News Vid: Death of Habeas Corpus

[Burnsie]

You want the truth?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=America:+Freedom+to+Fascism

 

[liberalgunnut]

Ratification process

the Sixteenth Amendment was passed by the Sixty-first Congress and submitted to legislatures of the several states on July 12th, 1909. The amendment was the crowning feature of a larger trend of legislative action meant to curb the power of the wealthy. The famous Pujo Committee Hearings, which aired the incestuous relationship between banks and corporate interests, were held during ratification, and the Clayton Antitrust Act was enacted shortly thereafter.
On February 25, 1913, the Republican Secretary of State Philander Knox proclaimed that the amendment had been ratified by the necessary three-quarters of the states ensuring the constitutionality of unapportioned federal income taxes.
The amendment was ratified by 38 states[8] in all: Alabama on August 10, 1909, Kentucky on February 8, 1910, South Carolina on February 19, Illinois on March 1, Mississippi on March 7, Oklahoma on March 10, Maryland on April 8, Georgia on August 3, Texas on August 16, Ohio on January 19, 1911, Idaho on January 20, Oregon on January 23, Washington on January 26, Indiana and Montana on January 30, California and Nevada on January 31, South Dakota on February 3, Nebraska on February 9, North Carolina on February 11, Colorado on February 15, North Dakota on February 17, Kansas on February 18, Michigan on February 23, Iowa on February 24, Missouri on March 16, Maine on March 31, Tennessee on April 7, Arkansas on April 22, Wisconsin on May 26, New York on July 12, Arizona on April 6, 1912, Minnesota on June 11, Louisiana on June 28, West Virginia on January 31, 1913, New Mexico on February 3 (the 36th state to ratify), Massachusetts on March 4, and New Hampshire on March 7. Arizona and New Hampshire ratified after an earlier rejection. Ratification was rejected by Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Utah.

nice try.

but I hear Westly Snipes is a big fan of this...

 

[liberalgunnut]

hey bart

thank you for the clarification... I can always count on you to be polite if not down right humble. You are correct. I confused Hamdi and Hamdan. my bad.

How's the weather up there?

 

[liberalgunnut]

In fact, about the only reason I see to focus on the bogus habeas corpus argument is for a propagandist like Olbermann who believes that Americans could care less about what happens to aliens. If you believe that, then highlighting the kangaroo court nature of the legislation won't get you votes because Americans don't care. However, if you tell them they can be thrown into a prison and never seen again - even if it has no basis in fact, you have their interest. Since it is unlikely you'll have to defend your claims on your own show and unlikely that anybody who watches TV will actually investigate such a complex issue themselves, you can stir up a big storm that will benefit your particular spin.

btw: I don't believe that I ever mentioned Olbermann, you may have confused me with another poster.

I believe much of the spin, and rightly so was started as a result of unwarranted wiretapping.

But all the other arguments aside, gven our the constitutional line "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I still have a problem with the concept that with the MCA we're saying the opposite... that all men, that are citizens, are created equal, screw the rest.

As proponents of the 2nd amendment it seems to me (while not assuming ) that you'd be in support of "all men (people)" having the right to not have their right to bear arms infringed. Anything other than that would imply that you're ok with exceptions. Say, not citizen, not permanent resident, not spouse of citizen under 2 years, not 50 Cal., not assault Rifles, etc...

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

btw: I don't believe that I ever mentioned Olbermann, you may have confused me with another poster.

That comment wasn't directed at you specifically. It was just general commentary as a link to Olbermann is what started this particular thread.

I still have a problem with the concept that with the MCA we're saying the opposite... that all men, that are citizens, are created equal, screw the rest.

Well, if you can find some support for the idea that the founders intended to include alien enemy combatants (lawful or unlawful) in the Bill of Rights, then you might have a point. While there are some basic rights that I think all human beings should have, I am quite OK with non-citizens not having the same rights as citizens. I am particularly OK with aliens picked up on a foreign battlefield not having the same rights as me; though I would like to see them receive a trial that comports with the basic notions of due process accorded lawful enemy combatants under the UCMJ.

As proponents of the 2nd amendment it seems to me (while not assuming ) that you'd be in support of "all men (people)" having the right to not have their right to bear arms infringed.

