Reply With Quote
I'm just wondering who told him habeas corpus wasn't in the cons ution. I'd say there's a good chance they reside on Fox News. Possibly talk radio.
Yeah I wasn't going to say anything
I'm just wondering who told him habeas corpus wasn't in the cons ution. I'd say there's a good chance they reside on Fox News. Possibly talk radio.
SnC is one of those guys who carries a copy of the Cons ution in his wallet to wave around and harangue cops with when he gets pulled over.
Doesn't mean he knows what's in it.
But I think your tendency is contrary to the fundamental belief that those who are detained are innocent until proven guilty. I realize it's quaint to take that American tenet and apply it to those who live halfway around the world and who are involved in a war that was not of their choosing. But it sure seems to me that if we're to act as a moral leader, the very least we can do is ensure that we have some actual proof of wrongdoing before we summarily execute individuals.
I'll admit to not having the abiding faith in our government that you have in matters of detention related to this "war" because that same government has steadfastly refused to explain to anyone what the basis for its su ions are -- at least it refused to offer anything more than generalized accusations.
I don't buy that classified information is available to substantiate su ions but is not being used by the government in response to habeas pe ions. And surely if the specifics of classified information could be dangerous to release, some generalizations from such classified information could be furnished to at least support continued detention. I don't imagine that any federal judge particularly relishes the idea of having signed off on the release of a suspected terrorist and, from that, I suspect that when habeas is issued to those individuals it is truly because the government has presented no case whatsoever to support continued detention.
So, yes, I'm fairly convinced that when habeas is issued to our detainees in Guantanamo, it is issued because there is no evidence. By contrast, your assumption seems to be that because he was picked up, he must have a link to terrorism. I don't know that its a particularly sound assumption.
I don't have specific facts, so you'll have to indulge me another hypothetical, but I think it makes my point:
Take our old friend the goat herder. He's had a long-running dispute with the guy who owns the farm next door -- his goats have long enjoyed feasting on the crops of the hard-working farmer and the goat herder is unmoved to do anything about it. Pissed at his neighbor, the farmer finds an American solider and tells him "Hey, that goat herder is a terrorist. I heard him talking to another guy down in the marketplace yesterday and he said he was going to build IED's and take out a bunch of Americans. He also said that he sat in on some meetings at a terrorist training camp and I've seen him hand cash to an associate of Osama bin Laden." He's got no proof of any of this, but he knows that such allegations are going to get his neighbor detained. So, the goat herder is taken into custody and detained at Gitmo. Several years of this detention pass and there is no actionable intelligence to support any of the farmer's allegations. I suppose that: (A) you'd find that there was nevertheless sufficient basis to detain him; and (B) in your view, he should not be granted habeas relief and will be fortunate to not be executed. Certainly, though, the assumption that forms the basis of your opinions would be debunked, I would think.
King Bush?
Let him go, we will kill him later.
more infinite wisdom by jackie sommerset.. thanks for nothing jack!
Gitmo has become a 5 star hotel. Let them all go.
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. But that's my opinion. Someone else can read that phrase and say... nope... no invasion... no suspension. I choose to look at the public safety wording.
As to the king bush thing...
my response to that is "King Obama?"
I'm not lamenting the end of the Bush presidency. I'm regretting our lack of consistency.
I didn't offer a solution. I pointed out a problem.
Last edited by Sec24Row7; 03-24-2010 at 01:59 PM.
Moral conscience suffers the results in a way expedience worshippers do not, and believe you me: the military has tacit permission to kill from I would guess a solid majority of so-called moral people..
What, you want that we should have to swear it out to you in public, or something?
Maybe you would have us forswear ing? What?
any evidence to the contrary?
EDIT: my bad, I meant it is not a right to habeas corpus.
Article 1 Section 9 Clause 2
Section. 9.
Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
Clause 2: 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.
Clause 3: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Clause 4: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken. (See Note 7)
Clause 5: No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
Clause 6: No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
Clause 7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
Clause 8: No le of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or le, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
HIghlight privilege for me.
You can focus on the public safety part of it, but if you do, you're misconstruing that sentence, and rather blatantly so.
The sentence permits a concern for public safety to trump the privilege of habeas corpus ONLY in cases of rebellion or invasion. It doesn't say "in cases of rebellion or invasion or where the dictates of public safety require." It does say that when there is a rebellion OR an invasion AND the public safety may require it, habeas could be suspended.
I understand. I hope you'll know that my retort was entirely tongue-in-cheek.
And that is exactly the reason they were kept as enemy combatants. To keep them away from the courts... because you, I and everyone else that reads the sentence knows there isn't an extra "or" in there and it would be one of a fight that my side would eventually lose. (without the whole evidence faith/lack of in government blah blah we talked about earlier)
Which is why you are pissed.
I get it... I just come from a different angle and don't agree with it.
And I know your response was completely tongue in cheek. That response was for the automatons... which now that I think about it... doesn't make much sense... it's not like they would absorb it anyway.
Last edited by Sec24Row7; 03-24-2010 at 03:51 PM.
That is no excuse for not building case files sufficient to justify detention.
he's saying that justification isn't a requirement.
well, it is now.
yeah, because people like you insist on ruining the country that his father and grandfather built.......where they could make their own rules........wrapped in the flag.
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.
Try high-lighting the verb, and pay close attention to the tail -- two exceptions are attached to the prohibition, Rebellion and Invasion.
Last edited by Winehole23; 03-24-2010 at 04:36 PM.
No focusing on the term Privilege and Right in the Cons ution will do fine.
Until the SC says otherwise, Hamdan is the law. You're just underscoring that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
