PDA

View Full Version : Senate Judiciary Committee Votes to Restore Habeus Corpus


|Zach|
06-07-2007, 08:52 PM
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=203303

Senate Begins Real Push on Habeas Corpus

Today the Senate Judiciary Committee passed an important bill to restore habeas corpus, the sacrosanct Constitutional right to challenge government detention in court, by a vote of eleven to eight.

Habeas corpus was revoked by last year's Military Commissions Act, which has been assailed as unconstitutional and un-American by leaders across the political spectrum. Today's habeas bill was backed by the Judiciary Committee's Democratic Chairman, Patrick Leahy, and its Republican Ranking Member, Arlen Specter. "The drive to restore this fundamental right has come from both sides of the aisle," said Sharon Bradford, an attorney at the bipartisan Constitution Project, in response to today's vote. "Restoring America's commitment to the rule of law is not a partisan cause; it is a patriotic one," she added.

Today's vote means the habeas bill can now be brought to the Senate floor at any time. One source with knowledge of the legislative plan said Majority Leader Harry Reid has committed to bringing the bill to a vote within the month.

Some Democrats are pushing Reid to go further, advocating more comprehensive human rights protections and a repeal of the entire Military Commissions Act. Senator Chris Dodd, the most aggressive defender of the Constitution in the presidential race, is pushing legislation that would not only restore habeas, but also ban the use of evidence obtained through torture and recommit the U.S. to the Geneva Conventions. "We must recognize that our security is enhanced by upholding our nation's historic legal principles as we vigorously pursue terrorists," he said in a statement today. Dodd is giving a major address about his proposal at the Cardozo School of Law Commencement exercises in New York on Thursday, part of a larger effort to prioritize Constitutional rights on the national agenda – and in the presidential campaign. The Dodd Campaign has gathered over 10,000 "citizen cosponsors" for his bill, the Restoring the Constitution Act, while using YouTube, blog and netroots outreach to rally more support.

Obama, Clinton and Biden, the other Senators in the presidential race, have cosponsored the habeas legislation but not Dodd's bill, which currently has eleven cosponsors. The legislation faces an uphill battle in the Armed Services Committee, a much less hospitable venue for Constitutional rights than the Judiciary Committee. But there is one influential Armed Services member who opposed the Military Commissions Act and could jump start the effort to restore Constitutional rights: Hillary Clinton.

BucEyedPea
06-07-2007, 09:09 PM
:clap:

Fishpicker
06-07-2007, 09:15 PM
Wow. This, along with the amnesty bill's death, is the best news I have heard in 6 years or so

Logical
06-07-2007, 09:27 PM
Truly great news, I wonder if that dolt in the White House will dare to veto this measure?

the Talking Can
06-07-2007, 09:38 PM
people voted against it?

but hey, did you hear about Paris Hilton??....

Pitt Gorilla
06-07-2007, 10:52 PM
Awesome news.

go bowe
06-08-2007, 12:37 PM
Truly great news, I wonder if that dolt in the White House will dare to veto this measure?there's no daring to it...

the dolt you refer to is a lame duck with no particular concern for the opinions of others (all others)...

i expect the president will veto it, and if he does there are not enough votes in congress to override the veto...

but i hope they (the congress) pass it anyway...

it would be good for morale and the like...

the Talking Can
06-08-2007, 02:57 PM
no one seems to notice when rights are stolen by politicians...

oh, wait, all our freedom loving American citizens are over there (http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=164231)

Logical
06-08-2007, 09:21 PM
there's no daring to it...

the dolt you refer to is a lame duck with no particular concern for the opinions of others (all others)...

i expect the president will veto it, and if he does there are not enough votes in congress to override the veto...

but i hope they (the congress) pass it anyway...

it would be good for morale and the like...

I am not sure they could muster 41 votes to stop this bill's veto from being overturned. Those 41 Senators have to be re-elected unlike Bush.

patteeu
06-08-2007, 11:14 PM
I am not sure they could muster 41 votes to stop this bill's veto from being overturned. Those 41 Senators have to be re-elected unlike Bush.

Do you really think it's that popular to broaden the access to US courts of al Qaeda members and Taliban footsoldiers?

Personally, I think the Bush administration was over-reaching when they tried to say that American citizens like Jose Padilla could be declared enemy combatants and thrown into the same category as those captured on overseas battlefields. But for the vast majority of those detained at Gitmo, I don't think it's a winning political strategy to expand detainee "rights".

