Habeus Corpus

[crunch]

Re: Habeus Corpus

Eric, it's a litany with them... bad Dubya, bad Republicans, and sadly, bad USA.....

No thought, no conscience......... their ideals aren't being adhered to, so everyone else is wrong. Bad Dubya, bad Republicans, and yes, bad USA.

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Habeus Corpus

War- The act of depriving people of their lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness, until the conquering army decides to give it back to them. But keep on worrying about the menusia. Where do you people learn your history? Do you not know what war is?

 

[Plainsman]

Re: Habeus Corpus

You have a PM crunch

 

[PW2]

Re: Habeas Corpus

Re: Habeas Corpus

Not one American citizen's rights has been affected, this only applies to foreign enemy combatants. So, how is this a Constitutional issue? Also, I am pretty sure that a majority of our fairly elected Representatives approved this, some of them Democrats, before it was sent for signature, just like our Constitution requires.

PW2, you're paranoid for thinking about it . . .

Unfortunately, that is not true that it is limited to non-citizens, QC. How about Jose Padilla, who is most assuredly a US citizen. If you can be held without charge and without access to lawyers or courts, how could anyone determine whether you were a citizen or not?

This is strait out of a Franz Kafka novel.

 

[QC]

Re: Habeas Corpus

Re: Habeas Corpus

PW2, I beg to differ, although I understand that if you can't see a judge you can't claim to be a citizen . . . Hmmmmm. With that confusion understood, doesn't this bill actually confirm Padilla's right to Habeas Corpus?

C&P:

"Yesterday's main drama involved Specter's bid to amend the bill to grant the habeas corpus right to foreign detainees. Habeas corpus appeals -- a legal cornerstone -- allow prisoners to ask a judge to rule on the legality of their detention.

Specter and his allies said the habeas corpus right must apply to all persons -- including noncitizens -- held in U.S. custody. Most other Republicans said foreigners designated by the military as "unlawful enemy combatants" do not deserve habeas corpus protections."

From here: Washington Post article

I have not read the bill, but doesn't this account imply that US Citizens do retain the right to Habeas Corpus, so I'm not sure who the un-Constitutionality would apply to? Frankly, I am really sick of every tom-****-and-harry labeling stuff as un-Constitutional when that's what the Supreme Court is for . . . It's like nazi or Nazi around here: totally watered down :|

 

[woodrat]

Re: Habeus Corpus

"If you have time to post this, tak the time to look up the answer. "

The answer? I didn't ask a question. What are you talking about?

There is no question about it, this war will go on for generations according to the architects of it, your beloved Republican leadership, and it will ALWAYS be an excuse to batter, abuse and re interpret the constitution, what constitutes torture, etc etc. We are just at the beginning of the long slide downward. Wait another 5 or ten years and then come back tell me about the new terrorist handling rules are so narrowly written and are only temporary.

Sheesh! Talk about people who don't read history! Why don't you go to the library and check out a few books about Germany in the 30's? It's just amazing to me how so many people are so quick to trust almost anything the president and his men say or do, without question or criticism, JUST because they are republican and we are "at war". This is a pretty ripe fruit for anyone with totalitarian tendencies to want to pick...


George Bush: "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long as I'm the dictator." December 18, 2000

..and in Business Week, July 30, 2001, "A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it."

 

[funjumper]

Re: Habeus Corpus

Please use common sense.

Times of war call for harsh measures.

When the war is over and the US gov is still using the same methods, then you can get upset.

Ken

What war?

Nothing I have read or heard ANYWHERE says anything about a declaration of war as provided for in the US Constitution.

Are you talking about the premeditated aggression against Iraq that is currently going so well?

Are you talking about the completely mismanaged and ineffective "Department of Homeland Security" activities that are supposed to protect us from "terrorists"?

Are you talking about the nebulous "war on terror" that ShrubCo claims to be waging? If you are referrring to this, how will we, the people, know when we have "won"?

