Judge Orders Release of Gitmo Detainee With Ties to 9/11 Attacks

[spursncowboys]

Like, look it up in the dictionary, is a real retort. Amazing.

It's not?
I understand you more.

[spursncowboys]

Lay it out for us, profe. What's the difference?

name calling. Nice

[Shastafarian]

this is pwnedge???

Yeah, it really is.

Now I know. Thank you WH and Shasta,we are all better off reading your well articulated comments.

I wish that were the case. Then you would realize the level of your stupidity.

Check the time of when I edited my comments.

And?

[Shastafarian]

I shall dodge this question because I can't answer it.

[FromWayDowntown]

Initially, I giggled at the notion that spursncowboys knows more about the Cons ution than John Paul Stevens.

Then I laughed. Heartily.

[spursncowboys]

Initially, I giggled at the notion that spursncowboys knows more about the Cons ution than John Paul Stevens.

Then I laughed. Heartily.

you mean how the sc works?

[FromWayDowntown]

you mean how the sc works?

That, too.

[Sec24Row7]

I suppose, as is ever-so-true around here, we'll agree to disagree on the underlying policy considerations. It is clear now that habeas relief is available to detainees, that the government has to demonstrate a basis to maintain the detention when challenged, and that our government likely isn't dealing frequently in summary executions of those who are likely innocents.

I think, to your side of the quarrel, the courts are probably holding the government (from a practical standpoint) to lesser burdens of proof to sustain detentions and that habeas relief is being afforded ONLY where there is a complete lack of evidence to support the detention. .

By the way, I do appreciate the entertaining and fair debate that didn't devolve into name-calling or anything like that.

Likewise. It's always a pleasure to talk to a rational intelligent human being about important issues with an open mind. , if I didn't talk to people like you I would have never learned anything. I feel like the yellow journalism (i know that term isn't technically correct but it serves the point) that is so prevalent now by both sides makes it much much harder for people like you and me to talk because you have to wade through so many parrots to get to a person.

I think we can agree to disagree... but in no way do I think that it should halt further debate. People have changed my mind before and I've changed some myself.

I remember my sister asking me a question that really made me drop my jaw once.

It was about gay couples adopting kids... I thought it would put them at a disadvantage...

She asks me... so they would be better off growing up in the orphanage than in a loving home with a gay couple?

Got me there.

Mind Changed.

[clambake]

Likewise. It's always a pleasure to talk to a rational intelligent human being about important issues with an open mind. , if I didn't talk to people like you I would have never learned anything. I feel like the yellow journalism (i know that term isn't technically correct but it serves the point) that is so prevalent now by both sides makes it much much harder for people like you and me to talk because you have to wade through so many parrots to get to a person.

I think we can agree to disagree... but in no way do I think that it should halt further debate. People have changed my mind before and I've changed some myself.

I remember my sister asking me a question that really made me drop my jaw once.

It was about gay couples adopting kids... I thought it would put them at a disadvantage...

She asks me... so they would be better off growing up in the orphanage than in a loving home with a gay couple?

Got me there.

Mind Changed.

bravo, i apologize sincerely.

[Winehole23]

name calling. Nice

By lay it out for us profe I just meant show your work. You're just pointing at your own point, SnC. You really haven't even made it yet.

In your own words, what's the difference between a right and a privilege, and what the does that have to do with the conversation we're having right now? Or were having?

(The honorific was surely facetious, but surely it not the worst conceit in the world to pretend someone else is your teacher, and let some other random jackass play the Maestro for a change.)

[Winehole23]

(drinks can of Lone Star)

[LnGrrrR]

habeas corpus isn't in the cons ution.

You've GOTTA be kidding me, right? You HAVE to be a troll.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_..._United_States

The Suspension Clause of the United States Cons ution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which states:“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

[LnGrrrR]

That's a great hypothetical and it has every chance of happening. But what do you do? Look at the Cons ution. "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." If you free everyone some of the guilty will go free. If you keep everyone detained some innocent will be detained (or executed).

In my opinion there is wiggle in habeas corpus to keep them detained.

Doesnt' that run exactly counter to "innocent before proven guilty"?

[Winehole23]

For all those guilty until proven innocent, we have a whole separate tier of justice now.

Sec24Row7 would seem to have the point here. JMO.

[LnGrrrR]

I also know that SnC has no flipping idea how important the Founding Fathers thought habeas corpus was.

Eh, I'll throw him a bone. two, in fact.

"A bill of rights [should provide] clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land and not by the law of nations." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387



"... of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trail by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms.... If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny." - James Monroe

[Winehole23]

The wiggle room isn't in Habeas at all, it's in the power of the President to do certain things.

[Winehole23]

To have his own jails, for example.

[Winehole23]

Where even US citizens can be placed beyond any ordinary legal recourse, and tried before special military tribunals.

[LnGrrrR]

The wiggle room isn't in Habeas at all, it's in the power of the President to do certain things.

Many argue that the President doesn't even have the right to suspend habeas corpus, and that power actually lies in the legislature, since the provision is listed under Article 1 of the Cons ution.

[ChumpDumper]

Worth repeating.

habeas corpus isn't in the cons ution.

[spursncowboys]

I also know that SnC has no flipping idea how important the Founding Fathers thought habeas corpus was.

Eh, I'll throw him a bone. two, in fact.

"A bill of rights [should provide] clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land and not by the law of nations." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387



"... of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trail by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms.... If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny." - James Monroe

the detainees under the three person military commission recieve a form a habeas corpus.
I know that the founding fathers kept it in a high light. i also realize that they meant to put privilege, and not right.
Assumptions and name calling can be put away. I have done alot of work in this exact subject.

[LnGrrrR]

the detainees under the three person military commission recieve a form a habeas corpus.
I know that the founding fathers kept it in a high light. i also realize that they meant to put privilege, and not right.
Assumptions and name calling can be put away. I have done alot of work in this exact subject.

If you've done the work, please explain the distinction between 'privilege' and 'right', and the legal theory behind the two terms' distinction.

If you could also, please explain why some of the Founding Fathers considered habeas corpus the surest way of preventing tyranny, and then decided to consider it a 'privilege' instead of a 'right'.

Thanks.

[LnGrrrR]

Oh, and wasn't habeas corpus originally denied to detainees until a court ruled that they must have some form of it? I believe that is the case.

[spursncowboys]

Oh, and wasn't habeas corpus originally denied to detainees until a court ruled that they must have some form of it? I believe that is the case.

which case are you talking about?

[LnGrrrR]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush

On June 12, 2008, Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the 5-4 majority holding that the prisoners had a right to the habeas corpus under the United States Cons ution and that the MCA was an uncons utional suspension of that right.