Logical
06-08-2007, 11:18 PM
Do you really think it's that popular to broaden the access to US courts of al Qaeda members and Taliban footsoldiers?

Personally, I think the Bush administration was over-reaching when they tried to say that American citizens like Jose Padilla could be declared enemy combatants and thrown into the same category as those captured on overseas battlefields. But for the vast majority of those detained at Gitmo, I don't think it's a winning political strategy to expand detainee "rights".

The constitution is not limited to covering only citizens. Defying the constitution to take away rights should be unpopular with all whether conservative or liberal.

|Zach|
06-08-2007, 11:20 PM
I don't think it's a winning political strategy to expand detainee "rights".
Sounds like a great chance to show how we have one of the greatest systems in the world.

Logical
06-08-2007, 11:30 PM
Sounds like a great chance to show how we have one of the greatest systems in the world.

Wow, I wish I would have thought to say that, much better than my response. Though there is nothing wrong with mine.

patteeu
06-08-2007, 11:43 PM
The constitution is not limited to covering only citizens. Defying the constitution to take away rights should be unpopular with all whether conservative or liberal.

Prior to the current conflict, as far as I know, the constitution has never before been interpreted to grant non-citizens who were taken on the battlefield and held overseas a right of habeas corpus. Correct me if I'm wrong.

patteeu
06-09-2007, 12:04 AM
Sounds like a great chance to show how we have one of the greatest systems in the world.

What would be so great about expanding the access of non-citizen, illegal enemy combatants to our civilian courts?

I have to wonder if the people hailing this as great news even know what habeas corpus is. I suspect many do not.

But maybe we should go beyond habeas corpus so that we can demonstrate to an even greater degree how great our great system is. Maybe we should require the military to afford these detainees *all* of the legal rights that criminal defendents get in our civilian criminal courts. Maybe we should force the army to develop a CSI corps who move onto a battlefield shortly after the shooting stops and dust for fingerprints, collect dna samples, and gather other evidence to build an airtight case against each and every illegal combatant that we take into custody. Maybe we should require our troops to get warrants from the judiciary before they take down a safehouse and to read each detainee their miranda warning prior to questioning them. Now that you mention it, we could really show the world just how special we are if only we pretended that we weren't at war.

Logical
06-09-2007, 12:08 AM
Prior to the current conflict, as far as I know, the constitution has never before been interpreted to grant non-citizens who were taken on the battlefield and held overseas a right of habeas corpus. Correct me if I'm wrong.

First some of them were not taken on a battlefield (but I get your point). What is important is Guantanomo is actually US territory, try as the administration might to deny it. Castro sure as hell did not invite us to build a base in Cuba.

Logical
06-09-2007, 12:11 AM
What would be so great about expanding the access of non-citizen, illegal enemy combatants to our civilian courts?

I have to wonder if the people hailing this as great news even know what habeas corpus is. I suspect many do not.

But maybe we should go beyond habeas corpus so that we can demonstrate to an even greater degree how great our great system is. Maybe we should require the military to afford these detainees *all* of the legal rights that criminal defendents get in our civilian criminal courts. Maybe we should force the army to develop a CSI corps who move onto a battlefield shortly after the shooting stops and dust for fingerprints, collect dna samples, and gather other evidence to build an airtight case against each and every illegal combatant that we take into custody. Maybe we should require our troops to get warrants from the judiciary before they take down a safehouse and to read each detainee their miranda warning prior to questioning them. Now that you mention it, we could really show the world just how special we are if only we pretended that we weren't at war.

This is where the administration screwed up, they would have been completely right to have held War Trial Tribunals conducted by the Military Justice system. They chose to deny the detainees both avenues and that is not right or legal in our system.

patteeu
06-09-2007, 12:31 AM
First some of them were not taken on a battlefield (but I get your point). What is important is Guantanomo is actually US territory, try as the administration might to deny it. Castro sure as hell did not invite us to build a base in Cuba.

We are leasing Guantanamo from Cuba. I'm pretty confident that it is not traditional to consider leased land the sovereign territory of the lessee. Recent SCOTUS opinion to the contrary runs counter to traditional views on this subject, not in concert with them as far as I'm aware.

patteeu
06-09-2007, 12:34 AM
This is where the administration screwed up, they would have been completely right to have held War Trial Tribunals conducted by the Military Justice system. They chose to deny the detainees both avenues and that is not right or legal in our system.