Why not the insane, the criminal, and alien unlawful enemy combatants as well? After all, why shouldn't some one who tried to blow up a Humvee in Afghanistan be able to own the firearm of his choice in Gitmo? It does say "shall not be infringed" and all men are entitled to the Bill of Rights you say... however, this is once again off topic. So if you would like to discuss whether the Second Amendment applies to all men or just citizens, please start a new thread for it.

 

[STAGE 2]

As proponents of the 2nd amendment it seems to me (while not assuming ) that you'd be in support of "all men (people)" having the right to not have their right to bear arms infringed. Anything other than that would imply that you're ok with exceptions.

LOL!!!! Dude give me a break. I could care less about some poor bastard in some 3rd world country (who probably has a fully auto AK anyways). I care about MY rights and MY country. Everyone else (save a couple of friendly nations) can fall off the map for all I care.

The 2nd amenment was placed there for us as americans. If other people in other countries want it, then have them amend their own constitution. If not, then don't complain to me that your framers didn't have as much foresight as ours.

 

[liberalgunnut]

Quote:
btw: I don't believe that I ever mentioned Olbermann, you may have confused me with another poster.
That comment wasn't directed at you specifically. It was just general commentary as a link to Olbermann is what started this particular thread.

Quote:
I still have a problem with the concept that with the MCA we're saying the opposite... that all men, that are citizens, are created equal, screw the rest.
Well, if you can find some support for the idea that the founders intended to include alien enemy combatants (lawful or unlawful) in the Bill of Rights, then you might have a point. While there are some basic rights that I think all human beings should have, I am quite OK with non-citizens not having the same rights as citizens. I am particularly OK with aliens picked up on a foreign battlefield not having the same rights as me; though I would like to see them receive a trial that comports with the basic notions of due process accorded lawful enemy combatants under the UCMJ.

Quote:
As proponents of the 2nd amendment it seems to me (while not assuming ) that you'd be in support of "all men (people)" having the right to not have their right to bear arms infringed.
Why not the insane, the criminal, and alien unlawful enemy combatants as well? After all, why shouldn't some one who tried to blow up a Humvee in Afghanistan be able to own the firearm of his choice in Gitmo? It does say "shall not be infringed" and all men are entitled to the Bill of Rights you say... however, this is once again off topic. So if you would like to discuss whether the Second Amendment applies to all men or just citizens, please start a new thread for it.

your entire position assumes that everyone "detained" is guilty. It's bs.

 

[Gunfire]

So it only strips habeus corpus of "Non US foreign nationals". Correct? Do you know if a US citizen was on vacation and was accused of terrorism in Britain, Germany or any european country or any other democratic nation anywhere else, Japan, australia, would they be stripped of their habeus corpus rights and to be heard by a civilian judge? which country?

Isn't this a bad precedent to start worldwide? Military tribunals for foreign nationals with no appeals to any non military personel? Sounds like the ex-dictator saddam hussiens court setup.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Isn't this a bad precedent to start worldwide?

Er, no, this isn't new precedent. It codifies and clarifies into law the traditional and current handling of terrorists to be consistent with the Geneva conventions, and creates positive procedure where there was none before. True, it does distinguish terrorists from uniformed soldiers fighting under recognized flags, but the reality is that non state actors using military tactics against civilians isn't exactly new. Pirates and brigands tended to be summarilly slaughtered on sight, ya know.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

So it only strips habeus corpus of "Non US foreign nationals". Correct?

No, you must also have been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal as well as being an alien. One problem with this though is the the CSRT isn't much of a court and wouldn't pass a due-process test in most Western nations. The detainee has limited rights compared to a federal court or even a military UCMJ court. On the other hand, it is a significant improvement over past practice in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam which generally involved shooting them on the spot.

Do you know if a US citizen was on vacation and was accused of terrorism in Britain, Germany or any european country or any other democratic nation anywhere else, Japan, australia, would they be stripped of their habeus corpus rights and to be heard by a civilian judge? which country?

This was precisely the argument made by the government in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. That argument was rejected by the Supreme Court who said "We therefore hold that a citizen-detainee seeking to challenge his classification as an enemy combatant must receive notice of the factual basis for his classification, and a fair opportunity to rebut the Government’s factual assertions before a neutral decisionmaker."

