namelesstavern.net

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/ ... 5226.shtml

This is really a great ruling historically. Habeas Corpus is such a fundamental right that I could scarcely believe that any Congress, even a Republican controlled one, would vote to do away with it, regardless of the circumstances. The Constitution wins, and I can't be more relieved.

-Arlos

You probably already know, but if I heard the NPR story correctly, the Brits did not and their GOV can now hold folks "semi-indefinate"

Their own security chief ( I forget the two parties now, laborers and the other one ), who isn't in the labor party, said something to the effect that it is a sad day to see the rights of the people given up so willingly. Then went on to say we should pat Osama BinLadin on the back for achieveing one of his goals.

I couldn't help but think we should be thanking Osama BinLadin ourselves, we've done exactly what he wants, given up freedoms for the sake of security.

In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts criticized his colleagues for striking down what he called "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants."

I'm surprised to see him put it in a context of "aliens only." I was with the understanding that Americans could also be called enemy combatants if deemed so. I don't see how this ruling only applies to aliens exclusively.

Summary

The Supreme Court in 2004 issued three decisions related to the detention of
“enemy combatants,” including two that deal with U.S. citizens in military custody
on American soil. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, a plurality held that a U.S. citizen allegedly
captured during combat in Afghanistan and incarcerated at a Navy brig in South
Carolina is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard by a neutral decisionmaker
regarding the government’s reasons for detaining him. The Court in Rumsfeld
v. Padilla overturned a lower court’s grant of habeas corpus to another U.S. citizen
in military custody in South Carolina on jurisdictional grounds. The decisions affirm
the President’s powers to detain “enemy combatants,”including those who are U.S.
citizens, as part of the necessary force authorized by Congress after the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001. However the Court appears to have limited the scope
of individuals who may be treated as enemy combatants pursuant to that authority,
and clarified that such detainees have some due process rights under the U.S.
Constitution. This report, which will be updated as necessary, analyzes the authority
to detain American citizens who are suspected of being members, agents, or
associates of Al Qaeda, the Taliban and possibly other terrorist organizations as
“enemy combatants.”

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31724.pdf

This is truly unbelievable.

Naethyn wrote: I was with the understanding that Americans could also be called enemy combatants if deemed so. I don't see how this ruling only applies to aliens exclusively.

Thats because you listen to Keith Olberman (who by the way either didn't read the MCA, did read it and didn't understand it, or just flat out lied about it). There are two provisions of the MCA that must be met before a hearing of habeas corpus is denied, the first is the establishment of combatant status the second is that the person is an alien. It only applies to aliens exclusively because aliens were the only people being denied habeas corpus under the act.

ps. I only listen to youtube links. I don't watch Keith Olberman. To much credit!

how is it unbelievable?

its about time. Is this a glimmer of hope?

Kramer wrote:how is it unbelievable?

Oh, the fact that the mastermind behind the 911 attacks can now get an attorney, when he should be strung up by his nuts and left dangling somewhere so crows can peck his eyes out.

"now"?

cheney has a STABLE full of lawyers

although i do agree that's what should happen to him

I won't begin to argue with what I think the guy's fate should be, but that's somewhat irrelevant.

One of the things that historically made this country great is that *EVERYONE* is entitled to due process under the law, and a fair and impartial trial under the laws set forth in the Constitution, by Congress, etc. You, me, Mother Theresa, Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, and yes, even terrorists, foreign or domestic. Yes, people like Terry Nichols, Tim McVeigh, and even Sheikh Mohammed. That's the beauty of it: the law doesn't discriminate, it makes no exceptions, every single person is to be treated equally.

