Monday, June 30, 2008
First Successful Appeal of Designation as Enemy Combatant
The federal government experienced its first smackdown by the federal courts, Lewis Carroll style, regarding its ability to classify certain detainees as "enemy combatants." The appeal was brought by Huzaifa Parhat, a Chinese Uighur (yeah, had to look that one up) who, after fleeing China, had been living in a camp in Afghanistan. After a U.S. airstrike on his camp, which was purportedly run by a person affiliated with al Qaeda and/or the Taliban.
Parhat faced the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT), which determined that he should be classified as an enemy combatant. The classification was based on the fact that Parhat was "affiliated" with a Uighar independence group (ETIM) that was "associated" with al Qaeda and the Taliban. The tribunal further cited documents stating that the ETIM was engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, but no supporting evidence beyond the simple assertion was made a part of the record. Parhat contended, and the tribunal did not contradict, that he was not associated with either terrorist group, had gone to Afghanistan solely to join in resistance against China and considered China the enemy, not the US or its allies.
Fast-forwarding through, mostly irrelevant, procedural issues, the Parhat case found itself in front of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The primary issue before the Court was Parhat's assertion that the government failed to show sufficient evidence that the ETIM was "associated" with the aforementioned terrorist organizations.
The government produced reports, mostly classified, upon which it relied in making the determination that the ETIM was an al Qaeda or Taliban-associated organization. Therefore, the information in those reports was entirely redacted from the published opinion. Lastly, the government produced evidence of statements made by another Uighur detainee (and supported by Parhat's own testimony) that the Afghani government (i.e. the Taliban) had given the camp to the Uighur refugees so they could train other Uighur's associated with the Chinese resistance movement.
The tribunal ultimately found that the evidence simply wasn't there to justify labeling Parhat an enemy combatant. The court was concerned with two assertions made by the government. First, the government's argument that the information contained in the documents was reliable because it appeared in three separate documents. The court's response: "Lewis Carroll notwithstanding, the fact that the government has "said it thrice" does not make an allegation true. The court recognized that many of the reports made the same assertions verbatim, indicating that later reports may have merely been citing earlier ones. Additionally, the court did not find unconvincing Parhat's claim that the source for the information was the Chinese government, certainly not an objective source for information regarding the Uighur resistance movement.
The government's second claim was that the information contained in the reports was reliable because it would not have appeared in intelligence reports if it was untrue. The court recognized the danger in this assertion when it found that "This comes perilously close to suggesting that whatever the government says must be treated as true." A scary thought, indeed!
To be clear, the court did not strike down the use of hearsay evidence in these tribunals. It merely held that the government was required to produce "sufficient additional information" permitting the tribunal and the court to determine the reliability of the information. It is important to note that the court recognized that the government could protect the anonymity of its sources and the contents of classified reports by providing the pertinent information directly to the court, rather than turning it over to counsel for the party challenging the classification. This protection is crucial to the government's ongoing anti-terrorism efforts.
I fully support the government's ability to detain enemy combatants, especially when they, or the organizations they are a part of, pose a direct threat to the United States and its interests, but that ability cannot go unchecked. Heck, lock them up at Gitmo and throw away the key, but at least have sufficient justification for it. I don't fear for our domestic security following this ruling, mostly because I trust the court's very narrow ruling and its justifications for the ruling. We are at war with terrorists who would do anything to destroy our country and the freedoms we enjoy as citizens. Substantiating information should not be difficult to produce when it comes to those individuals. Further, the military will continue to have wide latitude in finding and putting down threats to our nation.
Following the Supreme Court's ruling in Boumediene v. Bush, we will surely see a rush of filings from Guantanamo Bay. Just a surely, the courts will find that the detentions are reasonable and justified. A lot of politicians and hot-headed commentators rushed to judgment after the Boumediene ruling and probably will following Parhat. Just because the Supreme Court has permitted the Gitmo detainees to challenge their detention does not mean they are going to be released. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the military quit sending detainees to Gitmo in the future. Holding them abroad where the fighting is going on might allow them to avoid the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts entirely - something future Gitmo detainees would probably not enjoy.
Labels:
court of appeals,
enemy combatant,
Lewis Carroll,
parhat
Friday, June 27, 2008
Republican Hypocrisy
I can't help but laugh at the current state of the Republican Party. It's not enough just to re-introduce the Marriage Protection Amendment, but they had to completely destroy what little credibility the GOP had by allowing Sens. Larry Craig (R - Bathroom Stall) and David Vitter (R - Prostitution Ring) to co-sponsor the damn thing.
Craig was quite publicly arrested for lewd conduct after a toe-tapping incident in an airport bathroom. He pled guilty to the lesser charge of disorderly conduct after hoping to keep the story out of the press. Once the story broke, however, he nearly resigned, then didn't, then blamed the whole thing on a "wide stance." Right, Senator.
