Questions about a recent DU article

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/10/15_country.html

I sent this on to a freeper acquaintance, and I have some questions from him I'd like resource on:

Can you, as a defender of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, support the Patriot Act, and the fact that under its provisions, at least three of your fellow citizens are today incarcerated without charge, without access to counsel, with no prospect of a trial and release - all this in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth articles of the Bill of Rights?

Who are the three? How exactly does their incarceration violate these articles of the bill of rights?

are currently held in military brigs in the South without access to a lawyer.

They include Yasser Hamdi and Jose Padilla. I don't know who the third one is.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The problem here is with probable cause. Simply put, there lacks sufficient probable cause to lock these people up.


Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

No due process for these people


Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

No speedy trial, hell, no trial period. Also, these people have no access to counsel.


Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Keeping these folks incarcerated with no trial or hearing is cruel and unusual.

"Simply put, there lacks sufficient probable cause to lock these people up."

The Bushists haven't even tried to make a case for probable cause!

Capt. John Yee, the military chaplain, is also being held without being charged.

So the three are: Hamdi, Padilla and Yee? Got it.

Wouldn't being found in close association with a known enemy be probable cause?

If not, why not?

Let's say you and I are friends, OK, we are, bad example.

Uh, let's say your next-door neighbor was Zaccarias Moussaoui. Let's say you are of Middle Eastern descent and are Muslim. Let's say you have dinner with Zac every Sunday, but you limit your discussions to sports, the weather and secretly eating pork. Are you a terrorist just because you know one?

Wasn't Hamdi captured in Afghanistan among the Taliban?

What's the rationale given for holding these men?

That's a very different situation from just having dinner occasionally with a neighbor who happens to turn out to be a terrorist.

Although I do have little doubt this hypothetical neighbor of Zac's would have been detained indefinitely, or at least questioned rigorously, and kept under close watch thereafter.

...they might have one. I guess you could make a prima facie case...

The fact is: they aren't, and they don't plan to.

Even if the Bush folks DID establish probable cause, they still haven't given these men access to attorneys or set trial dates. Hell, they haven't even had so much as an arraignment so that bail can be set.

for probable cause. They have tried to remove these men out of reach of the law, so they have labeled them enemy combatants--stripping them of their citizenship and humanity, for that matter--then stating flatly that they won't charge them, so they're not due any rights guaranteed Constitutionally for prisoners or persons arrested. Their goal seems to be to try them via military tribunal. Why? I don't know. I suspect purely for show, to establish a precedent for this plank of the Patriot Act.