What do you mean by "War Trial Tribunals conducted by the Military Justice system"?

Logical
06-09-2007, 12:48 AM
What do you mean by "War Trial Tribunals conducted by the Military Justice system"?

I looked it up once when I was trying to defend Guantanomo. Our Courts of Military Justice in accordance with the constitution have the right to conduct Military War trial tribunals for enemy detainees. This can be done when they are not considered prisoners of war under the Geneva convention. I am tired tonight I would look it up now. I will try to find it tomorrow.

Logical
06-09-2007, 12:49 AM
We are leasing Guantanamo from Cuba. I'm pretty confident that it is not traditional to consider leased land the sovereign territory of the lessee. Recent SCOTUS opinion to the contrary runs counter to traditional views on this subject, not in concert with them as far as I'm aware.

What can I say blame the Supreme Court not me.

patteeu
06-09-2007, 01:06 AM
I looked it up once when I was trying to defend Guantanomo. Our Courts of Military Justice in accordance with the constitution have the right to conduct Military War trial tribunals for enemy detainees. This can be done when they are not considered prisoners of war under the Geneva convention. I am tired tonight I would look it up now. I will try to find it tomorrow.

That's ok. I think I understand what you're saying now. You don't need to look it up tomorrow. Have a good night, Logical. :)

patteeu
06-09-2007, 01:17 AM
What can I say blame the Supreme Court not me.

I do. But if you go back and re-read this thread, you will find some strangley exhuberant rhetoric about how this potential "restoration" of habeas corpus is such great news (ignoring the fact that we've essentially had a course change on how we view overseas detentions of non-citizens during time of war imposed upon us by a narrowly divided SCOTUS) and we've even had at least one person talking about rights being "stolen by politicians" without even hinting at an understanding that these "rights" were never in place prior to a controversial SCOTUS ruling just a few months ago.

It all leads me to believe that for some, this development is more important as a political opportunity to roll out a variant of the highly exaggerated "Bush is stripping us of our rights" meme than it is as an occasion to sincerely rejoice. For those who are truly rejoicing, I question whether they really understand what's going on.

BucEyedPea
06-09-2007, 11:01 AM
I do. But if you go back and re-read this thread, you will find some strangley exhuberant rhetoric about how this potential "restoration" of habeas corpus is such great news (ignoring the fact that we've essentially had a course change on how we view overseas detentions of non-citizens during time of war imposed upon us by a narrowly divided SCOTUS) and we've even had at least one person talking about rights being "stolen by politicians" without even hinting at an understanding that these "rights" were never in place prior to a controversial SCOTUS ruling just a few months ago.

It all leads me to believe that for some, this development is more important as a political opportunity to roll out a variant of the highly exaggerated "Bush is stripping us of our rights" meme than it is as an occasion to sincerely rejoice. For those who are truly rejoicing, I question whether they really understand what's going on.
I disagree. I think it's a matter of pov. We're supposed to be a more enlightened and morally superior nation. That means "process" matters. Here's one area where we became different from past govts. Our Constitution applies to persons...not just citizens. HC can only be suspended by congress which is what Justice Taney claimed in the Civil War. What your ignoring is that it should have congressional oversight. The other point you're overlooking is that we are not legally in a state of declared war under which this would have congressional oversight. If we do this to others, it can eventually be done to us. That's the slippery slope. If federal courts can't issue writs of habeas corpus, all the other rights and guarantees in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights become dead letters....for citizens too. Don't forget some of those terrorists could also be citizens.

Logical
06-09-2007, 01:31 PM
I do. But if you go back and re-read this thread, you will find some strangley exhuberant rhetoric about how this potential "restoration" of habeas corpus is such great news (ignoring the fact that we've essentially had a course change on how we view overseas detentions of non-citizens during time of war imposed upon us by a narrowly divided SCOTUS) and we've even had at least one person talking about rights being "stolen by politicians" without even hinting at an understanding that these "rights" were never in place prior to a controversial SCOTUS ruling just a few months ago.

It all leads me to believe that for some, this development is more important as a political opportunity to roll out a variant of the highly exaggerated "Bush is stripping us of our rights" meme than it is as an occasion to sincerely rejoice. For those who are truly rejoicing, I question whether they really understand what's going on.