Are you talking about the well managed and extremely successful "war on drugs"?

It is easier to spout the party line than think for yourself. You would have been a good german in the thirties and early forties. No questioning the government, do as you are told. People like you are sad examples of everything that is wrong with the USA.

And people like you are just sad examples of everything.



ATTN MODS- I know you're gonna do it and I accept it, its been a long while anyhow.

I am a sad example of someone who actually believes in freedom, the US Constitution, and the rule of law. A sad example that believes that the checks and balances built into the Constitution need to be real.

Those that are willing to allow the Rescumlicans to abrogate the constitution are despicable. The Rescumlican congress has completely failed in their duty to oversee the executive branch. No testimony under oath. No sixty day reports. They have "rubber-stamped" almost everything that ShrubCo has proposed.

The cowardly moderators here nuked the thread I started that documented the autorization for the use of force against Iraq. One person asked me to post the democratic plan for victory. Please post the current plan for "victory" in Iraq.

Someday you people will understand the ideals that the USA used to hold dear. Maybe you'll start to fight back against those that want to give up our essential freedoms and liberty.

Somehow I don't think that the righties would be real happy with Hilary Clinton making the call as to who is and isn't "enemy combatants". If shrub gets to make the call, you are in favor of it. If the decider ends up being Hilary, you won't like it at all. The issue is far bigger than Rep/Dem. It strikes to the heart of Constitution. We are not a dictatorship, no matter what shrub wants. We need to rein in the lunatics that are destroying the USA.

Hold your nose and vote "Democrat" in the November elections. I used to be Republican. Now I am just completely disgusted with those that call themselves Republican. These aren't Republicans. They are lunatics.

 

[QC]

Re: Habeus Corpus

Wow funjumper . . .

Please post any constitutional misdeeds along with any personal freedoms that you have been denied. Thanks.

Oh, oh, and please post a list of these guys: "We need to rein in the lunatics that are destroying the USA." Sounds like a worthy cause, and I really want to help!!!

 

[woodrat]

Re: Habeus Corpus

Funjumper;

It may help you to be aware that using name calling and extremist language when discussing politics here just gives the right wingers the ammunition they need to say that all who oppose W's administration are immature extremists whose opinion need not be considered.

Terms like "rescumlican" and "shrubco" don't further your argument at all. Leave the extremist name calling to people like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and their followers.

Calling the moderators "cowardly" is unlikely to further your cause as well. I did notce that your post about the HJR is there and not "nuked."

 

[Plainsman]

Re: Habeus Corpus

"If you have time to post this, tak the time to look up the answer. "

The answer? I didn't ask a question. What are you talking about?

There is no question about it, this war will go on for generations according to the architects of it, your beloved Republican leadership, and it will ALWAYS be an excuse to batter, abuse and re interpret the constitution, what constitutes torture, etc etc. We are just at the beginning of the long slide downward. Wait another 5 or ten years and then come back tell me about the new terrorist handling rules are so narrowly written and are only temporary.

Sheesh! Talk about people who don't read history! Why don't you go to the library and check out a few books about Germany in the 30's? It's just amazing to me how so many people are so quick to trust almost anything the president and his men say or do, without question or criticism, JUST because they are republican and we are "at war". This is a pretty ripe fruit for anyone with totalitarian tendencies to want to pick...


George Bush: "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long as I'm the dictator." December 18, 2000

..and in Business Week, July 30, 2001, "A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it."

"That might make sense if there was any standard in place for knowing when the war will be "over". When terrorists don't exist? You might as well say "forever"..."

To me it says what are the standrds for the war in Iraq to end. Like I said before, look it up.

 

[woodrat]

Re: Habeus Corpus

I wasn't talking about iraq alone and neither is the administration. I was referring to the over arching "war on terror" that the administration is talking about lasting for generations and what they are using an excuse for the suspension of habeus corpus, etc.

there is no way of defining victory there, that's why it will last for an indefinite amount of time.

