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.
What about the terrorist police I see attacking US citizens/First Amendment Occupiers? My first thought.
I guess Lieberman’s hoped for approach of stripping US citizens of citizenship was too clunky. Leon’s approach is simpler (works on citizens and noncitizens alike), and it remains judge free.
The book that Leon refers to is of course not available on the shelves of your local bookstore nor your local library.
The book that Leon refers to is classified Top Secret/SCI and we have “no need to know”.
As a matter of fact, not even our Federal judges can’t see the book because because Leon’s boss and his Cabinet buddies claim State Secrets Privilege.
I bet it comes in a plain brown paper wrapper.
The assertion that the Executive can declare you a terrorist and thereby limit or suspend your constitutional rights (including one’s citizenship) is the doctrine of an incipient police state.
@pdaly: And jury free too.
“We the People … jury … jury … jury …”
Know what you are saying, and pretty much agree, but not sure a Bivens decision necessarily extrapolates out that far for criminal and quasi-criminal purposes.
I’m sick to death of the secret laws. That IS insanity. How do they wrap this shit up and introduce it to individuals working for the government to protect our freedoms and Constitutional values?