Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News Vid: Death of Habeas Corpus

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Zedicus, Oct 19, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Zedicus

    Zedicus Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,976
    Location:
    Idaho
  2. FourTeeFive

    FourTeeFive Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,077
    Location:
    PNW WA
    What happened to "By the people, for the people"?

    Very sad. The current administration seems to forget all the basic concepts of the founding of this once great nation. Jefferson and others warned us about this type of government.
     
  3. Sindawe

    Sindawe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,480
    Location:
    Outside The People's Republic of Boulder, CO
    This is what passes for journalism in MSM? No verbal citation of the bill number (H.R. 6166 Hmmm.... :scrutiny: where did I put that tin?) , nor any text citation for the literate among the viewing population.

    Lots of scary sounding sound bites littered with references to American History as a verification of the speakers authenticity. Clever, but not overly so...

    As I read it, the Law in question only applies to a very narrow set of people.
    Previously this law has defined both an alien, and an unlawful enemy combatant. Glaring in the omission is the definition of an "alien unlawful enemy combatant". I suppose such is inferred by the author and assumed to be understood. Sloppy that...

    Interestingly, it would appear that none of our learned Congress-critters who voted in support of this bill, nor the man we hired to run our gooberment happened to notice this paragraph.
    Note that "...before, on...". I may just be a dumb hick from flyover country to these buffoons, but is that not in direct contradiction to Article I, Section 9 of our Constitution?
    Not that I seriously expect the Supreme Court to strike down this steaming load of dren. :cuss:
     
  4. tanksoldier

    tanksoldier Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    260
    Location:
    Colorado
    They aren't defining new crimes, which would be unconstitutional.

    They are merely defining how crimes committed by certain persons will be tried. I'm pretty sure setting up trial procedures is ok.

    Lastly, I'm not sure why we're even doing this for 99% of the detainees.

    Every single German captured in WWII wasn't put on trial, they were merely held until the war was over. No every enemy combattant is a war criminal.
     
  5. ilbob

    ilbob Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    12,322
    Location:
    Illinois
    Does not mean that trial procedures have to be predefined. It means you cannot make something a crime after the fact. It has to have been illegal at the time the act was committed to be a crime.
     
  6. Derek Zeanah

    Derek Zeanah System Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    8,384
    Location:
    Statesboro, GA
    Re: ex-post-facto laws. See "Lautenberg." It's happened in the past, and it wasn't tossed by the supreme court.

    Gun owners should remember this kind of stuff without prompting. Just 'cause it's there in plain english that everyone can understand (including elementary school kids - that's where I remember the term "ex post facto" from) doesn't mean we still live in a time where our politicians and judges still feel bound by those words.
     
  7. Nathan Williams

    Nathan Williams member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    Messages:
    190
    Are any of you really suprised? Would you expect no less of Dubya? I just cant wait to see what signing order he issues, or passage he sneaks into a spending bill next :uhoh: .
     
  8. Spot77

    Spot77 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,221
    Location:
    MD
    The Democrats are screaming and whining already, but let's see how fast they repeal it when THEY regain power.

    I suspect it will have fallen off the radar by then, never to be brought up again except by the extremist freedom lovers (that's sarcasm there at the end; you know I was referring to us here at THR!)
     
  9. Nathan Williams

    Nathan Williams member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    Messages:
    190
    Yes well this thing hasnt been on the radar till now. It was snuck in right as the Foley scandal broke out. Hmmm.......always a scandal comming out at just the right time.
     
  10. Derek Zeanah

    Derek Zeanah System Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    8,384
    Location:
    Statesboro, GA
    Listed on the same page is this one, which I enjoyed.
     
  11. ForeignDude

    ForeignDude Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    133
    Read The Bloody Thing Before You Reach Conclusions...

    Folks, read the bill before spouting stuff. Habeas corpus has not been suspended; it certainly is nothing like the suspension enacted by Abraham Lincoln during the civil war.

    First, what this bill does is to provide for military trials for alien unlawful combatants. Who is an alien? Anyone who's not a citizen of the United States. Who is an unlawful combatant? Those who make war in ways that contravene the rules of war, e.g., using children and women as human shields, intentionally killing women and children, etc. By suspending habeas corpus for the Islamic enemy, Bush and the Republicans have sent a message: "No, you do not have the same rights as an American citizen, and, yes, you will be held accountable for your crimes against humanity". The day we extend constitutional protections (and everything that they entail) to our enemy, that will be the day of our defeat. Simply imagine Osama bin Laden in court, standing next to some of the brightest legal minds this country has to offer, volunteers in his legal defense. Now, imagine that 90% of the evidence against him is thrown out of court because it came from intelligence agencies or collected "illegally".

    Second, the provisions of this bill are such that it isn’t much different from the kind of court-martial that an American soldier, airman, Marine, or sailor would receive if charged with a serious vilation of the rules of war. It takes a special kind of warped logic to accept (even implicitly) the notion that our enemy deserves the full protection of the law, but our own guys can go rot in hell.

