Plea Pressure

Of all the powers claimed by the Bush administration in the war on terrorism, the authority to unilaterally declare someone an "enemy combatant" and lock him up indefinitely may be the creepiest. The administration's defenders say we shouldn't worry, because this power has been used only a couple of times (that we know of). But the case of Iyman Faris, the would-be Brooklyn Bridge saboteur, suggests how this end run around the justice system can have an effect far beyond the people who are officially labeled enemy combatants.

According to The New York Times, "Prosecutors discussed the idea of declaring Mr. Faris an enemy combatant…and that may have influenced his decision to admit guilt to avoid the prospect of indefinite detention." I have no reason to doubt that Faris, who pleaded guilty and faces a 20-year prison sentence, really did discuss the Brooklyn Bridge's vulnerability to blowtorches with members of Al Qaeda. But it's not hard to see how someone who was mistakenly accused of terrorism might choose a finite prison sentence over "enemy combatant" limbo.

The only protection against this danger is the Justice Department's ability to distinguish the bad guys from people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Given the FBI's handling of immigrants who were detained in connection with the 9/11 investigation, infallibility on this score may be too much to expect.

Comments

[Anonymous]

We are at war folks:

Vice President Dick Cheney said the United States must continue to aggressively pursue terrorists. "The only way to deal with this threat ultimately is to destroy it," he said in a speech.

"There's no treaty can solve this problem," Mr. Cheney said. "There's no peace agreement, no policy of containment or deterrence that works to deal with this threat. We have to go find the terrorists."

Never forget it:

"When I interviewed over 100 Hamas activists and all leadership, I was quite astonished because everyone told me that an Islamic state would begin about the years 2022 or 2023," he said. "I asked them, `What are the conditions?' They said: `Life after Yasir Arafat. Islamic revolution in Jordan and Egypt. Time and demography are on our side.'"

[Hank]

Hmmmm... indefinate detention, secret arrests...

Enemy Combatant = Political Prisoner.

Stalin anyone?
Mao?
Saddam?

"Don't cry for me Argentina!"

[Anonymous]

I can just picture Richard Dawson now...

"We interviewed 100 Hamas activists and got their reponse to this..."

[Anonymous]

hmmmm,

political prisoner = guy who would blow you and your family up because the color of your skin and your non-muslim beliefs

[thoreau]

The comment "I trust George Bush because he's a man of God" is a sentiment I've also noticed from some quarters. I have a friend who's a member of a very fundamentalist church, but he's also very skeptical in political matters (some here might say it's a contradiction, but it works for him and he's one of my best friends).

Anyway, he's encountered a lot of that attitude among fundamentalist Christians. I also remember watching Joel Mowbray (conservative commentator) on one of those cable news shows, and at some point he started talking about what a great man our President is, how his Christian faith is so important in providing leadership. Now, whatever you think of Bush, public displays of piety are no reason to swoon over him. Even the Bible even warns against people who pray for all to see "Like the hypocrites do".

[Gilbert Martin]

"According to the New York Times..."

That much is all I need to know to skip over the rest, since that liberal rag has never once actually been an authority on anything in the entire history of it's existence.

[democratic underground]

"We are at war folks" untrue, this terrorism jive is just made up by the neocons and bush to oppresss us.

[Anonymous]

You are a fool. I pity you.

THERE WILL BE NO PEACE WITH TERROR.

[Brad S]

"We are at war, folks."

Oh, really. Funny, I don't remember Congress ever making such a declaration. And, if you neo-Cons care to recall, there's a document called the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED FUCKING STATES that says that authority to declare war rests within the Congress.

Sheesh.

[Anonymous]

Sorry Brad, but Congress did give Prez authority to fight war on terror.

But I do like your solution to fighting terrorism -
slowly wave silver chain back & forth & repeat "there are no terrorists, there are no terrorists"

[Brad S]

In a war, there is a defined enemy. Who is the defined enemy here? "Terrorists", which can broadly be defined as anyone the current administration doesn't like. That's the problem. Bush and his cronies have a blank check these days to go after anyone who they deem to be a "terrorist", whether or not that title is appropriate for that individual or not. Neo-Cons - wait until a Liberal president gets into office and uses some of the same provisions (Patriot Act, etc) that Bush has been using to go after his/her detractors. Then you'll realize how badly Bush and company have f**ked things up for all of us.

[Anonymous]

Vote for President Brad - he'll use the power of rhetoric to save us from the islamofascists.

