A Secretly Detained American Has Asked for a Lawyer – But Gov Won’t Give Him One

https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/detention/trump-administration-just-admitted-secretly-detained-american-has

by gehwartzen • 9 years ago

211 65 9 years ago

This is a crime that violates the 5th and 6th amendments, and we should be arresting and prosecuting those who gave the order to violate this man's constitutional rights.

Are our rights worth less than the paper they are written on?

rarec• 9 years ago

Rights are only worth what people are willing to fight for. However, as most people don't care, rights for most are just ideas.

jhkdwbkjlf• 9 years ago

Most ppl didn't care/do anything when the previous Nobel Prize winning guy droned an American and his son (and other crimes). Why should ppl care now about this if the guys doing it are quite honest in their contempt for the rule of law? Say what you will about DJT, but he's quite honest (mostly 'cause he can't control the diarrhea from his mouth).

If one is unwilling to raise one's voice for political expediency reasons when the "good guys" are doing "bad" things then all this hoopla about this admin pulling back const. protections is a bit of a laugh, aint it?

Angostura2• 9 years ago

Except of course that people that the ACLU and others absolutely did raise their voices about the targeting of Anwar al-Awlaki. Indeed there was quite a lot of legal back and forth about its legality.

Personally, I see pragmatic difference. It is easily within the within the U.S' capabilities to give this person a lawyer. It's not clear how the U.S would have bought Anwar al-Awlaki to justice for the crimes that he was proud of committing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

volgo• 9 years ago

It case it wasn't clear, the "Nobel Prize winning guy" was Obama

jsmthrowaway• 9 years ago

Say what you will about DJT, but he's quite honest

Yeah, uh, no.

ajmurmann• 9 years ago

What makes this even more annoying is that people making these decisions will not be held personally responsible. Instead the government (aka "all US citizens and tax payers") will have to pay for this. There are people undermining our democracy and they likely will get away with a fraction of the punishment a petty criminal gets. To me this kind of behavior should be prosecuted tougher than murder.

Edit: typo pretty -> petty

wfo• 9 years ago

This is a crime that violates the 5th and 6th amendments, and we should be arresting and prosecuting those who gave the order to violate this man's constitutional rights.

Funny. They can get in line behind John Yoo, J. Edgar Hoover, Henry Kissinger and thousands of others. They'll have to pull Yoo away from the prestigious appointment at UC Berkeley he got as a reward for his crimes, strip the name Hoover got to place on the FBI building for his, and take away the adoration and respect murderous war criminal Kissinger gets from politicians of all stripes first.

There has been an argument going on for some time about whether or not the domestic legal system is capable of handling terrorism cases -- cases have recently been prosecuted in civil courts like the Boston Bombing, etc. Perhaps it's time to think about whether or not the domestic legal system is capable of handling crimes committed by the powerful (rich, politically powerful, etc). The answer is obviously no, but what could we do to make it so? Would that be good?

nasredin• 9 years ago

Do you think Mueller indictments and guilty pleas contradict you?

These are powerful people who had to go to court just like an average person.

thisacctforreal• 9 years ago

Great on the ACLU for making progress :)

YouAreGreat• 9 years ago

Enemy combatant "held without charges" sounds a lot like any vanilla prisoner of war.

So they took in some POWs, one says "no, wait, I'm really one of you, just kidding about the shooting and stuff" and the military needs some time to figure out whether normal rules of war apply in this case. Hard to get too worked up over this, if you ask me.

rtpg• 9 years ago

I undrestand that there's a good amount of carve outs for wartime stuff.

However, if there's any doubt about whether they even belong in the "enemy combatant" category, it seems pretty basic to allow them their attorney. Otherwise the gov't could claim you're an enemy combatant every time they want to take your rights away, and then lock you up forever.

Sure, eventually it will be overturned, but if the gov't just wants you in there for a bit then that's enough.

