Janet Reno Files Challenge To Terror Law

Apparently we will never hear the end of former Clinton officials. Janet Reno, among others, is formally challenging the Bush administrations policy on Military Tribunals for terrorists.

I've heard the papers suggest a more humane alternative - that terrorists be incarcerated in old Texas farm houses until they can be surrounded by the FBI with the terrorists being burned alive on national television. But that last bit is unconfirmed, for now.

Former Attorney General Janet Reno and seven other former Justice Department officials filed court papers Monday arguing that the Bush administration is setting a dangerous precedent by trying a suspected terrorist outside the court system.

It was the first time that Reno, attorney general in the Clinton administration, has spoken out against the administration's policies on terrorism detainees, underscoring how contentious the court fight over the nation's new military commissions law has become. Former attorneys general rarely file court papers challenging administration policy.

Update: lgf has the State Department outrage of the day ... unbelieveable. Bash America and get $10k.

Comments

[DANEgerus]

Only domestic "Rightwing" terrorists are burned alive. Foreign-born 'undocumented' terrorists are to be nurtured with in-state tuition, social welfare payments, and every imaginable indulgence of their religious requirements.

For isn't it better that a thousand mass-murdering terrorists go free then any one innocent 'undocumented' non-worker be subjected to the indignities of filling out a form?

[Purple Avenger]

Torch Reno whining about civil right is pretty funny.

[Seekeronos]

Ms Reno, Kettle.

Mr. Rumsfeld, Pot.

Pleased to make your acquaintance.

[Cato]

Yes, she really protected Elian Gonzales' rights, didn't she?

[herzhonour]

Too bad there's not a dig going on into
her background of criminal complicity.
She needs to be exposed for the
treacherous amoral monster she is.

[yyy]

Hmmm,

So you think it was wrong of the FBI/ATF to torch the Branch Davidian compound, to escalate a situation needlessly that resulted in the deaths of a lot of innocent people when they could have just taken the leader any time away from the compound..in other words, they failed to follow due process, abused their authority and hurt a lot of innocent people.

Yet you think its perfectly okay to hold SUSPECTED terrorists without giving them any due process rights, to torture them, refuse them lawyers and everything else?

I at least am consistent. Ruby Ridge and the Waco debacle were examples of the FBI gone wild, excessive use of force, lack of due process and creating the ends...a conflict..to justify your own ridiculous use of force.

I am also against denying suspected terrorists with the rights they are entitled to under the constitution and the geneva conventions...lawyers, humane treatment, and access to the evidence against them...

[ddd]

The constitution is a guarantee of rights for AMERICAN citizens. It is not a universal document for anyone in the world. You can't expect the US to bend over for people who are not citizens but yet want to wage a war against the US. As an American citizen I would not expect that if I went into any other country and blew up buildings that I would get treated in any way other than with contempt and ultimately the death penalty. If and when the perpetrators of terrorism are US citizens then and only then will they be tried under the constitution. Much like Tim McVeigh.

[yyy]

But what if you were WRONGLY suspected of blowing up buildings in another country?

Or do you really believe that the government..with a long history of making all kinds of mistakes, NEVER will or has made a mistake in who is a terrorist or an enemy combatant?

If so, then we wouldn't have already released so many from Gitmo with no charges, would we?

It is a fact that a lot of the 'evidence' against these people comes from bounty hunters and other very unscrupulous people, is it really NOT POSSIBLE that anyone would be wrongly declared an enemy combatant?

Also, if I am not mistaken, you could still be declared an enemy combatant as an AMERICAN and then you would have the same rights as Padilla...held in limbo with no laywer, no charges, no seeing of the evidence, no due process...until that damned activist hotbed of terror lovers the USSC forced the administration to give him a lawyer and some very limited rights.

I believe the Administration also made the claim that a US airport constituted 'foreign territory' outside the bounds of American law and the US constitution..

