Supporting Secret Arrests

A federal appeals court ruled today that the Justice Department does not have to reveal the names of hundreds of post-Sept. 11 detainees. The ruling explicitly deferred to the wisdom of the White House.

"America faces an enemy just as real as its former Cold War foes, with capabilities beyond the capacity of the judiciary to explore," wrote U.S. Circuit Judge David B. Sentelle. He said judges are "in an extremely poor position to second-guess the executive's judgment in this area of national security."

If not the judicial branch, or (heaven forbid) the public, then who is in a good position to monitor the feds?

Comments

[joe]

Does the fact the Reuters didn't name the court make them flagrantly incompetent, or is this suspicious?

[dude]

Well, guess the feds have pretty much a blank check on secret arrests, at least until the Supreme Court weighs in. If you say "national security" to a court, they will almost always fold. Has been going on for quite a while actually. Pretty scary if you have an administration that is really willing to push the envelope on this sort of thing.

[Matt Welch]

Whoops! Meant to link to the AP story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5148-2003Jun17.html

[Jough]

'just can't believe people are so cynical to not take self-examination by government seriously...

Weren't the 90's wonderful?

[Victorrostoff]

One of the real fallouts of the war on terror is acceptance of govt. secrecy, and judicial abdication of review of the legislative and executive branches in "national security" matters. It sounds cliche, but those propagating terror are, in rendering our govt. much less transparent and our democracy much less effective, winning their war.

[SM]

Isn't David Sentelle one of those weird right wing judges ? Seem to recall hearing his name in context of the impeachment.

[Warren]

I'm sure we all feel safer knowing the Feds can lock up anyone they want and throw away the key. You know, without all the red tape involved in showing probable cause, like having to know their name.

[Anonymous]

My name is locked up terrorist. I look great in an orange suit.

[Plutarck]

Well, it's not such a big deal, really. I'm sure something awful won't happen and the power ends up being abused or innocent people get locked up, or anything; surely we won't ever have an administration that will use these powers to take out political enemies in the future, right?

Naaaahhh...who needs oversite, really?

[Kevin Carson]

Right on, dude!

When it comes to dealing with the elective dictators we call "wartime presidents," the Supreme Court's response has always been to bend over and grease up.

[Glenn C]

"If not the judicial branch, or (heaven forbid) the public, then who is in a good position to monitor the feds?"
Congress? Checkout Article I. That may even be why there are Oversight Committees. Just a thought.

[bomb bomb]

Hey Kevin, at least the Supreme Court gets to grease up. The rest of us just have to take it dry.

Glenn, Congress could do it. But will they? So far, Congress does not seem to be all that interested in reigning in the Administration's grab for power.

[John A.]

We need these provisions because it makes us safer and our country stronger. Are you for the terrorists?

[Glenn C]

Bomb bomb:
Will Congress do it? Probably not, but it _is_ their job, not the Judicial branch's. Oversight happens when people care enough to pressure their Representatives. Case in point is the upcoming WMD hearings. Yes, they will be held initially behind closed doors. But Congress will be exercising its oversight duty, and we all know anything juicy in a partisan sense will be leaked.

[bomb bomb]

John, the changes that you speak of are a victory for the terrorists. The terrorists that attacked us are not big fans of free societies. Any time we remove some of our freedoms for the sake of safety, chalk one up for terrorists.

There are many nations that are a lot less free than the U.S. that suffer from terrorist violence, among them China and Russia. (I don't really think of Russia as a free society yet.) Prohibiting freedom does not make these nations safer, their enemies just get craftier, and meaner.

Sure, most of the additional powers the Feds now have are aimed at non-citizens of the U.S. But how much longer before the Feds start to apply these rules to U.S. citizens? Will the courts or congress tell the Executive branch that no, you can't do that? Probably not, as long the Feds claim they need the power to fight terrorism.

My question is, when is enough enough?

[bomb bomb]

Glenn, excellent points sir. Hopefully Congress will do their jobs. And hopefully we will do ours.

Let us do our jobs too. Keep the pressure on Congress, lets keep this country free.

[fast and furious 3]

fast and furious 3 http://fastandfurious.order.gb.com on 09.09. 2004 02:09:49 by Buy http://buy.order.gb.com

[Bailey Jake]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.top-penis-enlargement-pills.net/
DATE: 12/09/2003 09:50:18
Unusual ideas can make enemies.

[Badanes Matt]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://sex.sexmuch.com
DATE: 01/09/2004 03:21:15
It's safer to play with a man's wife than with his cliches.

[Segar Karen]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 210.18.158.254
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/19/2004 11:44:33
Seekers of truth invariably turn to lies.