I read a couple of articles this morning about the federal court ruling that the ACLU must be provided immediate and unmonitored access to an American citizen being held in Iraq as an “enemy combatant” before finding a link to the decision in a New York Times story on the case.
Although the DOD acknowledges the unidentified prisoner has asked to meet with an attorney, they have up until now refused to allow that to happen.
From the decision:
The Defense Department argues that next friend standing should be denied because the
ACLUF has not conferred or met with the detainee, and therefore cannot prove that it is pursuing his best interests, and, most importantly, the ACLUF does not know if the detainee wants the ACLUF to pursue habeas relief on his behalf. (Id. 7–10). The court finds the Defense Department’s position to be disingenuous at best, given that the Department is the sole impediment to the ACLUF’s ability to meet and confer with the detainee. Moreover, having informed the detainee of his right to counsel, and the detainee having asked for counsel, the Department’s position that his request should simply be ignored until it decides what to do with the detainee and when to allow him access to counsel is both remarkable and troubling. (emphasis added)
What’s troubling to me is that the Trump administration is seeking to dismantle the rule of law that has set this country apart from others for over 200 years, both by naming doctrinaire but unqualified individuals to federal court judgeships, and by blatantly rejecting the normal administration of justice as somehow “rigged” and therefore unworthy of respect. These are profoundly dangerous actions, which pose fundamental challenges to our system of laws. Can we hope that there are enough rational Republicans to prevent the constitutional crisis that seems more and more likely in the months ahead?
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Impeach Trump Now!
Dear Ian:
I must rebut your extreme exaggeration, the more irksome as it appears so offhanded: “the Trump administration is seeking to dismantle the rule of law that has set this country apart from others for over 200 years, both by naming doctrinaire but unqualified individuals to federal court judgeships, and by blatantly rejecting the normal administration of justice as somehow “rigged” and therefore unworthy of respect.”
1) political judges were commonplace in American history until the over-professionalization of the judiciary in the ’50’s through the ’70’s, and judges are still elected in many local jurisdictions. Appointing a few doesn’t “dismantle” anything and “professional” lawyer organizations’ recommendations are not authorized in law to vet anyone, only in custom. 2) Expressing an emphatic opinion doesn’t dismantle anything, either. Au contraire he’s appointing judges by the dozens to fill vacancies. 3) The prior administration “dismantled” the rule of law openly and proudly with the DOJ headed by his self-proclaimed “wingman,” the cynical Mexican gun running operation under official auspices, the “executive orders” openly defying law to do multiple health law changes, huge payments to insurance companies never appropriated by Congress, giant settlements through EPA and Justice using legal extortion to get money shifted to advocacy organizations that should have gone into the Treasury, undeclared war in Libya wrecking that country and opening the floodgates of refugees into Europe, gunrunning to “moderate” Islamists in Syria knowing guns would move on to ISIS, and $1.5 billion in CASH, in foreign currencies, delivered in unmarked aircraft to a state sponsor of terrorism, an apparent felony, the DACA pause admittedly illegal, and the open defiance of Federal court in Texas with lies to the judge as to immigration enforcement deferrals. Where is the “rule of law” being “dismantled?” Don’t be taken in by the rhetoric of these top leaders — look at their actions. Soothingly worded but unconstitutional actions on the one hand, annoyingly and outrageous bluster on the other, yet constitutional action. Disagreement on policy and personnel does not make for “dismantling” of the rule of law: disregard for Courts, law and Congress does.
Forgot other rule of law “dismantle” action – former head of the IRS personally visiting the White House hundreds of times (unprecedented) combined with systematically sandbagging the 501 applications of opponents, then the more recent unmasking of intelligence agency’s foreign intercepts involving American citizens by the hundreds in the midst of end-of-term political wrangling. This was 10X the violation compared to the manini burglary and coverup that ran Nixon out of office.