My next favorite co-sponsor is Vitter, married to Wendy and father of their four children. In the Summer of 2007, Mr. Vitter, married to was identified as a client of the DC Madam (Deborah Jeane Palfrey). After being confronted with evidence that his phone number was among those on the infamous list, he came clean with his wife by his side to apologize for the sins in his past. You could almost hear Tammy Wynette singing "Stand By Your Man" in the background. Bill Clinton got impeached for a free blowjob but David Vitter gets away with paying for it. God bless capitalism.
Apart from the hypocrisy of these two, the whole "protect marriage" thing bothers me. Conservatives have the insane delusion that that homosexual community is somehow going to destroy the sanctity of marriage in a way straight people haven't already. 50% of marriages end in divorce. Britney Spears was able to marry and annul the marriage before three days had passed. Ted Haggard, Mr. Super-Mega Pastor "just got a massage" from a male prostitute. Reasonable people can differ on this very divisive issue but the Republican Party and most leaders on the conservative right have completely lost any sort of moral authority on this issue.
Craig was quite publicly arrested for lewd conduct after a toe-tapping incident in an airport bathroom. He pled guilty to the lesser charge of disorderly conduct after hoping to keep the story out of the press. Once the story broke, however, he nearly resigned, then didn't, then blamed the whole thing on a "wide stance." Right, Senator.
My next favorite co-sponsor is Vitter, married to Wendy and father of their four children. In the Summer of 2007, Mr. Vitter, married to was identified as a client of the DC Madam (Deborah Jeane Palfrey). After being confronted with evidence that his phone number was among those on the infamous list, he came clean with his wife by his side to apologize for the sins in his past. You could almost hear Tammy Wynette singing "Stand By Your Man" in the background. Bill Clinton got impeached for a free blowjob but David Vitter gets away with paying for it. God bless capitalism.
Apart from the hypocrisy of these two, the whole "protect marriage" thing bothers me. Conservatives have the insane delusion that that homosexual community is somehow going to destroy the sanctity of marriage in a way straight people haven't already. 50% of marriages end in divorce. Britney Spears was able to marry and annul the marriage before three days had passed. Ted Haggard, Mr. Super-Mega Pastor "just got a massage" from a male prostitute. Reasonable people can differ on this very divisive issue but the Republican Party and most leaders on the conservative right have completely lost any sort of moral authority on this issue.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Big Week for the Supremes
Not that many decisions that come down from the Supreme Court aren't important but it seems the Court waited until the last week of the session to release some of the most controversial opinions of the term.
First, on Wednesday, came the ruling in Kennedy v. Lousiana. There, the Court ruled that executing child rapists was a violation of the 8th Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment. I cannot begin to think how difficult it was for the justices to come to this decision and the 5-4 ruling makes that pretty clear. As difficult as it might be, I think I have to side with the majority in this case. The last execution for a crime against another person that did not end in the victim's death was some forty years ago. It's hard to think of a more heinous crime than the rape of a child, but the line has to be drawn somewhere.
Even victims' rights groups are torn over the death penalty for child rapists. The primary argument against the death penalty is that rapists would have no reason to allow their victims to live if they face the death penalty either way. The weaknesses of the capital punishment system are such that death sentences should be imposed rarely, if at all. Don't get me wrong - I think child rapists are the worst of the worst in our society. Let the bastards rot in prison the rest of their miserable lives and not clog the court system with their baseless appeals. The politicians have come out in fierce opposition to the ruling, the Democrats less so than Republicans, but even Barack Obama voiced opposition to the ruling. A tough issue, but I think the Court got it right this time.
Second, in another 5-4 vote, the Court in D.C. v. Heller upheld the right of private citizens to own and keep guns in the privacy of their homes. The original suit was brought by Dick Heller, a security guard, against the registration law adopted by the District of Columbia. The law required that all guns be registered, but prohibited registration of handguns - effectively outlawing private ownership of handguns. The ruling does not outlaw all restrictions on guns and rightly so. States may still require registration of rifles, shotguns and handguns and may require trigger locks or other safety devices. The ruling simply reaffirmed the belief of a majority of the country that the 2nd Amendment absolutely protects the right of private citizens to bear arms.
The ruling will be cheered all throughout the South and Mid-West, but will likely be decried in many big cities. While difficult to interpret the constitution in ways that protect the rights of all, while considering the delicate balance between the many different value systems and conditions across the country, the Court made, in my humble opinion, the right decision to err on the side of individual liberty.
First, on Wednesday, came the ruling in Kennedy v. Lousiana. There, the Court ruled that executing child rapists was a violation of the 8th Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment. I cannot begin to think how difficult it was for the justices to come to this decision and the 5-4 ruling makes that pretty clear. As difficult as it might be, I think I have to side with the majority in this case. The last execution for a crime against another person that did not end in the victim's death was some forty years ago. It's hard to think of a more heinous crime than the rape of a child, but the line has to be drawn somewhere.
