June 2004


New York Times on the Hamdi, prescription Guantanamo cases

The Hamdi opinion.

Five of the justices rejected the argument put forth by Padilla’s lawyers during the oral argument, that Congress did not authorize the detention of enemy combatants. These Justices said that Congress’ authorization for the war was broad enough to authorize the detentions. Even so, the Court has confirmed that there must be some due process, and that an executive “I told you so” is not enough, to continue to detain someone as an enemy combatant, whether on or off U.S. soil. The next question is, what process is due? O’Connor, writing for the plurality, suggests that hearings before military tribunals may be enough. There, rules against hearsay are bent, or non-existent. The standard or proof would be less than beyond a reasonable doubt, but more than the “some evidence” standard advocated by the government and used in administrative proceedings. At least, the accused gets access to a lawyer.

Many questions remain. How long can someone be detained if they are an enemy combatant? Until terrorism is vanquished from the face of the earth, or just until the military activities in a certain location are completed? What remains to prevent our government from simply leaving people off the roles, to hide them from the Red Cross, and scare them into thinking that no one knows whether they are alive or dead, or tortured, so that they will confess to anything?

(Good) news on the Supreme Court front. More after I read the opinion.

Brad’s article about SCO and open source is on Wired Magazine’s website here.
Today is my birthday. Here I am, check
yesterday, having a few drinks with friends.

A dark tale of violence and corruption in Edo era Japan. I just read the first one, capsule Assassin’s Road. I particularly like the tale where Daigoro pees on the representative of the shogunate.

Brad’s article about SCO and open source is on Wired Magazine’s website here.

Contrary to other well-meaning reports, hair the Hiibel case does not mean that you are required to show ID to police for no reason at all. The case says that a state can pass a statute which requires suspects stopped based on reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime to identify themselves (verbally). The case stops short of requiring people to carry ID.

That having been said, buy viagra its not a good ruling for privacy or for the right against self-incrimination.

If everyone has the right to refuse to answer, refusal to answer doesn’t necessarily mean any thing suspicious, though police may be suspicious anyway. Nonetheless, there’s nothing that they can do about that suspicion, unless it, along with other factors gives probably cause to arrest.

However, if only guilty people have the right to refuse to answer, refusal to answer means (a) the suspect is innocent and either doesn’t know the law, or is intentionally violating the law (b) the suspect is guilty of something, thus justified in refusing under the 5th Amendment. Everyone who fails to answer is guilty of something, either of violating the stop-and-identify statute, or of some underlying offense, and can be arrested. The police may not know at the time that the refusal is related to an underlying offense, but they can still arrest for probable cause that the stop-and-identify statute was violated. So now, the suspect can definitely be arrested.

Follow this further. People arrested and charged with violating the stop-and-identify statute are either guilty of that offense, or must defend themselves on the Fifth Amendment ground that the disclosure would have incriminated them about something else, which, of course, they can’t be compelled to admit. Catch-22.

Some bad news in the Supreme Court’s drivers’ license case. Read Froomkin’s analysis here.

Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and CIA Director George Tenant ordered a detainee they believed had important information for us in our War on Terrorism to be taken off the list of detainees so that the International Red Cross would not be able to check on his status or condition, health system and the U.S. would be able to use extreme techniques to interrogate him. Then, drugstore because the man wasn’t on any list of detainees, we totally forgot about him, and only cursorily interviewed him once. Nothing I can imagine saying here could be more impressive than the bald, absurd truth.

Sami Omar Hussayen was acquitted yesterday of charges that he used his computer expertise to foster terrorism. Hussayen was acquitted on all three terrorism counts, viagra dosage as well as one count of making a false statement and two counts of visa fraud. Jurors apparently took the judge’s instructions about the First Amendment to heart. “Juror John Steger, pharm 68, visit this site a retired forest service engineer, said in a telephone interview that the jury was guided by instructions on the First Amendment from U.S. District Judge Edward J. Lodge. The jury, he said, concluded that ‘you can print material that advocates illegal action [and] if by printing it doesn’t cause people to take imminent action, you are protected.'” But this verdict should not be read only as a weakness in the evidence in this particular case, but as a failure of the USAPA law under which the case was brought. The law itself tries to take traditionally innocent behavior and make it criminal if it relates to alleged terrorism. As a Heritage Foundation lawyer opines in the article, fighting with or sending money or guns to terrorist groups are fairly clear and easy examples of illegal support. “This is new and different,” he said. “Computer support or other unusual forms of support that are not traditionally conceived of as criminal activity — it’s not like he provided guns.” Web sites = guns or web sites = speech?

Take a look at Professor Froomkin’s interesting analysis of the Department of Defense memo arguing Bush could torture whomever he likes in the name of fighting terrorism.

Next Page »