[democratic underground]

brad is right, there are no terrorists, and that neocon facist bush and the zionists were the ones really behind sept. 11 - that is if sept. 11 even happened (remember, the right owns the media, all you saw on TV was what they wanted to see)

aganistitan, patriot and iraq were just excuses to give power to the corporations.

[bomb bomb]

Mr Anon, just when did Congress give the Prez the authority to fight a "War on Terror"? They did give him the authority to use force in Iraq if need be, but I don't remember them giving him the authority to wage a war on terror. Please correct me if I am wrong.

When I say please correct me, I mean just that. Give me the day congress voted to give the prez that authority.

Something else for you to chew on Mr. Anon. America is a relatively free country. And we have been hit, and hit hard. But, many other nations are a lot less free than us, where the police and government are up your ass all the time have quite the problem with terrorism too. The greater police powers in those nations have not saved them.

So, what do we get for giving back some of our rights? Less freedom, and we still get blown up.

Ya know, one of the reasons these fucks attack us is they hate our freedoms. Doesn't make any sense to me to become more like them.

[joe]

Um, if "Congress did give Prez authority to fight war on terror." And the invasion of Iraq was part of the war on terror...

...Why did Bush need another resolution to invade Iraq? C'mon, trollers, what's wrong with this picture?

[Craig]

Even if we take it as a given that the power to declare someone an enemy combatant has not been abused to date, that doesn't mean that said power should not have a defined process, with accordant checks and balances.

The potential for abuse of such a power is very high, if it has no restraints other than the whim of the prosecutor(s).

The US system is full of checks and balances for good reason; it would be foolish in the extreme to have none in regards to this.

[Anonymous]

dios mio, so tedious but here goes:

One Hundred Seventh Congress of the
United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and one

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

[Brad S]

demo underground - the point is not that terrorism doesn't exist. Nice straw man argument.

The point is that there have been checks and balances against Executive Branch power in place for as long as our nation has existed (there were very valid reasons why our Founding Fathers saw the need for this). For some inexplicable reason, we, as Americans, are today perfectly willing to let these checks and balances - not to mention other Constitutional protections on individual rights - slide without even batting an eyelash.

[Anonymous]

Brad - you would be well advised to stop parroting rhetoric you have heard or read and actually inform yourself about what laws, etc. have been passed.

[bomb bomb]

Thank you Mr. Anon, I stand corrected. Sorry to make you work so hard 🙂

Please think upon this though, as the govt grabs more and more power, it is harder and harder for us, the citizens, to reign them in. And every succeeding Administration will be sorely tempted to expand upon those powers in the name of national security.

Brad, methinks many Americans have become like the citizens(subjects?) of many other nations. They don't want to take care of themselves, they want the gubmint to do it for them. The gubmint and those vampiric beings some call lawyers.

[Anonymous]

http://www.drudgereport.com/coulter.htm

---
The myth of 'McCarthyism' is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times," Coulter pounds. "Liberals are fanatical liars, then as now. Everything you think you know about McCarthy is a hegemonic lie."

"Liberals denounced McCarthy because they were afraid of getting caught, so they fought back like animals...

"McCarthy was not tilting at windmills. Soviet spies in the government were not a figment of right-wing imaginations. He was tilting at an authentic Communist conspiracy that had been laughed off by the Democratic Party."

[joe]

I used to hate Joe McCarthy, but now that I know Ann Coulter vouches for him...

[Brad S]

I read the Patriot Act. Okay, actually, I read about half of it, because that was just about all I could stomach.

[Anonymous]

Shit, I knew I should have signed my postings.

**I'm the Anon in all the other above postings - but please don't think I would quote or link to Eva B. Coulter

[Lucas Wiman]

"That much is all I need to know to skip over the rest, since that liberal rag has never once actually been an authority on anything in the entire history of it's existence."

That's quite an assertion. What about when, for example, they and the Washington Post broke the pentagon papers story. At that point they were the biggest civilian authorities on the Nixon administration's policy in Cambodia. Then they proceeded to fight and win a supreme court case when Nixon tried to gag them.

This sort of vague NYT bashing is stupid and pointless.

That said, at this point, it does make sense to regard NYT anonymous sources with some skepticism.

[Warren]

The notion that dropping bombs on weak (read; sans WMD) countries and locking up disenfranchised individuals (indefinitely, without due process) makes us safer is BS. In fact that kind of sloppy law enforcement only makes things worse by breeding hate and discontent.

[Anonymous]

Oh! That's why they hate us! Now I get it!