The admininistration definitely stripped away many of our civil liberties, I don't see the need to rehash the point. I do see this as a reclamation of some of those rights and for that reason rejoice.

the Talking Can
06-09-2007, 02:26 PM
I do. But if you go back and re-read this thread, you will find some strangley exhuberant rhetoric about how this potential "restoration" of habeas corpus is such great news (ignoring the fact that we've essentially had a course change on how we view overseas detentions of non-citizens during time of war imposed upon us by a narrowly divided SCOTUS) and we've even had at least one person talking about rights being "stolen by politicians" without even hinting at an understanding that these "rights" were never in place prior to a controversial SCOTUS ruling just a few months ago.

It all leads me to believe that for some, this development is more important as a political opportunity to roll out a variant of the highly exaggerated "Bush is stripping us of our rights" meme than it is as an occasion to sincerely rejoice. For those who are truly rejoicing, I question whether they really understand what's going on.

You should send a letter to the Supreme Court. It should say this: "Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.......".

Then maybe you should read up on the different branches of government, how they work...and stuff. Maybe actually read the Military Commissions Act., you know...know what it says.

go bowe
06-09-2007, 02:40 PM
...an occasion to sincerely rejoice. For those who are truly rejoicing, I question whether they really understand what's going on.rejoicing might be a little strong, but i do want habeus to be restored (i don't think the house has passed a similar bill as of yet)...

habeus corpus is one of the most basic elements of our system of democracy and it has been in use for two hundred years in america and hundreds of years before that in the english common law...

it should be restored, imo...

|Zach|
06-09-2007, 02:41 PM
rejoicing might be a little strong, but i do want habeus to be restored (i don't think the house has passed a similar bill as of yet)...

habeus corpus is one of the most basic elements of our system of democracy and it has been in use for two hundred years in america and hundreds of years before that in the english common law...

it should be restored, imo...
Sometimes I wonder what side you are on. :hmmm: [/patteeu]

Pitt Gorilla
06-09-2007, 02:57 PM
Yur either with W & Murica on HC or yur genst em.

go bowe
06-09-2007, 03:45 PM
We are leasing Guantanamo from Cuba. I'm pretty confident that it is not traditional to consider leased land the sovereign territory of the lessee. Recent SCOTUS opinion to the contrary runs counter to traditional views on this subject, not in concert with them as far as I'm aware.iirc (and i could have it wrong), it has been traditional for a very long time that all embassies world wide are sovereign territory of their home country, just as ours are world over...

of course, gitmo is not an embassy but it is nevertheless within the complete control of the u.s. (control = jurisdiction, more or less)...

btw, i'm not aware of any rule/law that makes whether the land is leased or not matter when considering u.s. jurisdiction...

patteeu
06-09-2007, 05:16 PM
iirc (and i could have it wrong), it has been traditional for a very long time that all embassies world wide are sovereign territory of their home country, just as ours are world over...

of course, gitmo is not an embassy but it is nevertheless within the complete control of the u.s. (control = jurisdiction, more or less)...

btw, i'm not aware of any rule/law that makes whether the land is leased or not matter when considering u.s. jurisdiction...

Yes, embassies, by tradition, are the sovereign territory of the ambassador's nation, but as you say, gitmo is no embassy.

patteeu
06-09-2007, 05:26 PM
I disagree. I think it's a matter of pov. We're supposed to be a more enlightened and morally superior nation. That means "process" matters. Here's one area where we became different from past govts. Our Constitution applies to persons...not just citizens. HC can only be suspended by congress which is what Justice Taney claimed in the Civil War. What your ignoring is that it should have congressional oversight. The other point you're overlooking is that we are not legally in a state of declared war under which this would have congressional oversight. If we do this to others, it can eventually be done to us. That's the slippery slope. If federal courts can't issue writs of habeas corpus, all the other rights and guarantees in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights become dead letters....for citizens too. Don't forget some of those terrorists could also be citizens.

I'll ignore your points about declared war, slippery slope, and the golden rule because I don't find any of them persuasive at all.

As for our Constitution, parts of it apply to persons, but not all persons. Only persons in the US. It doesn't apply to all persons around the world, wherever they may be. That's the key point involved in my explanation to Logical that non-citizens, captured on an overseas battlefield and detained overseas have never before been given the kinds of access to our courts and protections from our constitution that the recent controversial, close as it can get SCOTUS decision gave them.