    Finally, the criticisms leveled at this law encapsulate perfectly the core problem with this war. We are so enmeshed in legalistic notions of “procedures” and “articles of convention”, that we’re forgetting the bigger picture. To wit, we are fighting a war; this isn’t a game. We are in a global struggle against an enemy that cares nothing for our notions of human rights or civil liberties, an enemy that abides solely by the strictures laid down by a seventh-century Arabian Bedouin. To the Islamic enemy, the choices are clear: we convert, submit to Islam and pay the jizya (poll tax), or we die. Why on God's green earth are we so hell-bent on making it even easier for said enemy to kill us? There is nothing noble or morally superior about losing your head (literally) to a fanatic waving the “little green book” of Islam.
     
  12. geekWithA.45

    geekWithA.45 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    9,056
    Location:
    SouthEast PA
    I found this article illuminating food for thought, as opposed to MSM sensationalism.

    It places the bill into context as rebuking a power grab by the courts via Hamden.


    Sending a Message
    Congress to courts: Get out of the war on terror.

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009113

    Intro:
     
  13. DigitalWarrior

    DigitalWarrior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Messages:
    867
    Location:
    Nashua NH
    Dear Foriegn Dude;
    So President Hillary Clinton has found that Militias are terrrorist organizations, and because you sold a rifle to a member of one, you provided material support to their terrorist agenda. You are going to be designated an unlawful enemy combatant by the lefties commision on domestic terrorism, and tried by a military tribunal. If (when) convicted you will be sentenced to a length of confinement limited only by her discretion. She may even decide not to have you killed.

    So all that is standing between you and death, is Hillary's good will and the professionalism of her appointees.

    Hope that makes you a bit uncomfortable.
     
  14. noops

    noops Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    125
    Actually, I think YOU need to read it more carefully. A U.S. citizen CAN now be declared an unlawful enemy combatant. Section 3(a)(1)(1) pretty clear states it.

    I think the example above is apt. What if an anti-gun government decides that people who get advanced training (a la Gunsite, Thunder ranch, Sigarms Academy) are undertaking dangerous paramilitry and enemy combatant activities. Will you see a court?

    N
     
  15. DigitalWarrior

    DigitalWarrior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Messages:
    867
    Location:
    Nashua NH
    Yep you will see a court.

    It will be a court where the jury contains only people the prosecution wants in it though.
     
  16. Manedwolf

    Manedwolf member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    3,693
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    Sorry, at this point, I find claims that the COURTS are the ones trying to grab power as rather like claims that Poland was trying to invade Germany.

    It just doesn't fly. The only thing grabbing left and right is an increasingly unchecked unitary executive and rubberstamp congress.

    We NEED gridlock. This is getting dangerous.
     
  17. DigitalWarrior

    DigitalWarrior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Messages:
    867
    Location:
    Nashua NH
    manedwolf, you don't get it
    Part of the definition of rebuke is to "To check, silence, or put down", and its origin lies with the phrase "to stop the mouth of".

    That is just what this does, the power "grab" was an assertion of their constitutional power. The rebuke was the elephants stopping the court from having anything to say about our fate, if the president doesn't like us.
     
  18. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,385
    Osama Bin Laden has constitutional rights??? :confused:
     
  19. Nightcrawler

    Nightcrawler Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,950
    Location:
    Utah, inside the Terraformed Zone
    The problem with this, as has been stated, is that ANYONE, even US citizens, can be declared an "unlawful enemy combatant", apparently at the whim of the Executive.

    That's not good. That's a door left wide open for future abuses.
     
  20. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,385
    Really?

    Where in the bill does it say that?
     
  21. DigitalWarrior

    DigitalWarrior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Messages:
    867
    Location:
    Nashua NH
    No Lar, I do.

    This bill means I can be tried by a military tribunal if the president wishes it.
     
  22. Nightcrawler

    Nightcrawler Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,950
    Location:
    Utah, inside the Terraformed Zone

    Doesn't say anything about this only applying to foreigners, does it?
     
  23. DigitalWarrior

    DigitalWarrior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Messages:
    867
    Location:
    Nashua NH
    Lar, I explained in the big quoted post above.
    That is not where it ends, but where it begins.
     
  24. STAGE 2

    STAGE 2 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2003
    Messages:
    899
    Whether a US citizen can be declared an unlawful enemy combatant isn't the issue. The issue is who will be tried in military tribunals and for whom will habeas be suspended.

    Under this bill ONLY aliens (thats non-citizens for you liberal folks) are subject to those tribunals and are denied habeas.

    Anyone who is stating that this bill infringes on the rights of american citizens is either stupid, lazy, or dishonest.
     
  25. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    This is what happens when you have an opposition party without a plan, and sometimes without a coherent thought.

    You know, I have no particular problem with declaring a US Citizen an enemy combatant, if he/she actually IS one. What I have a problem with is the apparent lack of checks and balances here: the Executive Branch holds all the cards. THAT is the problem.

    So, where were the Democrats when this bill went through Congress? Just harping, Bush-bashing, and generally carrying on like some of us "libertarians"? It wouldn't have been THAT hard to come up with an alternative plan.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page