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 Yes, I know it is 72º here, even though cloudy currently, but I am concerned @michaelwhitney pedicure may have robbed fella of snow traction
7mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @PogoWasRight @EducationNY Absofuckinglutely!! We would do fine together. Just have to find an open F1 bar between our houses.
13mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @joanneleon Oh, I wasn't suggesting he was a she. But boys can be pretty too.
21mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel 3) This makes investigative journalists into agency-free vehicles for leaks in ways press ought to be attentive to https://t.co/fyFyNDOV0S
35mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel 2) Jury should have heard abt improper treatment of classified info other potential culprits had done https://t.co/fyFyNDOV0S
36mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel My thoughts on the Sterling verdicts: 1) Guilty on obstruction will make venue appeal very interesting. https://t.co/vHH6G0B06D (1/3)
37mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @mattapuzzo @yoyabbayo @nytimes Well, yes (though that merits its own much discussed legacy). But, here, the hypocrisy seems relevant w/o ES
45mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz .@mattapuzzo @nytimes Prominent? Important? Yes, but Panetta+Cartwright notable in Sterling article, yes think so relatively before Snowden.
46mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz "Most prominent leak case, however, remains open. Snowden." http://t.co/yD5F5vKPhd Um, @mattapuzzo @nytimes maybe mention Panetta+Cartwright
51mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @Pedinska: @bmaz @markos @emptywheel 70F and not a cloud in the sky in Denver. :-s
52mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz .@Pedinska @markos @emptywheel Yeah, it is now 70º here too, but I probably won't go swimming in the pool due to chill of cloud cover.
52mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel RT @TheAngryindian: How Saudi Arabia’s harsh legal punishments compare to the Islamic State’s - The Washington Post http://t.co/NVwdNML6gn
57mreplyretweetfavorite
January 2012
S M T W T F S
« Dec   Feb »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031