Topic: HABEAS CORPUS (Read 6486 times)

Crystalmonkey · « **on:** October 18, 2006, 09:20:16 PM »

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15318240/

Shit.

xolik · « **Reply #1 on:** October 18, 2006, 10:20:23 PM »

Vespertine is going to explode over this.

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #2 on:** October 18, 2006, 11:16:58 PM »

You see, everyone always jumps on me when I say that governments are all shit because they give you wonderful 'rights' all over the place...UNTIL your leader decides to take them away. A similar thing happened in my country in the first world war, the government said they were imposing taxes until they won the war...and conveniently neglected to remove them at the conclusion of said war.

Does this whole terrorism paranoia thing remind anyone of the McCarthy-era 'Commies are EVERYWHERE' mentality?

sociald1077 · « **Reply #3 on:** October 18, 2006, 11:45:02 PM »

Wow.

Vespertine · « **Reply #4 on:** October 19, 2006, 01:07:00 AM »

Quote from: xolik on October 18, 2006, 10:20:23 PM

Vespertine is going to explode over this.

First, you're right. The mess all over my monitor is what used to be my head. Honestly? More than anything else, I'm just saddened by this. Maybe after some sleep I'll be able to muster up some anger.

Second, the framers considered habeas corpus important enough to include in the Constitution. I can only hope that the courts do their job now.

Third, I'm just too tired and disenchanted right now to properly fling a vitriolic rant in the direction of that nasty, hypocritical, sub-par piece of shit that calls himself the "leader of the free world". Lead this, you fuck!

EDIT: Xolly, you'd be disappointed if I didn't blow up once in awhile.

EDIT EDIT: I think there's a good chance that Demo might also lose it over this one.

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #5 on:** October 19, 2006, 01:20:22 AM »

I think that Bush may be up for the long coveted Nixon Award for the worst President ever, but my presidential history is a bit rusty (I don't remember a lot of the boring ones) so I could be off. Still, let's recap.

He's invaded Iraq, he's running that wonderful camp X-Ray thingy, he's wiretapped people, and now in what will surely be his crowning achievement (until next week anyway), he's gone and removed HABEUS FUCKING CORPUS.

Orwell's spinning in his grave right now.

Big Orange Cat · « **Reply #6 on:** October 19, 2006, 01:29:32 AM »

As long as middle America can afford gasoline and lattes, they won't give a shit.

“In Germany, first they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant.Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.”

milifist · « **Reply #7 on:** October 19, 2006, 08:03:05 AM »

Quote

OLBERMANN: Does that not basically mean that if Mr. Bush or Mr. Rumsfeld say so, anybody in this country, citizen or not, innocent or not, can end up being an unlawful enemy combatant?

JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR: It certainly does. In fact, later on, it says that if you even give material support to an organization that the president deems connected to one of these groups, you too can be an enemy combatant.

They’re wrong. They are taking only one part of S.3930 to base that rationale. They conveniently ignore Sec. 948c:

Quote

Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions

`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.

Sure, certain parts of this law may be objectionable, but to jump to “oh noes, bush has suspended habeas corpus. he is a tyrant!” is absurd. The is a definite need for a law that explicitly defines of so called “alien unlawful combatants “ are handled, ‘cause the Geneva Conventions doesn’t exactly cover’em; we could just hang the lot of them if we wanted under GC.

DiscipleOfChaos · « **Reply #8 on:** October 19, 2006, 08:12:10 AM »

Quote from: milifist on October 19, 2006, 08:03:05 AM

They’re wrong. They are taking only one part of S.3930 to base that rationale. They conveniently ignore Sec. 948c:

Sure, certain parts of this law may be objectionable, but to jump to “oh noes, bush has suspended habeas corpus. he is a tyrant!” is absurd. The is a definite need for a law that explicitly defines of so called “alien unlawful combatants “ are handled, ‘cause the Geneva Conventions doesn’t exactly cover’em; we could just hang the lot of them if we wanted under GC.