There's perhaps a more ambitious argument to be made here about the AUMF, what is actually a war, the classification of ISIS as such, etc. But good luck making that argument in this environment

morganvachon2• 9 years ago

"Otherwise the gov't could claim you're an enemy combatant every time they want to take your rights away, and then lock you up forever."

Which is exactly what the judge in this case is afraid of:

Judge Chutkan recognized how dangerous the government’s claims are.

“The government could snatch any U.S. citizen off the street and hold them as an enemy combatant… for as long as it took to come to some ‘final disposition,’” she posited. “That kind of unchecked power is, quite frankly, frightening.”

rajacombinator• 9 years ago

It’s an American citizen, not an enemy combatant. But sure, not worth getting worked up over - the concept of rights under the American empire is laughable.

_0ffh• 9 years ago

No, not at all! The US doesn't give it's "detainees" official POW status because, POWs actually got rights, too! So they are held without legal basis or recourse. That's all fine and dandy, as far as foreigners are concerned. Except, of course, that USians are special and have special rights, so it's bad to treat them the same way.

Reminds me of when a USian was droned in 2011. Suddenly there's an outcry in the US! Never mind that guy was probably more guilty than hundred-thousands of other victims of the US "bringing peace and democracy".

Fishman343• 9 years ago

The key word you used here is "probably". No-one will ever know because he was vaporized before anyone got a chance to assess the situation. This is why we have trials.

colinb• 9 years ago

Isn't the whole point of "enemy combatant" that it allows people to be held in a state not governed by national, or international law or treaty? "PoW" has actual meaning, rules, treaties etc.

Or they could be treated like a criminal, but that would give them a lawyer, due process and so on.

I think that the US, and most western European governments still shy away from torturing PoWs or criminals. "Enemy combatants" however, are the dixie cups of modern policy. Fill 'em up, suck 'em dry, and throw the crumpled remains in the trash. All with a clear conscience.

pessimizer• 9 years ago

Enemy combatant "held without charges" sounds a lot like any vanilla prisoner of war.

This is a convenience because war is chaotic, and prisoners of war could be held near the front, where people have more pressing duties than to worry about the comfort of prisoners that they only took out of a sense of civility (above some minimal consensus standard.) Once prisoners are away from the front, and resources are available, there's no reason why a prisoner of war should be any different from any other prisoner.

When this treatment becomes "the normal rules of war" and active for years on end, nowhere near a front, it has become a rationalization and a loophole.

krapp• 9 years ago

Unless the US has declared war on itself, the capture of an American POW by the US seems contradictory in principle, and should make any American at least a bit uncomfortable.

If it's difficult to consider whether or not the rules of war apply in this case, then maybe that's because the war being waged is unjust in its scope or fraudulent in its definition.

maxerickson2• 9 years ago

There's no contradiction of principle, a US citizen can fight against the US in a war without the US having declared war on that individual.

It's happened, some number of US citizens fought for Germany and Japan in World War 2 (and paranoia about it lead to the Japanese internment camps).

IncRnd2• 9 years ago

The reason there are detainees and enemy combatants in addition to POWs is that a POW is someone who was fighting under the banner of another state. If the person isn't wearing a uniform or if they fight for a group that isn't recognized as a state, they are not generally a POW. "Rules of war" apply to POWs in this system.

Roodgorf• 9 years ago

More than two months is quite a bit of time to 'figure things out', even by military standards, and I don't see any good reason to deny him access to a lawyer during that process anyway.

parenthephobia• 9 years ago

The normal rules of war always apply. Famously, that's the point of them. A state isn't allowed to ignore the rules of war if it finds them inconvenient.

The Geneva Conventions are quite clear that PoWs are allowed to communicate with the outside world, subject to militarily necessary censorship. If charged with a crime, they have the right to choose their legal representative.

JshWright• 9 years ago

A state isn't allowed to ignore the rules of war if it finds them inconvenient.