That's why this ruling was so important. The minute we start to say "These people don't deserve due legal process", we have taken an irrevocable step into the abyss. For after all, once you define one group as to be so heinous as to be outside the law, what's to stop from declaring another? Then another? Then another? Pretty soon the law doesn't matter any more, and you have despotism. So, it is absolutely VITAL that those animals get their day in court. After all, while not in this specific case, but many of the people we HAVE picked up and tossed into Guantanamo WERE completely innocent. Without legal protection of some kind, we could be holding and destroying the lives of complete innocents out of vengeance, for no more than the crime of being the wrong nationality at the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm sorry, but an America that would do that is no America I would want to be part of.

So, what I want to happen is to see those people get their day in court, get convicted legally, and THEN nailed up by their balls for the crows to peck their eyes out, should they be found guilty. But that process is more than just vital, it is FUNDAMENTAL to the fiber of our nation. Fundamental. If we give up that which made us great, and revert to barbarism, no matter how barbaric our enemies, then those enemies can be fairly stated to have already won. That, to me at least, is intolerable. We cannot and MUST not abrogate our system of law out of vengeance. It is just that simple.

-Arlos

Arlos wrote:I won't begin to argue with what I think the guy's fate should be, but that's somewhat irrelevant.

One of the things that historically made this country great is that *EVERYONE* is entitled to due process under the law, and a fair and impartial trial under the laws set forth in the Constitution, by Congress, etc. You, me, Mother Theresa, Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, and yes, even terrorists, foreign or domestic. Yes, people like Terry Nichols, Tim McVeigh, and even Sheikh Mohammed. That's the beauty of it: the law doesn't discriminate, it makes no exceptions, every single person is to be treated equally.

That's why this ruling was so important. The minute we start to say "These people don't deserve due legal process", we have taken an irrevocable step into the abyss. For after all, once you define one group as to be so heinous as to be outside the law, what's to stop from declaring another? Then another? Then another? Pretty soon the law doesn't matter any more, and you have despotism. So, it is absolutely VITAL that those animals get their day in court. After all, while not in this specific case, but many of the people we HAVE picked up and tossed into Guantanamo WERE completely innocent. Without legal protection of some kind, we could be holding and destroying the lives of complete innocents out of vengeance, for no more than the crime of being the wrong nationality at the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm sorry, but an America that would do that is no America I would want to be part of.

So, what I want to happen is to see those people get their day in court, get convicted legally, and THEN nailed up by their balls for the crows to peck their eyes out, should they be found guilty. But that process is more than just vital, it is FUNDAMENTAL to the fiber of our nation. Fundamental. If we give up that which made us great, and revert to barbarism, no matter how barbaric our enemies, then those enemies can be fairly stated to have already won. That, to me at least, is intolerable. We cannot and MUST not abrogate our system of law out of vengeance. It is just that simple.

-Arlos

What's irrelevant is that he should be afforded any rights whatsoever. He killed over 3000 Americans. Let's not forget that fact. He did it, he admitted to doing it, and he's proud of what he did. Throw him to the wolves.

you didn't read a single fucking word past "irrelevant" did you

I'm curious why these people were not taken into custody as POWs. Under that label, they are not entitled to habeas corpus either and can be detained as long as there is conflict. Which, if the administration believes what they are pushing, would be indefinitely.

brinstar wrote:you didn't read a single fucking word past "irrelevant" did you

I was thinking the same thing lol

That's a simple answer, zeek: We're not technically at war. When Congress gave Bush the authority to attack, it was defined as a force authorization (and unfortunately too broad of one), not a declaration of war. Going to war takes a special act of Congress, which they are understandably reluctant to give. This nation has not been "at war" since WW2, actually. Korea, Vietnam, no declaration of war either. If there's no "war", there can hardly be a "prisoner of war", now can there?

As for Mindia, all I can do is beg you to please, please, re-read what I wrote there. I hate the man as much as you do, I am sure. But Hating someone for heinous acts does not place someone outside the law, nor should it ever. The Oklahoma City bombers received fair and impartial trials, yes? The same should, and must, apply to Khalid or any other terrorist or criminal in US custody, regardless of their origin. It is that principle of the law applying universally, regardless of *ANY* factor, that is the fundamental core of the Constitution. It cannot and must not be abrogated, no matter how much we may despise someone, or how heinous a crime someone has supposedly committed. Remember, this isn't just about Khalid, it's about every single detainee in the US' possession, some number of whom *ARE* utterly innocent of any wrongdoing, and deserve their right to prove that in court.