I'm pretty conservative about changing the constitution, but along with repealling the 16th amendment, one thing I'd like to see amended is how the document deals with "persons" as opposed to "citizens." I don't think illegal aliens and illegal combatants deserve the full set of protections and access to the welfare system of the country that citizens and resident aliens have. But that's an issue for another thread.

patteeu
06-09-2007, 05:31 PM
The admininistration definitely stripped away many of our civil liberties, I don't see the need to rehash the point. I do see this as a reclamation of some of those rights and for that reason rejoice.

This right was never stripped from you and for those that did have it stripped, it was like having a christmas present disappear right after they opened it. First the high of getting something you never had before and then seeing it almost immediately removed. It's not a long-standing right that anyone has ever counted on having. If any of the thugs in Gitmo are even aware of all this legal mumbo jumbo that's going on around them, they have to think Americans are some of the stupidest people on earth.

patteeu
06-09-2007, 05:32 PM
You should send a letter to the Supreme Court. It should say this: "Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.......".

Then maybe you should read up on the different branches of government, how they work...and stuff. Maybe actually read the Military Commissions Act., you know...know what it says.

Speak of the devil.

Logical
06-09-2007, 05:38 PM
This right was never stripped from you and for those that did have it stripped, it was like having a christmas present disappear right after they opened it. First the high of getting something you never had before and then seeing it almost immediately removed. It's not a long-standing right that anyone has ever counted on having. If any of the thugs in Gitmo are even aware of all this legal mumbo jumbo that's going on around them, they have to think Americans are some of the stupidest people on earth.

I am always amazed when people think thugs are not very aware of their legal rights and the way protections are built into our system. You are not giving them enough credit.

go bowe
06-10-2007, 01:56 PM
This right was never stripped from you and for those that did have it stripped, it was like having a christmas present disappear right after they opened it. First the high of getting something you never had before and then seeing it almost immediately removed. It's not a long-standing right that anyone has ever counted on having. If any of the thugs in Gitmo are even aware of all this legal mumbo jumbo that's going on around them, they have to think Americans are some of the stupidest people on earth.habeus is a long-standing right...

maybe it shouldn't be available for enemy combatants...

but habeus for everyone else should not be effected by whatever rules may be necessary to deal with unlawful combatants...

as far as being stupid, we have always been that way, particularly when it comes to that pesky rule of law and constitutional rights stuff...

oh wait, was habeus for everyone else unaffected by the military commissions law?

i haven't read that much about it, other than here at cp, so i could have it wrong...

(not like that would be a surprise or anything)

Fishpicker
06-10-2007, 03:11 PM
I'm pretty conservative about changing the constitution, but along with repealling the 16th amendment, one thing I'd like to see amended is how the document deals with "persons" as opposed to "citizens."

is that a joke pat? if we repeal the 16th, how can we possibly sustain the GWoT in perpetuity?

patteeu
06-10-2007, 09:08 PM
habeus is a long-standing right...

maybe it shouldn't be available for enemy combatants...

but habeus for everyone else should not be effected by whatever rules may be necessary to deal with unlawful combatants...

as far as being stupid, we have always been that way, particularly when it comes to that pesky rule of law and constitutional rights stuff...

oh wait, was habeus for everyone else unaffected by the military commissions law?

My understanding is that the military commissions act's habeas corpus restrictions applied only to alien enemy combatants and alien detainees who were awaiting a determination of their potential enemy combatant status.

patteeu
06-10-2007, 09:10 PM
is that a joke pat? if we repeal the 16th, how can we possibly sustain the GWoT in perpetuity?

LMAO The GWoT is no more a "forever war" than the cold war was.

But forever or not, with regard to financing it, the government can raise as much money as it needs through other forms of taxation.

And we can always rape other countries of their oil or pillage their royal palaces if we need to. :p

Logical
06-10-2007, 09:13 PM
is that a joke pat? if we repeal the 16th, how can we possibly sustain the GWoT in perpetuity?That is a really good point.

patteeu
06-10-2007, 09:58 PM
That is a really good point.

Sheesh, people. It's not like a repeal of the 16th amendment would eliminate the governments ability to levy taxes.

Fishpicker
06-10-2007, 10:22 PM
Sheesh, people. It's not like a repeal of the 16th amendment would eliminate the governments ability to levy taxes.

right. Wouldnt that require the government to continue taxing us at about the same rate? We rack up enough debt without the GWoT. what difference does it make if they change just the form of taxation? My main objection is the total amount of taxes to pay. I could care less what is called.