[Anonymous]

WTF? What kind of weak moral equivalency is that? You think this is our fault? They already hate us through no fault of our own. Here's a hint: Blame the terrorists and evil doers, not US.

[Warren]

There's plenty of evil to go around. Given our ongoing support of Israel and our corruption of the House of Saud (and other Arab states) it is absurd to claim "They already hate us through no fault of our own."

[Anonymous]

Warren's in the house, guess it's back to those Jews!

[Warren]

Well not ALL Jews, just the ones the murder and oppress innocent Palestinians... and you and me of course for buying the helicopters and rockets that they do it with.

[thoreau]

To follow-up on Warren's comment:

I completely agree that disregarding Constitutional limits will NOT make us safer. In fact, if you really think about it, you'll realize that the Constitutional limits set down by the Founders would actually make us SAFER from terrorists.

If the police simply have the power to indiscriminately spy on people, check out their library records, etc., then they aren't in hot pursuit of likely suspects, they're just flailing about randomly.

The burdens of due process and probable cause were intended to make the police do their homework, to make sure they're going after plausible leads rather than flailing about at targets that turn out to be dead-ends. Remember: the time that the cops spend checking out your library records is time that could have been spent wire-tapping people with documented Al Qaeda ties (after obtaining a warrant from a judge based on probably cause).

[bomb bomb]

Warren, some terrorists hate us and will attack us through no fault of our own. They just fucking hate us 'cause we are on top.

Of course, some terrorists hate us for what we have done. Whether what we have done is right or wrong is immaterial, what matters is we did it, and they hate us for it.

Some hate us for who we support.

Some hate us because of religious reasons.

Some hate us because our culture is so appealing to the young of their nations and or tribes or clans or whatever.

There are many reasons they hate us, almost as many as there are terrorist groups who would attack us.

[Anonymous]

here we go again: more beautiful rhetoric based on some far off galaxy. The police do not simply have the power to indiscriminately spy on people, check out their library records, etc. so they in fact do have the time to spend wire-tapping people with documented Al Qaeda ties.

[tonio-k]

anon, they don't? do tell. do tell.

[Jacob]

For what it's worth, I went to college with Eric Lichtblau (who wrote the New York Times story), and we worked on the school paper together. He has always struck me as a careful and conscientious reporter. He did not assert that the possibility of an "enemy combatant" designation definitely was a factor in the plea agreement, only that it was discussed and may have played a role, "according to a lawyer who demanded anonymity." In any case, it's certainly plausible that the prospect of indefinite confinement without charge or trial would encourage a guilty plea, in this and future cases.

[Anonymous]

Tonio-k - go do your homework.

[Warren]

thoreau,
Well said. Thanks for articulating the point (I got off it myself).

bomb bomb,
Don't buy it, there just aren't that many wackos who hate us "'cause we are on top" and the few (if any) there are aren't bright enough and certainly not organized enough to pull off a 9/11. All the meddling we have been and are doing in the Mid East is what causes such wide spread hatred for the US, and not without reason. We actually are supporting the terrorist activities of Israel. We actually do have our troops stationed there. We actually do enable corrupt, oil producing, Arab governments to continue oppressing their own people. We should stop doing those things.

But the point is: When terrorists do attack, it doesn't matter what motivated them. We should hunt them down and find them, using lawful, constitutionally acceptable methods. And when we capture them we should, try them based on evidence before a jury.

[paleonazi]

it seems they hate us from preventing genocide of the jews, which is what would happen if the arabs liberated palistine.

now i see where warren is coming from. they should hate us! those jews are behind everything bad and must be stopped.

[Anonymous]

To sum up Warren's plan:
1) Allow for the total destruction of Israel
2) Overthrow every dictator in the Middle East so they stop oppressing their people (actually agree with that one)
3) Sit on our asses waiting for terrorists to strike, after they do walk around shouting "I have a search warrant for your arrest, sir. Now please put that gun down"

[Warren]

paleonazi,
I'll type slow and use small words, maybe that will help.

We don't have to stop them, just stop supporting them. The Arabs and Jews have been killing each other since long before we showed up, and will continue long after we leave. We should leave sooner rather than later

[paleonazi]

i agree, stop supporting them. then the arabs will wipe them out. i am with you 100%. that is libertarian, the arabs have a right to do that.

[Warren]

anon,
Not surprising the one you agree with is not what I propose. I don't think we should overthrow anybody. Just stop extending loans, forgiving debts, supplying with foreign aid etc.

