including an American citizen captured unarmed in Chicago. Once that's accepted, the only thing standing between us and Mao-style forced labor camps for members of the out-of-power party is the election of a Democrat to the White House.</p> I for one have no problem with the detention of enemy combatants. My problem is with the expansion of the definition of “enemy combatant” so far that it’s capable of including an American citizen captured unarmed in Chicago. Once that’s accepted, the only thing standing between us and Mao-style forced labor camps for members of the out-of-power party is the election of a Democrat to the White House.

]]>