NDAA, Due Process, and the Sixth Amendment


Burt Likko

Pseudonymous Portlander. Homebrewer. Atheist. Recovering Republican. Recovering Catholic. Recovering divorcé. Editor-in-Chief Emeritus of Ordinary Times. Relapsed Lawyer, admitted to practice law (under his real name) in California and Oregon. On Twitter, to his frequent regret, at @burtlikko. House Likko's Words: Scite Verum. Colite Iusticia. Vivere Con Gaudium.

Related Post Roulette

14 Responses

  1. Avatar James K says:

    Unless of course the government asserts State Secrets every time a detained person tries to sue to overturn the law.Report

    • Avatar Mad Rocket Scientist in reply to James K says:

      And there-in lies the rub.Report

    • Avatar Burt Likko in reply to James K says:

      Such an argument didn’t prevail in Hamdi’s case; the Supremes would have none of it. No reason to think a future case would be any different.Report

    • Avatar Adam in reply to James K says:

      Or simply does not allow the person the ability to make a challenge heard. There is no right to a lawyer for “enemy combatants”. Military agents could pick you up on the street, take you straight to Gitmo, interrogate you, and detain you for life. Explain to me where in that scenario you would make a legal challenge. Even your family and local law enforcement would have no idea where to even find you. You would just become an unsolved “missing persons” case.Report

      • Avatar Burt Likko in reply to Adam says:

        …Or they could just put a cap in your posterior as soon as they got you to a secure location. If the government is that lawless, then there’s no point in Congress even bothering to pass a law about when they can or can’t do stuff and all of this passing laws, review of judicial precedent, and the rest of it, is all a bunch of wankery.

        I don’t think we’re that far gone. Even Khalid Sheik Mohammed has a lawyer and has had access to the courts.Report

  2. “…commenting at Forbes is a laborious process which I have never successfully completed.”

    It really, really is.Report

  3. Avatar Gary Ares says:

    Now we know the traitor’s tell.  We should run them off to ……Report

  4. Avatar E.D. Kain says:

    Yeah, the comment section should be fixed soon. Soon, damnit!Report

  5. Avatar Larry Spencer says:

    One thing is for sure: they have it in the bill 4 a reason. Functionally, it may be useful to give the military personnel who would be ordered to detain a citizen an idea of “just cause.” Furthermore, once detained, access to any due process or challenge by the SC is questionable. Finally, if it is not meant to be functional, it must be tactically useful as a trial balloon for further erosion of the constitution. Regardless, anyone who does not take this seriously has his head in the sand.Report