So even if you were picked up in Afghanistan with a rifle in hand, you still have a right to habeas corpus if you are an American citizen.

Isn't this a bad precedent to start worldwide? Military tribunals for foreign nationals with no appeals to any non military personel? Sounds like the ex-dictator saddam hussiens court setup.

Well, traditionally no nation in the world has held a tribunal to determine whether the guy they captured with a rifle shooting at them was actually an enemy combatant. So on the one hand, this is an incredible degree of oversight.

On the other hand, this is different from past conflicts in a lot of ways. One is that many of the enemy combatants are difficult to distinguish from the general population in places where we are fighting. Some of the people we are detaining weren't shooting at us. Informers told us they were bad guys and we grabbed them out of their homes. The second is that this is a war with an indefinite duration. By definition, the "war on terror" is unending... so it is unlike holding German POWs until Germany surrendered. This will be a war without a formal surrender or end.

Even more disturbing from my perspective is the standard of tribunals that alien unlawful enemy combatants will get under this legislation. If you are determined to be an alien unlawful enemy combatant by the CSRT (which doesn't meet U.S., military or Western standards for due process), you can be compelled (torture that does not involve organ failure or death) to confess and then have that information used against you at trial. In addition, you will not get to see the evidence the government presents against you. You will get a military lawyer and he will be the only one who gets to see the evidence. Finally, you will have no right to a speedy trial - you can be detained indefinitely without any trial at all once you have been declared an alien unlawful enemy combatant.

I don't think these trials are appropriate for a couple of reasons. If we grabbed a guy out of his house on the word of a local informer, this process is not adequate to insure we grabbed a real bad guy. In addition, it is kind of hard to sell yourself as the shining defender of freedom and democracy when your tribunals are little different from the dictator you removed. Overall I think standards this low hurt us rather than help us.

The flipside of that is that if you grab a guy in the process of planting an IED under your Humvee, he gets the same tribunal - even though it is patently unnecessary. Further, al-Quaeda is not stupid and they do use the legal system against us. Moussaoui (who confessed of his own accord and was proud of his role) had his lawyers conduct all kinds of supoena, discovery etc. that was basically designed to force the government to hand over secret information to al-Quaeda. If you give the IED guy the same due process rights I want the "informed on" guy to have, then many of our tactics, techniques and procedures will be discovered by the enemy.

Overall, I don't think the MCA is great legislation; but I don't see it as the threat to Americans that Olbermann does either. I would like to see legislation that makes a better distinction between "suspected enemy combatants" and people we catch shooting at us; because I think those two categories should be treated differently. I think the government overreached because they wanted it to apply to the broadest category of people possible and you generally don't catch the "generals" (who have the most relevant information) in a situation where they are shooting at you.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Bart, the overall issue with this 'broad' legislation is the inevitable abuse it will see. The same thing happened with the patriot act. When the debate was on between the people (because congress had already voted and bush already signed it in to law) there were a whole lot of bush supporters saying that this new law would only apply to terrorists....then we started seeing states prosecuting meth manufacturers under the patriot act, to which we heard these same bush supporters 'why would you object to applying this harsher law to drug manufacturers?'. I simply do not trust ANY government entity with the power to circumvent the constitution in the slightest degree, it's bad policy for liberty and freedom.

 

[Gunfire]

So even if you were picked up in Afghanistan with a rifle in hand, you still have a right to habeas corpus if you are an American citizen.

Yes, if you were picked up by american forces. What if you are vacationing in Beirut (it used to be a tourist mecca anyway, I heard) by Syrian forces and accused of patronizing, a known to them but unknown to you terrorist connected establishment, so it's ok for the syrians to try you in a military tribunal without habeus corpus?

I just don't see how we can put ourselves as an example of a civilized country for the world to follow but have different standards in the criminal justice system of foreign and domestic citizens. Is that how 'We' want to be treated in a foreign country. Remember, 2500 americans a year are arrested overseas, mainly for drug crimes and we would like them to have about the same protections against overzealous prosecution as we have here. I would like to think, anyway.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

DK, the difference between the Patriot Act and the MCA is that the Patriot Act gave the government broad powers which it promised to only use against terrorists and then promptly began using against drug dealers and other criminals. The MCA doesn't give any powers to government except over alien unlawful enemy combatants; so it cannot be expanded.