[paleonazi]

yes, and that will also result in the destruction of isreal (which is a good thing, given how they oppress arabs and secretly run the world).

[bomb bomb]

Warren, I was not trying to do a break down by numbers. You are right, there are not that many folks who hate us just because of who we are, but there are some.

My point is, which I did not make very clear and I apologize, there are many different groups that may attack us, for many different reasons. Far too many people in this nation, both in the Administration and otherwise, are too focused on Binny and the boys.

We face other threats too. But, damn it, we can face down these threats without destroying our own freedoms in the process.

[Warren]

paleonazi,
You want to support Israel. Good, fine, knock yourself out. Go over and enlist, or start an endowment and raise money. Use the power of the press to win favor for your cause. I just don't like my pocket being picked.

Also, the Arabs haven't whiped out the Jews in a thousand years of trying so I don't think they'll do so in the next ten.

[tonio-k]

is paleo what happens to anon when he does his homework? go back to school young man. and no cookies for you tonight. and no, you can't play your knight rider game anymore. david hasselhoff has a bad influence on you.

[Warren]

bomb bomb,
Ah yes, I see what you are saying.

[thoreau]

I hardly see how a first-world industrialized nation like Israel needs US support to protect itself from less advanced neighbors. Maybe they needed it in 1948, but not now. Still, I have a hunch that my grandkids will be sending tax money to the Middle East. And I'm 26 and nowhere near having kids yet, let alone grandkids, so it's going to be a while before my grandkids start paying taxes.

[paleonazi]

i don't like them being picked either warren! we give lots of dough to other countries, but we shouldn't give a red cent to any damn jews.

and yes luckily the arabs have come very close to liberating palistine in the last 50 years, and with your help and mabye a few nukes we will succeed! (after all, if the US has nukes, then arabs should have them too, equality remember?) we will someday live our dream of a jewfree world!

[paleonazi]

actually they are in US debt because they ran out of money during the Yom kippur war (which cost them a full year of GDP), where the US shamefully gave them money and arms, no doubt because of the jewish cabel that runs the banks and goverment.

and i am not anon! he is obviously a neocon troll! i am a REAL conservative and libertarian, who also hates isreal and all it stands for.

[tonio-k]

rrrrriiiiiiggggghhhhtttttttt. and you go around saying stuff like "arbeit macht spa?" and what not. uh huh. no Baywatch now, either. as we all know that David Hasselhoff is very popular in Germany.

[Brad S]

Jacob - I agree. I can't decide which is scarier: this administration's ability to dream up ways to make an end-run around any sort of checks and balances by the legislative and judicial processes, or the complacency of most Americans with respect to the seemingly unbridled power of the executive branch.

[PG]

The Congressional resolution cited here applies only to military power. I assume no Reason commenters would advocate using the military against civilians.
So where does the president get authority for a war on domestic terrorism, that uses domestic police powers normally controlled by the Bill of Rights?

I agree with those who say that we should pursue terrorists with some sense and not just blind "IT'S WAR! 9/11! ARGH!" We'll end up only with more dead people if we are stupid about this.
If we distance the entire Muslim/Arab community, where will we get useful tips about individuals who are likely terrorists? If people have to worry that any concern expressed to a government agent will end up destroying the life of a person who is supposed to be innocent until provent guilty -- but now, is guilty until proven innocent -- the cost to the innocent and falsely suspected will be seen as greater than any benefit to the innocent eventually killed by true terrorists.

[david f]

hey Brad S!

remember, many americans trust, like, and admire bush, my uncle notes that Bush doesn't even need to follow the constitution on many of his initiatives because "our president is a man of god". makes you wonder how many are willing to give him slack for that or similiar other reasons.

touchdown.

happy friday,
drf

[Anonymous]

Easy to criticize, but what's your alternative? Like the Mob, you don't stand much chance getting anything done playing clean. Except the Mob sticks to killing each other one by one.

PS - "according to the New York Times" doesn't really cut it these days.

[joe]

Indefinite military detention may well be appropriate for terrorists. But who's a terrorist? Who decides? And how do we verify the decision?

[Brad S]

What do you mean what's the alternative? Due process. He's already in custody. Let him have his day in court. If he's found guilty of what he's accused of, throw the book at him.

Good point about the NYTimes. I take anything from that rag with a grain of salt these days too.