Which means in a nutshell, that the reality is that an American could be taken off of American soil without an arrest warrant or any other proof of guilt and put away in a secret gulag under the guise of being an enemy combatant...or under the guise of being a terrorist with all evidence kept secret due to 'national security' reasons.

Of course if you believe the government is incapable of making a mistaken then its no problem.

[ddd]

Of course they can make mistakes. No one is saying other wise. But tell me why if these people being let out of gitmo are soo innocent, why their host countries often times won't take them back. Even Britain just refused several of their citizens from re-entering from gitmo.

We can play the what if game all day. But the bottom line is that the danger of letting a guilty person go free because of the American courts and their ability to free people on technicalities out ways, in this case, the possibility that an innocent person has been detained.

It just amazes me to see that American citizens go all around this world and think that they have these constitutional rights anywhere. The truth is that they end at our borders, and there are very few places outside these borders that come even close to having the kind of rights the constitution gives them.

You refer to gitmo and the like as gulags, yet must not know your history that well. The average weight gain in a gulag was negative 20 lbs (and starving to death) and the average for gitmo is over a 20 lb gain. It has been shown that we treat the gitmo prisoners better than prisoners on our own soil. And they are getting far better treatment than they would receive from prisons in the places where they were caught. There has been invitation to the people from the UN that wants to criticize, and they are routinely declined. How can they make an honest assessment when they won't even go to see the place?

I understand your feelings on the matter and that you fear the possibility that people can be wrongly put away into a system, but that happens as it is now in the legal system that you are advocating for. How many times lately have we seen innocent people being let go from prison after DNA testing. So it happens and it can happen in any system, all we can do is try to minimize that happening to the best of our abilities and move forward. This isn't the first president to use such things, and I am sure it won't be the last.

Last thought for this is that in other countries, freedoms are less than us, but yet they live a life that is similar in quality. Some examples are GB, France and Italy. In Great Britain you can be arrested for simply saying something they find Un-PC. In France the police can question and arrest you simply on a suspicion with out warrants. And in Italy they can use surveillance to a degree that would make the ACLU have a heart attack. Yet the people get on fine with their lives and deal with the minimal intrusions. I am not advocating their systems; I am just pointing the irony out.

[old trooper]

No charges filed for the Massacre at Waco, Tx. under her watch.

The old bitch should collect her six figure pension and STFU!

[CivilLib]

The Constitution is generally interprited as a protection of American citizens' rights only, but it is intended to enshrine principles. Jefforson didn't wright into the Declaration of Indipendance that all men OF AMERICAN BIRTH are endowed by their Creator with certain inalianable rights, he believed that all humans were.

If you want specific documents, take the (nonbinding) UN Universal Declaraiton of Human Rights. Article 2 states, "Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs..." and Article 6 declares, "Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.". Furthermore, Articles 5, 9, and 10 remind us that, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." or "be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile." and that "Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him."

Although the Declaration isn't binding, the US has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (under the provision that it may not constitute the sole basis for a legal complaint). This treaty states in Article 7 that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." Furthermore, Article 9 reads, "(1)Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law. (2)Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him. (3)Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgement. (4)Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful. (5)Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.", which is fully against our immoral treatment of prisoners. Oh, and finally, there's Article 10(1): "All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person."

[Purple Avenger]

rights they are entitled to under the constitution and the geneva conventions

What does the Geneva convention entitle terrorists to? Please be specific -- i.e. cite the sections.

I'll wait for your answer...but I won't hold my breath ;->

[Grayson]

Oh, puhleaze.

Jefferson did think those rights were endowed by the Creator, but Jefferson wasn't saying they applied to Britons because he was saying they were our rationale for seceding from Britain. In other words, we are ASSERTING our rights.

The problem with your argument is that those rights should only apply to American citizens (and I suppose guests, at our discretion). We're not here to grant rights to the rest of the world, particularly to people and cultures that are antithetical to our own. If they want to get around to securing those rights in their own countries, great. But the Constitution is not a suicide pact, and the U.N.'s Declaration is about as useless as anything else the U.N. says.