Logical
06-10-2007, 10:30 PM
Sheesh, people. It's not like a repeal of the 16th amendment would eliminate the governments ability to levy taxes.

I am not sure if any nationwide tax would be legal if the 16th amendment were repealed.

go bowe
06-10-2007, 11:34 PM
My understanding is that the military commissions act's habeas corpus restrictions applied only to alien enemy combatants and alien detainees who were awaiting a determination of their potential enemy combatant status.well, nevermind then...

dayum, wrong twice in one day... :huh:

i'd better go back to the jaz school of political sciece/wizardry and get a better grip on how to overcome these pesky details...

yeah, that's just what the doctor ordered...

PBJ PBJ PBJ PBJ PBJ PBJ PBJ

go bowe
06-11-2007, 12:07 AM
My understanding is that the military commissions act's habeas corpus restrictions applied only to alien enemy combatants and alien detainees who were awaiting a determination of their potential enemy combatant status.it sure looks that way (now that i've actually seen the document)...

maby next time i'll remember to check wiki first before i stick my hooves in my mouth...

Logical
06-11-2007, 12:26 AM
Military tribunals are led by a Presiding Officer designated by the Appointing Authority (which is the Secretary of Defense or other designated authority); the Presiding Officer does not take part in the final court decision.
Charges are brought by the chief prosecutor from the Office of Military Commissions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Military_Commissions) (OMC). Charges that may be brought to a military tribunal range from murder, rape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape), and other typical crimes, to war-specific crimes, like attacking civilians, using human shields, terrorism, and war crimes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes) in general.
The Military Tribunal Panel is composed of three to seven judging officers, depending on the charges raised against the accused (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accused). They act as judges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judges) and jurors.


Not sure why there is any question that a military tribunal is appropriate for the Gitmo men.

Taco John
06-11-2007, 12:41 AM
As for our Constitution, parts of it apply to persons, but not all persons. Only persons in the US. It doesn't apply to all persons around the world, wherever they may be.




Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.


AMENDMENT XIV

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.




(Please note that the authors made an important distinction between citizens of the United States and "any person." They didn't leave any gray areas. They clearly could have said "any citizen," but they didn't.)

Saggysack
06-11-2007, 02:58 AM
Powell: Close Guantanamo now

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=2B1620B3-195B-4422-A8B3-C5C59D8FDEB0&t=m22&f=01/64&p=hotvideo_m_edpicks&fg=&GT1=10056

patteeu
06-11-2007, 06:51 AM
I am not sure if any nationwide tax would be legal if the 16th amendment were repealed.

They would. They'd just have to be apportioned among the states populations if they were direct taxes (as opposed to by income level, for example).

patteeu
06-11-2007, 06:53 AM
right. Wouldnt that require the government to continue taxing us at about the same rate? We rack up enough debt without the GWoT. what difference does it make if they change just the form of taxation? My main objection is the total amount of taxes to pay. I could care less what is called.

I'd be interested in reduced levels of taxation too, but I'd cut the size of government in other areas before I'd start hacking away at national defense.

patteeu
06-11-2007, 07:00 AM
Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

We're not talking about criminal cases here. This is warfare.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Ditto


AMENDMENT XIV

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is not an action of any state nor is it within any state's jurisdiction.

(Please note that the authors made an important distinction between citizens of the United States and "any person." They didn't leave any gray areas. They clearly could have said "any citizen," but they didn't.)

Which is why I said I'd favor a constitutional amendment to change it (at least for certain purposes).

Taco John
06-11-2007, 12:02 PM
We're not talking about criminal cases here. This is warfare.

Doesn't matter. No person is "no person." The Framers wrote it that way on purpose.



Which is why I said I'd favor a constitutional amendment to change it (at least for certain purposes).


Yes, but there currently exists no recourse under the operating guidelines of the Constitution to hold any person without giving them equal protection and due process. It doesn't matter what you'd be in favor of. It only matters what currently is.

patteeu
06-11-2007, 12:34 PM
Doesn't matter. No person is "no person." The Framers wrote it that way on purpose.

I guess if you ignore the context it doesn't matter. :shrug:

No person without shirt and shoes will be served. != No person will be served.

Yes, but there currently exists no recourse under the operating guidelines of the Constitution to hold any person without giving them equal protection and due process. It doesn't matter what you'd be in favor of. It only matters what currently is.