As for iraq, waiting for democracy to break out there will also assure us being there for a good long time to come.

 

[Speedwagon]

Re: Habeus Corpus

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

- Benjamin Franklin

I think some of you need to reread that quote. Note the bold word. I seriously doubt he was talking about things like not being able to take your water bottle on the plane with you.

 

[Speedwagon]

Re: Habeus Corpus

And half of you need to pull your head out of your rear end! I give a crap who has the majority in Congress. They were all ELECTED by WE THE PEOPLE. So WE are responsible for how things have ended up!

Some of you are down right blind! Even if the Republicans are the majority, there are still DEMOCRATS in Congress. There aren't enough Reps to overrule all the Dems, so some Dems are obviously voting the same way the Reps are.

Talk about generalizing! Good lord!
Democrats BAD! Republicans GOOD!
no, wait, it's....
Republicans BAD! Democrats GOOD!
no, I had it right the first time.. no, the second time...

Can't anyone take responsibility for thier own actions?

Bottom line is, we elected these nut jobs. So if they screwed up our country, it's because we let them. And ya know what else? If the Reps still hold both houses after this election, it's probably because most of the people(obviously in the districts up for election) feel the Reps are doing a decent job, or they fear the Dems.

And let's not forget... Bush has been elected TWICE. Yes, twice. So the majority of the people(well, most likely, but not guaranteed) thought he was ok to re-elect.

Everyone has the right to be opposed to how the Bush admin is handling things. But you're a fool if you think he did it alone, without the help of YOUR elected representatives. He simply does not have that much power. ANYTHING he does, can be overruled by Congress. It's not easy, but it can be done. (I can see it now, here comes the "it's the republicans fault!" argument)

 

[PW2]

Re: Habeas Corpus

Re: Habeas Corpus

PW2, I beg to differ, although I understand that if you can't see a judge you can't claim to be a citizen . . . Hmmmmm. With that confusion understood, doesn't this bill actually confirm Padilla's right to Habeas Corpus?

C&P:

"Yesterday's main drama involved Specter's bid to amend the bill to grant the habeas corpus right to foreign detainees. Habeas corpus appeals -- a legal cornerstone -- allow prisoners to ask a judge to rule on the legality of their detention.

Specter and his allies said the habeas corpus right must apply to all persons -- including noncitizens -- held in U.S. custody. Most other Republicans said foreigners designated by the military as "unlawful enemy combatants" do not deserve habeas corpus protections."

From here: Washington Post article

I have not read the bill, but doesn't this account imply that US Citizens do retain the right to Habeas Corpus, so I'm not sure who the un-Constitutionality would apply to? Frankly, I am really sick of every tom-****-and-harry labeling stuff as un-Constitutional when that's what the Supreme Court is for . . . It's like nazi or Nazi around here: totally watered down :|

QC, FTR, I have read that bill, and nowhere does it suggest it applies only to non-citizens. It also expands it not only "enemy combatants", but also those that give "material support" to them.

And the person that gets to choose who this applies to is the Pres and the Sec of Defense.

So if I get thrown in detention, I have to rely on the favor of the president to get out---I would have no recourse in any court.

This is specifically what the framers had in mind when they made the judicial branch a co-equal branch of government---until last Tuesday, at least.

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Habeus Corpus

Four legs good!
Two legs better!

 

[Plainsman]

Re: Habeus Corpus

Does some have a link to the actual bill? I thought that detainees had appeals the went to the 6th circut court of appeals.

 

[Speedwagon]

Re: Habeus Corpus

Does some have a link to the actual bill? I thought that detainees had appeals the went to the 6th circut court of appeals.

