Two cases related to the Guantanamo Bay detainees and their treatment are making their way through the court system now and may be reviewed by the Supreme Court soon.
The first, Jose Padilla v. John Yoo, was the subject of Michael’s article this morning.
The second case is being heard (or maybe not, see below) by the D.C. Circuit Court and may well move to the Supreme Court next term.
Salim Ahmed Hamdan is a Yemeni national who, intelligence officials say, served as a driver for Osama bin Laden. He was detained by Afghan forces in November 2001 and held with other suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay.
In 2006, his case (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld) was heard by the Supreme Court, which ruled that the system of military tribunals created by Congress was unconstitutional because it did not properly follow the Geneva Convention. The present case is unrelated to the first; the only common feature is that it features the same petitioner. (more…)
The Supreme Court is done hearing cases for this season. But the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion yesterday that may be reviewed by the Supremes in the future. The case is Jose Padilla v. John Yoo.
If those names ring a bell, it’s with good reason. Jose Padilla is the American citizen dubbed the “dirty bomber”, for his arrest, on suspicion of plotting a radiological bomb attack, almost exactly ten years ago, on May 8, 2002. John Yoo was a member of the George W. Bush Administration Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, where he gained notoriety as the author of the “Torture Memos”, which provided a legal argument that “enhanced interrogation” was legally distinct from “torture” as described in the Convention Against Torture. (more…)
Today marks a year since the death of Osama bin Laden, the patron and leader behind the attacks of September 11, 2001. At the risk of politicizing those events, let’s look into how those events have been, well, politicized.
From the beginning, the Bush Administration in particular, and the Republican Party in general, have used the al Qaeda attacks for political advantage. On May 1, 2003, President Bush took a victory lap, in an immense staged event on an aircraft carrier, proclaiming that “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” Of course, they hadn’t ended, and things went so badly so quickly that in 2007 the Bush Administration had to engage in a massive “surge” to make up for the disaster of the Iraq war. It was not until August 31, 2010, that a different president, Barack Obama, could honestly declare an end to combat operations in Iraq.
There is a pattern here, not only of Republicans politicizing national security issues, but of President Obama cleaning up foreign policy messes left by President Bush. The response of the Republican Party has been to further politicize these events, and attempt to minimize the successes that Obama had but that Bush couldn’t achieve. (more…)
Editor’s Note: Logarchism occasionally features guest articles by our loyal readers. Here, Armchair Warlord provides his take on the meaning of the September 11 attacks.
It was very hard for me to write this article. My generation has, for better or worse, become inured to the massive tragedies that have played out across the world’s television screens on a yearly basis for our entire adult lives. The terror attacks on September 11 were one of many horrors of recent years — prominent but, with the last ten years’ of perspective, by no means unique. There have been many terror attacks since then, some of them almost as deadly. There have been natural disasters that have laid waste to entire regions of the world. After a while you learn to absorb the shock as a survival mechanism. But when your reaction to catastrophe is to grit your teeth and carry on, it makes it hard to write something stirring and eloquent.
The date has a special place in our consciousness, though. (more…)
This is the third article in a series this week on the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.
It is almost 10 AM Eastern time on Tuesday, September 11, 2001.
Two planes have been deliberately crashed into the World Trade Center. American flight 11 out of Boston strikes the North Tower at 8:45 AM. With the whole world transfixed by the drama in New York, wondering if this is a horrible accident or a deliberate act, the definitive answer is not long in arriving. United flight 175, also out of Boston, strikes the South Tower at 9:03 AM. American flight 77 strikes the Pentagon at 9:43 AM.
Jeremy Glick, a passenger aboard doomed United 93, has called his wife, Lyz. She is staying with her parents in upstate New York. State Police are on another line with Jeremy’s mother-in-law: Does he know where the plane is headed? He’s not sure, but he thinks they’ve changed direction. In fact, the plane is headed to the District of Columbia. To this day, no one knows which building was the terrorists’ intended target.
Lyz relates to Jeremy the scene on her parents’ TV, the twin towers on fire, soon to collapse.
As so many did, facing down death that day, his message to his wife is one of agape love, of affirmation and strength.
Lyz: You need to be strong.
Jeremy: I need you to be happy, and I will respect any decisions that you make.
Then he tells her something that is not often reported, that didn’t make it into the movie, that we as Americans don’t talk about, but we should. (more…)
This is the second article in a series this week on the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.
In the 1990s, I was a road warrior. I spent as much time in airports and on airplanes as I did pretty much anything else during my working hours. And I carried a Swiss Army knife in my carry-on bag, along with my laptop, because it’s a very handy tool for the random things that life throws you.
That, along with many other things, changed on September 11, 2001.
Today, no knives of any kind (even butter knives). We are restricted from carrying most liquids and gels. We take our shoes off and have those scanned. We are subjected to body scans that are an affront to our modesty and may well be carcinogenic. We wait in longer security lines at the airports. We are denied boarding if our names are too similar to those who are believed to wish ill on our nation. And we’re told that all of this makes us safer.
But are we appreciably safer with all of these changes?