Let me just give one more example here. How many Americans do you think died in Japanese prison camps in WW2 as a result of poor treatment, starvation, abuse, etc. by those that ran the camps? I'd put that number seriously higher than 3000, myself, given what I know about the war. But did we use the hatred over the abuse of helpless prisoners as an excuse to toss out our fundamental rule of law in order to wreak unchecked vengeance? No. Those believed to be responsible were given as fair a trials as possible, and where found guilty, were punished. Usually by being hung from the neck until dead. But that's the thing, see, they were STILL given their day in court, and some of those accused WERE innocent, and proved it in court, and were set free. The system of law still applied, even though what the guilty parties had done was cruel and monstrous. We must exercise the same wisdom today. We must.

-Arlos

Eziekial wrote:I'm curious why these people were not taken into custody as POWs. Under that label, they are not entitled to habeas corpus either and can be detained as long as there is conflict. Which, if the administration believes what they are pushing, would be indefinitely.

Mainly because they don't meet the criteria for POW status, and POW status carries with it certain immunities from prosecution.

Arlos, the distinction between authorization for use of force and a formal declaration of war are internal US procedures. POW status can apply to people in any international armed conflict regardless of a nations procedures for what constitutes war.

You may be right on the POW thing, I am not 100% sure.

Curious as to your response to my main point, however.

-Arlos

brinstar wrote:you didn't read a single fucking word past "irrelevant" did you

nope lol

Arlos wrote:You may be right on the POW thing, I am not 100% sure.

Curious as to your response to my main point, however.

-Arlos

My take on it hasn't changed much since the last time we discussed it. I don't believe it is a constitutional issue, I do believe it is a moral one. The Preamble of our Constitution expresses it's purpose and who and what it intends to protect. Beyond that Habeaus Corpus is discusses as a privilege not a right, separated from the enumerations of due process in the bill of rights. It is clear that you can have due process without Habeaus Corpus, and while the former can be suspended the latter can not, hence the reason for dealing with it as a privilege and not a right.

SCOTUS ruled previously on a similar matter, out of which was born the MCA, which while by no means perfect did put in place a method of granting due process to these people. As I stated previously there are issues I had with the MCA, but I don't believe the answer is to defer to our civil courts, nor do I feel it was in the domain of SCOTUS to make that decision. It would not have been difficult in relative terms to modify or add to the MCA to change it's methods, but this of course would be the domain of Congress, not the courts. Basically the court said you're not going about this the right way, the other two branches took heed and enacted legislation to fall in line with the ruling, and now the court has come back and said it doesn't like the methods but this time instead of leaving it to the branches of government that should be handling it, it's taken over jurisdiction of the matter by deferring it to the judiciary. It was in short a blatant power grab and one that frankly violates our checks and balances imho.

Couple this with the ruling in the Kelo vs. New London case I'm pretty disgusted with the court as of late. While on one hand it seeks to give (or protect depending on your perspective) rights and/or privileges of foreign peoples and on the other refuses to protect the rights and property of citizens.

This is not to say I don't want to see these people have their day in court in a timely manner, but I disagree with it necessitating a civilian court. I do believe the methods of the tribunals could be modified to provide for a more fleshed out and fairer process without compromising national security, but it is the responsibility of Congress (and ultimately the responsibility of the people to whom Congress answers) to enact legislation to do just that.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/ ... 7120080721

I looks like someone in Washington is reading their e-mails

Of course, Congress doesn't have the courage to actually declare that we are at War. It's much to fine a point for any of those weasels to try and hide behind. Why haven't the Democrats tried to recall their "authorization" of force if they want out of this war so badly? I wonder where the candidates will fall on this issue?