The problem with this law is that, though it does only cover 'alien enemy combatants' LEGAL REVIEW is suspended when someone is taken into custody. If Bush were to order you arrested under this law, the way it is written it would mean that sure, your arrest was illegal - BUT NO ONE COULD CONTEST IT, because once you are in custody, THERE IS NO LEGAL REVIEW.

milifist · « **Reply #9 on:** October 19, 2006, 11:17:41 AM »

The military can not detain a citizen under this act. If they did in fact detain a citizen under this act, it would be, as you said, illegal. Their denial of habeas corpus would be illegal. Their denial of legal representation would be illegal.

It wouldn’t be much different than say, a sheriff’s department deciding to hold a suspect illegally. They could grab a guy off the street, deny him legal representation, deny him habeas corpus, deny him any contact with the outside world, and even deny to everyone that they even have him. It would be illegal, but they have the ability do it and it would be hard to discover. That person would be in the same position as someone illegally detained by the military. The illegal detainees’ only hope is that someone else learns of their illegal imprisonment and (in the case of the military detainee) petitions the judiciary on their behalf. And, should it be determined that the detention was illegal, then those involved could face criminal charges.

Personally, I think it is a mistake not to extend the right to apply to a civilian judiciary body of a writ of habeas corpus to aliens in some manner. It would certainly ease a lot of peoples’ suspicions. However, this law does not suspend habeas corpus for citizens. The military may have the ability to do so, but this law does not give them the right.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #10 on:** October 19, 2006, 12:19:14 PM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf4W8F5HpiQ

And mil, the idea is that once you are taken into their custody there is NO REVIEW AS TO WHETHER YOU ARE ACTUALLY BEING HELD LEGALLY OR NOT, MAKING IT IRRELEVANT!

DiscipleOfChaos · « **Reply #11 on:** October 19, 2006, 12:22:43 PM »

Quote from: Crystalmonkey on October 19, 2006, 12:19:14 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf4W8F5HpiQ

And mil, the idea is that once you are taken into their custody there is NO REVIEW AS TO WHETHER YOU ARE ACTUALLY BEING HELD LEGALLY OR NOT, MAKING IT IRRELEVANT!

Exactly. There's no 'getting a judge to order a review'. Once they have you, you are no lnoger in a realm of existence where the law can reach you.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #12 on:** October 19, 2006, 12:24:35 PM »

I'll need to do some more research before I comment.

BizB · « **Reply #13 on:** October 19, 2006, 12:30:51 PM »

Quote from: Crystalmonkey on October 19, 2006, 12:19:14 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf4W8F5HpiQ

And mil, the idea is that once you are taken into their custody there is NO REVIEW AS TO WHETHER YOU ARE ACTUALLY BEING HELD LEGALLY OR NOT, MAKING IT IRRELEVANT!

I can't wait until there's a democrat in office so that I can hear something positive come out of Keith Olberman's pie hole

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #14 on:** October 19, 2006, 12:53:35 PM »

Quote from: BizB on October 19, 2006, 12:30:51 PM

I can't wait until there's a democrat in office so that I can hear something positive come out of Keith Olberman's pie hole

Perhaps it's a similar situation to The Daily Show, where no matter what party is in charge there is still a massive amount of absurdity present. Regardless of whether he is usually negative or not though, it doesn't count as evidence to disprove what he said.

^ I say the above to prevent those from trying to take your statement as saying that what he said has no basis because he is usually negative.

DiscipleOfChaos · « **Reply #15 on:** October 19, 2006, 12:56:58 PM »

I mean, hell, -I'm- usually negative. I hate people for the most part. Does that mean what I have to say has no value?

milifist · « **Reply #16 on:** October 19, 2006, 01:17:46 PM »

Again, this act does not suspend habeas corpus for citizens. It is with a writ of habeas corpus that a judicial review is obtained. Certainly the military has the ability to illegally deny a detainee’s from petitioning for a writ, just as civilian law enforcement agencies have the ability to do the same.

Generally speaking, we trust the law enforcement agencies not to engage in such illegal activities as denying detainees the ability to make such petitions. However, the military has greater ability to carry out such illegal activities, and consequently, there is less trust that they will follow the law. There is system for legal review for citizens (as it does not suspend the citizen's right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus), but you do not trust the military to recognize it. This is not a problem with this law, but with the military institution itself.