Even victims' rights groups are torn over the death penalty for child rapists. The primary argument against the death penalty is that rapists would have no reason to allow their victims to live if they face the death penalty either way. The weaknesses of the capital punishment system are such that death sentences should be imposed rarely, if at all. Don't get me wrong - I think child rapists are the worst of the worst in our society. Let the bastards rot in prison the rest of their miserable lives and not clog the court system with their baseless appeals. The politicians have come out in fierce opposition to the ruling, the Democrats less so than Republicans, but even Barack Obama voiced opposition to the ruling. A tough issue, but I think the Court got it right this time.
Second, in another 5-4 vote, the Court in D.C. v. Heller upheld the right of private citizens to own and keep guns in the privacy of their homes. The original suit was brought by Dick Heller, a security guard, against the registration law adopted by the District of Columbia. The law required that all guns be registered, but prohibited registration of handguns - effectively outlawing private ownership of handguns. The ruling does not outlaw all restrictions on guns and rightly so. States may still require registration of rifles, shotguns and handguns and may require trigger locks or other safety devices. The ruling simply reaffirmed the belief of a majority of the country that the 2nd Amendment absolutely protects the right of private citizens to bear arms.
The ruling will be cheered all throughout the South and Mid-West, but will likely be decried in many big cities. While difficult to interpret the constitution in ways that protect the rights of all, while considering the delicate balance between the many different value systems and conditions across the country, the Court made, in my humble opinion, the right decision to err on the side of individual liberty.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
NFNS: Week 4
So I guess for my first real post I'll kind of repeat and expound upon a reply to a blog post on All About Amber. The 4th season of the Next Food Network Star premiered June 1st and, like last season, I'm pretty disappointed with the selection overall. There must just not be many great culinary minds meant for television.
As of this posting, we're four weeks in and four terrible contestants eliminated. Week 1 saw Cory, the unfunny funny woman, cut because she had zero personality. Week 2 saw Kevin, Mr. Bringing Romance to the Kitchen, cut because the judges couldn't see the romance in crostini or anything else he made. Week 3 saw Jeffrey, the tall, goofy guy, cut because he was plain weird. And this week saw Nipa, who I lovingly refer to as the bitch in the kitchen, eliminated. I thought the judges waited a week too long to cut Nipa since she WALKED OUT of the judging during week 3!
So, here's my personal countdown of the remaining contestants from last to first:
6. Jennifer
Jennifer is a very nice, very personable executive chef from Rhode Island. She has a 3 year old daughter named Lyric (yeah, pretty bad) and she is all mom all the time. Her biggest problem is that she apologizes for everything she does. She apologized to Martha Stewart, to the judges, to everyone. She has a serious lack of self-confidence and is at the top of the list for the chopping block unless she fixes it fast.
5. Adam
Adam is also a really nice guy but he tries too hard to be entertaining. In Week 3 he got down on his knees and serenaded Martha Stewart. In Week 4, the contestants are cooking, Iron Chef America style, on a Coast Guard ship. Adam thought it would be funny to trip (on purpose, mind you) on his way into the dining room. The joke fell as flat as he did. Worse, his only winning dish so far was Bacon Cheese Fries. He's clearly a culinary genius...
4. Shane
Shane is apparently a child actor turned chef. Doing some research I found that he used to be on the cast of the Nickelodeon show from my childhood "All That." I guess the show is still on? In any case, he lost a ton of weight and became a chef. Nothing all that special about him and not my favorite. Since he hasn't done anything spectacular on the show here's a vid of him playing Cupid:
3. Kelsey
It really pains me to put this perky little princess in the top 3. She's had great luck with her food and I think she finally learned to reign in the spunkiness in Week 4. I never would have imagined somebody could combine white chocolate and tilapia into a winning dish (outside of Kitchen Stadium) but Kelsey did it, creating her Macadamia Crusted Tilapia with White Chocolate Buerre Blanc, now being served at Red Lobster.
2. Aaron
Aaron is a bit on the rough side. He grew up in Camden, NJ and is a caterer. After watching a couple of seasons of NFNS, he's the most unrefined so far. His dishes have been big hits and he's very personable in front of the camera. I can't say I'd pick his show over any of my current favorites but he's running strong.
1. Lisa
At first glance, one would think Lisa would be more at home in the pages of Vogue than in the kitchen. Her personality really turned me off the first week, as did her culinary point of view, the infamous "3 C's" - Cooking Education, Community Outreach and Culinary Crafts. WTF? Fortunately, she dropped it by Week 3. She slowly started opening up and finally, in Week 4, the Iron Chef: Coast Guard episode, she finally became human. Maybe after taking a spill and ending up with sauce all over her will teach her not to wear $300 blouses and high heels in the kitchen. We shall see.
So it begins...
We'll see how this blog progresses. I had thought about creating one after seeing several friends with blogs. I have no real direction planned but I'm sure it'll focus on two main areas: politics and food. With that, enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)