Leon’s Book of Law

Glenn Greenwald and Adam Serwer already hit this part of 60 Minutes interview with Leon Panetta yesterday. But I wanted to tie Panetta’s comments about how, “in his book” a citizen who wants to attack our people and kill Americans is first and foremost a terrorist.

If someone is a citizen of the United States and is a terrorist who wants to attack our people and kill Americans in my book that person is a terrorist. And the reality is that under our laws that person is a terrorist. And we’re required under process of law to be able to justify that despite the fact that this person may be a citizen, he is first and foremost a terrorist who threatens our people. [my emphasis]

Now, Panetta suggests that if someone who, in Leon’s book, is a terrorist is here in the US, that person will get due process.

But the logic of the Fourth Circuit’s Padilla decision the other day defies that. As I read it, the Fourth Circuit argued that once Padilla became an enemy combatant–once Leon’s predecessors decided that, in their book, he was a terrorist, then he lost access to the legal means to (for example) seek redress for torture, much less to anything but habeas corpus–on the schedule the government chose, which effectively nullified it.

So while it sounds odd that all it might take is the CIA Director or the Defense Secretary to say, “in my book, he’s a terrorist,” that is actually how things are functioning.

 

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

7 Responses to Leon’s Book of Law

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz RT @tamarbirckhead: @JustADCohen @abfettig My new original research on juvenile solitary confinement across the globe. http://t.co/CeI9ZY3D
27mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @dmataconis Maybe, but I think the original purposes are still valid. Also think Musk is a whiny asshole.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @dmataconis Actually original intent was to insure there are parts+service available locally for customers. And to provide local tax base
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @dmataconis Either way they can't be selective, which is what Musk desires. May be outdated, but there are good reasons to keep it.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @kevinjonheller Really no need for trial either I should think.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @emptywheel @wellsbennett Come on man, go easy of Wells. He has been overwhelmed with the new "Ask Wells Anything" feature at @lawfareblog
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @RobertsDan @lrozen At the complete trashing of procedural due process and substantive jurisdiction law, but what the hell, right?
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @ScottGreenfield @bobambrogi "Reinvent"™ the interview
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @chriskingstl @alicesperi I know push is on to say supports Wilson+cops, but no reason to bite off on that w/o noting both @JasonLeopold
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @chriskingstl @alicesperi Why do selectively "leaked" details support Wison's version any more than they do Dorian Johnson's? @JasonLeopold
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @JasonLeopold I have applied for the job. I insured them you will get NOTHING.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @ddayen I presume you went as Mark Penn
2hreplyretweetfavorite
January 2012
S M T W T F S
« Dec   Feb »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031