Actually, that's exactly what the government is doing. The convenient thing about the "War on Terror" is that "Terror" isn't a nation, so, by the government's logic, they get to call them "enemy combatants" not "prisoners of war" (avoiding all that pesky Geneva Convention business).

thekaleb• 9 years ago

I'm trying to find the passed Congressional bill for the authorization of use of military force in Syria that would have declared an actual war, but cannot seem to find which bill it was.

wavefunction• 9 years ago

Actually you've got it exactly wrong.

The term 'enemy combatant' was an invented categorization of antagonist during the GW Bush administration to skirt the protections offered by the United States Constitution and the formal rules regarding Prisoners of War, which are of course part of the Geneva Convention to which the US is a signatory.

The rules are pretty specific, and preclude the sort of treatment we've afforded 'enemy combatants.'

https://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/protected-persons/priso...

The reason we call them 'enemy combatants' is so that we can torture them, detain indefinitely contrary to the Constitution of the United States, and hold show trials where we prosecute them for fighting against the US in wars that are certainly illegal from an international standpoint.

ak39• 9 years ago

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/7631...

The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."

cryoshon• 9 years ago

we couldn't keep it because we thought we could just leave it in a corner and do nothing with it

turns out democracy is hard work

geggam3• 9 years ago

Democracy != Republic

They aren't even close to the same

Republic : Rule of Law

Democracy : Rule ( tyranny) of majority

jacquesm• 9 years ago

Why does it even matter te person is American, anybody in detention should have the right to some kind of legal assistance.

sshine• 9 years ago

Because the purpose of a government is to keep its citizens safe, not act as world police.

tgb• 9 years ago

Do you really believe that giving lawyers to people you have already detained is acting as "world police"?

morganvachon2• 9 years ago

The detainee is a citizen and as such is afforded the same protections as any other citizen. By definition, not providing him with an attorney is not keeping him safe.

rayiner• 9 years ago

People dispute what the government “should” do, but when it comes to citizens, there are certain things the government “must” do, regardless of what people think.

tdb7893• 9 years ago

I think everyone should have rights but him being American is significant because most people's impression is that as an American the right to a lawyer is protected by the Bill of Rights to our Constitution and Americans take any violation of the Bill of Rights very very seriously.

1_2__4• 9 years ago

Those protect people not citizens. You’re right that’s not how it’s popularly understood but it’s why we have Gitmo: it’s an attempt to apply a thin veneer of legitimacy by pretending it’s a military proceeding (as if theres exceptions for those in the documents you mentioned) and keeping it as far outside the purview of judicial legal analysis as possible.

MechEStudent• 9 years ago

I don't trust the ACLU. Black lives matter is about the dragon-king of poverty and crime, not police. They don't get that, and so no solution they offer is capable of engaging the root cause. They don't understand because they are unwilling to ask.

dennis_jeeves2• 9 years ago

Incredible, the average HNer here is naive enough to thinks he has 'rights'. Rights are something that governments 'grant' when it is convenient so that citizens do not rebel and can be exploited appropriately. You generally have no protection form the state if they decide to make your life miserable.

jstanley• 9 years ago

Rights aren't granted to you by any government, they're universal, even if you happen to be living under a regime which violates them.

crankylinuxuser• 9 years ago

Hate to break it to you, but this very thing happening is proof of the grandparent.

Unless you have lots of guns and are willing to go to war with $government , you're going to have a very bad time. And even if you armed to the teeth, you still going to have a very bad time, but instead you're shot at.

jadell• 9 years ago

Governments can not "grant" rights, they can only "violate" them.

ringaroundthetx2• 9 years ago

American citizen Enemy combatant and Trump didn’t just drone him?

Wow his guy respects more rights than Obama

Let’s see if he lasts long enough to get a lawyer! Anyone got a prediction market we can bet with?

module0000• 9 years ago

Want to join the ranks of political prisoners? It's really easy, just get worked up and be outspoken about it publicly. You have everything to lose, and nothing to gain. If you must meet about it, do so in secret, not here in front of everyone.

A Secretly Detained American Has Asked for a Lawyer – But Gov Won’t Give Him One

Related Stories