[david f]

hey Brad!

taking something a little stronger than a grain of salt makes the NY times even better! (and either way, salt or the stronger stuff ticks off the health nannies! -- BONUS!)

cheers,
drf

[Anonymous]

Point is, due process doesn't always work. Look how Guliani finally got some of the Mob bigs - not by strictly following the law. And I didn't agree with that then, but with that missing 727 and all I'm just not sure what should be done. And no, I don't trust Bush & Ashcroft - just honest enough to admit that the terrorists are not stupid, know how to play our system & I'm worried about "the kids"

[dude]

my uncle notes that Bush doesn't even need to follow the constitution on many of his initiatives because "our president is a man of god".

=:0

That's the scariest thing I've read in a long time. Not that I doubt a lot of people think that way.

[joe]

"Due process" doesn't always mean a criminal trial in a civilian court. US military accused of crimes don't get the full Johnny Cochrain treatment. But there needs to be some kind of fair evidentiary hearing, with opportunity to cross examine, at least.

[Anonymous]

Dude, you are such traitors. I hope you go down with that faggot bitch cunt Faris. Why are you even trying to defend such shitfuck terrorists? The only way to beat them is to scare the fucking balls off them shit niggers.

[WLC]

Thank you, anon. Both ends of the evolutionary scale on this thread (based on a quote--I can't remember the source)

[James]

Going back to the cliche well, does the end justify the means? Circumventing the rule of law to obtain a conviction, especially in secrecy, likely suggests that there is little faith in the traditional judicial process to get the conviction. Is this a true lost of faith or a case of national security? One can make a case of the unique situation brought out by the 9/11 attacks, however the 1993 WTC bomber is currently sitting behind bars without the aid of the patriot act. In any event, if traditional judicial processes are failing to get the job done causing the government to play dirty, then we may have another serious problem in America.

[James]

Going back to the cliche well, does the end justify the means? Circumventing the rule of law to obtain a conviction, especially in secrecy, likely suggests that there is little faith in the traditional judicial process to get the conviction. Is this a true lost of faith or a case of national security? One can make a case of the unique situation brought out by the 9/11 attacks, however the 1993 WTC bomber is currently sitting behind bars without the aid of the patriot act. In any event, if traditional judicial processes are failing to get the job done causing the government to play dirty, then we may have another serious problem in America.

[Thomas]

I'd think the scariest--I'm not expert on creepy--power that the Bush administration has claimed is the power to kill people it thinks are terrorists. I mean, we invaded Afghanistan and killed a lot of people without giving them any procedural protections whatsoever.

Now, though I think that's a pretty scary power, I don't think it was abused and I support its use in this case.

Likewise, I think it's pretty scary that we can capture enemy agents, here or abroad, and hold them indefinitely. I don't think it's been abused, and I would have supported its use in the case of Faris, who is clearly, by his own admission, an al qaeda agent.

There are dangers all around.

[Anonymous]

http://billmon.org/archives/000233.html
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB105571287852830100,00.html
http://www.cm1.prusec.com/yardweb.nsf/showfile?readform&f=a_061703.pdf
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB10555470166342600,00.html

[:Bushwick Bill]

There's three types of people in the world
Those who don't know what happened
Those who wonder what happened
And people like us from the streets that MAKE things happen!

[BS]

In the war against terror, there are no civilians. Get used to it.

Outside the US, most people believe the planet recently suffered a massive, bomb-flinging breakdown in the new world order. The news is worse: There never was any order to break down. If the war in Iraq had gone badly for the US, the world would now be staring into an abyss, a pit of lawless, dog-eat-dog mayhem. We need - we really need - a global civil society that isn't made of toffee and chicken wire. Forging it will require new ideas, methods, and technologies, new principles and a new realism. If we can't confront the big issues with real grit, competence, and determination, we've got problems waiting that will make Iraq look like Disneyland.

[Andy]

I think the scariest thing is not locking people up indefinately, nor assassinating anyone they don't like, it's the fact that, as per this weekend, they blew up a convoy and now need to use DNA testing to see who they killed. They didn't actually know before they pulled the trigger.

And people wonder why terrorists hate them?

[bomb bomb]

BS: If there are no civilians in this war, will the gubmint issue me a belt fed? I'll spring for the rounds:-)

[joe]

Y'know, the idea that terrorists hate us because they are homocidal religious fanatic bigots, and the idea that America creates enemies by screwing around in other countries' affairs, are not contradictory.

[Cesare/Bartnicki Nikki]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://.nonstopsex.org
DATE: 12/20/2003 07:19:27
It is never a mistake to say good-bye.