That's some poor journalism, I think. No mention of what bill it actually is in the reports online. At least, not yet. Obviously the papers don't want us to actually be informed about the bill.

edit: Here we go, I think I found it...
S.3930

Summary:
This summary has been edited for length

9/29/2006--Passed House, without amendment. (There are 2 other summaries)
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the Senate on September 28, 2006. The summary of that version is repeated here. )
Military Commissions Act of 2006 - (Sec. 2) States that the authority under this Act to establish military commissions (commissions) may not be construed to alter or limit the the President's authority under the Constitution or laws of the United States to establish commissions for areas declared to be under martial law or in occupied territories should circumstances so require.
(Sec. 3) Amends the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to codify and establish procedures governing the use of commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants (combatants) engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses specifically made triable by commissions under this Act. Defines an "unlawful enemy combatant" as a person who has: (1) engaged in or supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant; or (2) been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or other tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense (Secretary). Defines a "lawful enemy combatant" as a person who is a member of: (1) the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States; (2) a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or (3) a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.
Authorizes the President to establish such commissions. Prohibits commission findings, holdings, and other precedents from being introduced or considered in any proceeding of a court-martial convened under the UCMJ. Prohibits a combatant subject to trial by commission from invoking the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights. Allows commissions to impose upon any person found guilty any punishment not forbidden under the UCMJ, including the death penalty. Requires an annual report from the Secretary to the congressional defense committees on any trials conducted.
Makes eligible to serve on a commission any commissioned officer of the Armed Forces on active duty. Requires to be detailed to each commission a military judge, trial and military defense counsel, and reporters and interpreters. Requires at least five members in each commission.
Outlines commission pre-trial procedures, including charges and specifications. Prohibits a person from being required to testify against himself (compulsory self-incrimination) at a commission proceeding. Prohibits (with a limited exception) a statement obtained by the use of torture from being admissible against the accused.
Prescribes commission trial procedures, including: (1) rules of evidence; (2) duties of trial and defense counsel; (3) pleas of the accused; (4) opportunity to obtain witnesses and other evidence; (5) the defense of lack of mental responsibility; and (6) the record of trial. Requires: (1) a two-thirds commission member vote for conviction; (2) a three-fourths member vote for a sentence of life imprisonment or confinement of more than ten years; and (3) a unanimous vote by at least 12 members in a case in which the death penalty is sought. Prohibits any sentence from including cruel or unusual punishments such as flogging, branding, or marking or tattooing of the body.
Prescribes commission post-trial procedures, including: (1) review by the convening authority; (2) appeal by the United States; (3) rehearings; (4) reviews by the Court ...

 

[Parrott_head]

Re: Habeus Corpus

Is there somewhere that gives a laymans English translation of the bill?


So a unlawful enemy combatent is a person that is found by a commission created by either the President or the Sec. of Defence to be an unlawful enemy combatent. It says nothing about wether or not this person is a US citizen, just that the commision find him to be an UEC.

Let me play Devil's advocate. We know that the government has been acquiring cell phone and landline phone records of who is calling whom. So all they have to do is create a document showing someone they dislike is receiving calls from a known terrorist or suspected terrorist or what ever. Then the government can take this citizen before a commision and try to prove he is an UEC. I see nothing in the summary that says this procedure could not be used against a citizen.

 

[Plainsman]

Re: Habeus Corpus

Thanks SpeedWagon, that link led me to here:
Full Bill S.3930

I suggest that some read this in full before they continue to whine. Let the facts and the law speak for themselves.

 

[waterinthefuel]

Re: Habeus Corpus

My infamous military buddy said that Bush purposely declared a war with no set end so he wouldn't have to have permission to go after every nation harboring terrorists, or being involved in whatever way they were.

It wasn't an official declaration of war for one reason, you can't officially declare war on such a broad enemy. That doesn't make the war unjust, it simply makes it unofficial. It's unlike any war in the past, and if you can't see that then you're a bit blind. We aren't fighting a set army of a nation, we're fighting a religion.

I stand where I stand, we have to support our troops, whatever they're doing, whether or not you think the war is just. Remember, the troops have no say-so in this.