So the real problem is that there are no extraordinary safeguards so that the military won’t break the law.

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #17 on:** October 19, 2006, 01:29:12 PM »

Quote from: milifist on October 19, 2006, 01:17:46 PM

Again, this act does not suspend habeas corpus for citizens. It is with a writ of habeas corpus that a judicial review is obtained. Certainly the military has the ability to illegally deny a detainee’s from petitioning for a writ, just as civilian law enforcement agencies have the ability to do the same.

Generally speaking, we trust the law enforcement agencies not to engage in such illegal activities as denying detainees the ability to make such petitions. However, the military has greater ability to carry out such illegal activities, and consequently, there is less trust that they will follow the law. There is system for legal review for citizens (as it does not suspend the citizen\'s right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus), but you do not trust the military to recognize it. This is not a problem with this law, but with the military institution itself.

So the real problem is that there are no extraordinary safeguards so that the military won’t break the law.

What sort of safeguards do you mean? The police and the military hold the big guns, what can anyone do? Rights exist only in the minds of those who imagine they have them, it takes ACTION to allow them to enact change in the real world. Case in point: people imagine that they have the RIGHT to a free trial...until an organisation with a lot of guns comes and tells them that they don\'t anymore. History is rife with organisations such as the military or the police taking control, and it boggles my mind how people think things have changed.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #18 on:** October 19, 2006, 01:39:00 PM »

After researching, what Milifist says appears to be correct. The law only suspends it for non-citizens. However there are over 12 million non-citizens living here legally, not to mention all of those here not legally. The government could now legally intern all of these people as we did the Japanese in WW2. If Jose Padilla, who is currently under the jurisdiction of the Justice Department goes to trial and is acquitted, the military can scoop him up again, hold him for several years as his attorneys go through the court system again under the writ of habeas corpus, and continue the viscious cycle.

I don't like it. It has tons of potential for abuse, including abuse on american citizens. But it's the non-citizens who I fear for most. All the government has to do is label them an enemy combatant and poof. They're gone forever. Sure the government is already doing this with the Guantanamo detainees and the CIA detainees in Eastern Europe. But now the US can contract Haliburton to build detainee camps here in the US, (can we say help the red states economies while using the tax dollars from blue states?). The whole thing reeks of an abuse of power, and the demublican senators could have filibustered this, but they didn't because they were basically pussies afraid that they'd be labeled soft on terrorism duiring an election cycle.

Here's an interesting perspective

xolik · « **Reply #19 on:** October 19, 2006, 01:39:21 PM »

Quote from: Vespertine on October 19, 2006, 01:07:00 AM

EDIT: Xolly, you'd be disappointed if I didn't blow up once in awhile.

I very much enjoy reading your opinions. They often bring up good points that I overlook.

Evonus · « **Reply #20 on:** October 19, 2006, 07:40:22 PM »

Wow, he's the 5th president ever to do this, (Lincoln, Grant, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Dubya). I personally am disgusted. I mean the patriot act was one thing, but now he's cut and pulling out of the constitution. I am I certainly don't give a shit about terrorists, but this could let him start picking up random illegals and just killing them, ect. I hope this gets protested, and I hope the supreme court slams Bush for this. If not only bad things can come....

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #21 on:** October 20, 2006, 05:28:48 PM »

http://www.rotten.com/library/conspiracy/national-emergency/

Vespertine · « **Reply #22 on:** October 20, 2006, 10:40:04 PM »

Quote from: DiscipleOfChaos on October 19, 2006, 12:56:58 PM

I mean, hell, -I'm- usually negative. I hate people for the most part. Does that mean what I have to say has no value?

Careful my friend. With that attitude, you might get told to go live in France.

jeee · « **Reply #23 on:** October 22, 2006, 03:26:07 PM »

The whole law actually makes Abu Graib type situations legal. I guess democracy comes with a high price.

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #24 on:** October 22, 2006, 05:18:32 PM »

There ARE democracies (sp?) that don't do things like that...

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: HABEAS CORPUS (Read 6486 times)