Where in the world does that Declaration actually hold force? Where in the world do people actually give a shit that it exists? The U.N.'s Declaration, moreover, makes no account of wartime provisions. There isn't a single country on earth that doesn't treat its citizens differently for civil crimes than the military treats people for military crimes. One is an act against individuals, the other is an act against society as a whole.

It's entirely consistent to say that Americans get rights of due process that foreigners don't. If you don't like the arrangement, don't come here, and don't oppose us. If, as an American citizen, you don't like the arrangement, vote. Any other way of looking at it is ceding power to foreign states and parties.

I know the thought of that gives liberals a chubby, but the rest of us are more interested in securing the country first.

Does the government make mistakes? Of course it does. If given the choice between unduly incarcerating a foreign combatant and risking American lives, thanks, but I'll choose to lock up the foreign combatant.

As far as torture or degrading punishment goes, those are now, obviously, pretty loose terms. And don't blame conservatives for it. If you're going to dumb down torture to mean anything at all, then the term is void of meaning. Let's try it another way, if incarceration is considered torturous and degrading (and prove that there's no way it couldn't be considered that; SEE: Japanese, troops, surrender) then exactly what kind of punishment or detainment isn't torture?

Ununiformed combatants don't get those kinds of rights as the Purple Avenger is alluding. The reason should be obvious: ununiformed combatants increase the odds of civilian deaths. To treat them as no more heinous than a uniformed soldier is foolish and stupid.

The problem with the Purple Avenger's argument is that the entire category of "terrorist" registers as a null in the hivemind of the left. It's almost like it simply doesn't exist. Distinctions about wearing uniforms and deliberately killing civilians are simply not part of the equation. So the answer is simple: ALL of it applies to terrorists because terrorists are people, too. And if that makes the world less safe, bully for it. We've got our self-righteousness to uphold.

[Somber]

I felt like banging my head against the wall after reading comments like the one written by yyy. Utter stupidity. The people on the right are interested in protecting America, while the people on the left, for the most part, are interested in being diplomatic and politically correct, and would even go as far as arguing that the US Constitution applies to terrorists as well.

Might as well start pointing your ass in the air five times a day, yyy. Your new islamic overlords will embrace you with open arms (after they severe your head from your body).

[yyy]

Again, your premise starts with the assumption that government gets it right, that whomever the gov. says IS a terrorist IS a terrorist, which of course isn't true.

What about the Seattle surgeon who the FBI repeatedly said was in Madrin for the Madrid bombing and that his fingerprints were on the bag and that there were suspicious spanish documents in his house [his kids spanish homework] AND the FBI stuck to this view until the Spanish goverment went public that their experts said the fingerprints did NOT match and that they could find NO EVIDENCE THE MAN WAS EVER IN SPAIN.

This does not give me confidence that anyone including myself as an American citizen has a chance in hell should we get on the wrong list or get suspected of being a terrorist...

AT least if the process is somewhat transparent and some type of due process is provided then there is hope that the innocent person can be found and released, cloaking everything in secrecy means that the innocent person wrongly detained has no chance.

What do you think allowed Nazi Germany to thrive? What allowed a country where HALF of the people voted against Hitler to close their eyes to what their country turned into.

Fear. Fear mongering. Scape goating. Incitement to racial and religious hatred. Onerous laws. Loyalty Oaths and secret police.

Every step we take down that path is a step in the wrong direction.

Read the posts on this blog alone...muslim filth? the college kid at UCLA should have been taken out and shot...if you aren't with us leave the country...

This is exactly what the Nazi's did, how they talked and how they got it all going.

If I even believed that everyone at Gitmo was really a foreign combatant then I would be much less worried, but I don't believe it for a minute, my guess is probably half of them are innocent of anything but having enemies or being in the wrong place at the wrong time...

Given the fact that this administration was certain of WMD in Iraq when there were none, certain of centrifuges and mobile weapons units when there were none...I have ZERO confidence that anyone can tell an enemy combatant from a Halloween reveler.

[jummy]

"burn them out" she says by way of offering an alternative...