Now I'm not generally crazy about our procedures for determining who is and isn't an alien unlawful enemy combatant; but I certainly think that if we have correctly identified someone as such, he doesn't get the same due process rights as I do as a non-combatant American citizen. In fact, if we know for a certainty that he is in fact an alien unlawful enemy combatant, I am OK with the original WWII practice of shooting them on the spot.

The problem I have is where we grab Abdul out of his house based on the testimony of Achmed the paid informant and then give him a cursory tribunal that does not give him a fair opportunity to contest his status. If we were just going to throw Abdul in a detention camp for the remainder of the war, I might be a little more tolerant of shortcomings in the CSRT. But if Abdul messes up his CSRT, we are going to allow Abdul to be tortured to give evidence against himself, deny him any trial at all at whim, and not allow him to see the evidence presented against him if we do give him trial - well that's just crap. There is no point in having a trial that meets those standards. You might as well have shot him on the spot to begin with because nobody is going to regard that trial as just or fair.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Yes, if you were picked up by american forces. What if you are vacationing in Beirut (it used to be a tourist mecca anyway, I heard) by Syrian forces and accused of patronizing, a known to them but unknown to you terrorist connected establishment, so it's ok for the syrians to try you in a military tribunal without habeus corpus?

Habeas Corpus is pretty much an English common law/Western concept. You could be a Syrian citizen who did nothing but plant flowers all day and you can still get a military tribunal with no habeas corpus when you are arrested by Syrian forces.

I just don't see how we can put ourselves as an example of a civilized country for the world to follow but have different standards in the criminal justice system of foreign and domestic citizens.

First, you are missing a key component. It isn't just that you are a foreign or domestic citizen - it is that you were an unlawful enemy combatant. Under Geneva, you would have to be doing some pretty bad things to fit into that category. Under the MCA, it is a lot easier to be in that category; but it still generally requires some action on your part. There are some parts of the MCA that could be unconstitutional (based on the Hamdi and Hamdan decisions) depending on how this definition is applied in actual practice.

Is that how 'We' want to be treated in a foreign country.

I hate to break it to you; but the MCA in its current state probably has better due process procedures than the majority of nations in the world. With the exception of Western nations and a small slice of Asia, you are not going to get anything like the rights an American citizen has if you get arrested abroad regardless of how nice the U.S. government is to alien terrorists. Even most Western nations won't give you as many rights as an American citizen has in our court system...

 

[Gunfire]

Now I'm not generally crazy about our procedures for determining who is and isn't an alien unlawful enemy combatant; but I certainly think that if we have correctly identified someone as such, he doesn't get the same due process rights as I do as a non-combatant American citizen. In fact, if we know for a certainty that he is in fact an alien unlawful enemy combatant, I am OK with the original WWII practice of shooting them on the spot.

That's just it. IF we are so sure of the evidence against someone, why all the secret hocus pocus jive talk?

I hate to break it to you; but the MCA in its current state probably has better due process procedures than the majority of nations in the world. With the exception of Western nations and a small slice of Asia,

So now americans are ok with lowering the standards below western and the small slice of asian countries? I'm not because like I have already said it will encourage ALL of the standards to be lowered.

and No I am not trying to protect terrorists but either you have the evidence or you don't. I would be first in line to apply for firing squad duty for anyone truly linked to 9/11. And if you pick him up with an a firearm in hand firing on anyone, that would be a crime punishable by along time in prison, I would think. If you pick him up out of his bed with no other evidence except hearsay, I would say that man should be allowed to be set free to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that are natural rights that can be given or taken by no man or government from a law-abiding person. I don't care what nationality or what their religion or what color they are, that's just basic human rights. That's what we all complain about on this forum that the government isn't supposed to take our 2nd amendment rights because they are natural rights. Isn't it a mixed message to send to our reps that are making the laws. Either they are natural or they aren't. Which is it. Can't have it both ways. That's why the Rosies, the Fienstiens and the Schumers are OK with taking our 2nd amendment rights away. They don't believe the Constitution, Declaration of Independace, the BoR's sanction natural rights either because we're giving away the ammunition by agreeing with this kind of law and silence is agreement.

btw, how did the US treat and prosecute civilians captured in vietnam? Why is it different now?