We are not denying anyone due process, but non-citizen illegal combatants taken on the battlefield do not require the same process that citizens accused of a crime within the territory of the US do. Nothing in the constitution indicates otherwise.

|Zach|
06-12-2007, 02:09 AM
Whoa, on top of being delusional I wonder what side the federal appeals court is on...

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/11/breaking-bush-administration-loses-major-terror-case/

Bush Administration Loses Major Terror Detention Case

In a “major setback” to President Bush’s terrorism detention policies, a federal appeals court ruled today that the administration “cannot legally detain a U.S. resident it believes is an al-Qaida sleeper agent without charging him.”

In the 2-1 decision, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel found that the federal Military Commissions Act doesn’t strip Ali al-Marri, a legal U.S. resident, of his constitutional rights to challenge his accusers in court.

It ruled the government must allow al-Marri to be released from military detention.

Al-Marri has been held in solitary confinement in the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., since June 2003. The Qatar native has been detained since his December 2001 arrest at his home in Peoria, Ill., where he moved with his wife and five children a day before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to study for a master’s degree.

“To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, even if the President calls them ‘enemy combatants,’ would have disastrous consequences for the constitution — and the country,” the court panel said.

Taco John
06-12-2007, 02:33 AM
We are not denying anyone due process, but non-citizen illegal combatants taken on the battlefield do not require the same process that citizens accused of a crime within the territory of the US do. Nothing in the constitution indicates otherwise.

Yes, actually, it does, even if you wish that it didn't.

patteeu
06-12-2007, 06:40 AM
Whoa, on top of being delusional I wonder what side the federal appeals court is on...

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/11/breaking-bush-administration-loses-major-terror-case/

Bush Administration Loses Major Terror Detention Case

In a “major setback” to President Bush’s terrorism detention policies, a federal appeals court ruled today that the administration “cannot legally detain a U.S. resident it believes is an al-Qaida sleeper agent without charging him.”

In the 2-1 decision, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel found that the federal Military Commissions Act doesn’t strip Ali al-Marri, a legal U.S. resident, of his constitutional rights to challenge his accusers in court.

It ruled the government must allow al-Marri to be released from military detention.

Al-Marri has been held in solitary confinement in the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., since June 2003. The Qatar native has been detained since his December 2001 arrest at his home in Peoria, Ill., where he moved with his wife and five children a day before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to study for a master’s degree.

“To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, even if the President calls them ‘enemy combatants,’ would have disastrous consequences for the constitution — and the country,” the court panel said.

Funny Zach. You've apparently taken something from my "delusional" statement that I didn't say, but that's alright. I'm flattered to be in your sig anyway even if it's the result of your mistake.

BTW, based on what little I know of this case, I tend to agree with the decision.

patteeu
06-12-2007, 06:42 AM
Yes, actually, it does, even if you wish that it didn't.

That's such a dumb statement it hardly deserves a response. Since when do we give the same due process to POWs that we give to domestic criminals? Answer: Never, and even the courts who are giving the President problems with his current approach don't suggest that such a thing is required.

go bowe
06-12-2007, 12:05 PM
That's such a dumb statement it hardly deserves a response. Since when do we give the same due process to POWs that we give to domestic criminals? Answer: Never, and even the courts who are giving the President problems with his current approach don't suggest that such a thing is required.unlawful enemy combatants != pow's...

pow's are entitled to a whole range of rights under the geneva conventions, only some of which apply to other persons being held under (iirc) common article #3...

there are no pow's at gitmo, afaik...

but afaik, even pow's don't enjoy the full range of rights that domestic criminals have...

so i guess i'm gonna haff to agree witch you agan...

(if this keeps up they'll take away my membership in the recall cheney now campaign)

go bowe
06-12-2007, 12:21 PM
Funny Zach. You've apparently taken something from my "delusional" statement that I didn't say, but that's alright. I'm flattered to be in your sig anyway even if it's the result of your mistake.

BTW, based on what little I know of this case, I tend to agree with the decision.well, thank you very much...

on behalf of the supremes, let me say we truly appreciate your courage, dedication and wisdom, but most of all we appreciate those checks you have been sending to us...

keep up the good work, and keep sending your checks...

patteeu
06-12-2007, 08:41 PM
unlawful enemy combatants != pow's...

pow's are entitled to a whole range of rights under the geneva conventions, only some of which apply to other persons being held under (iirc) common article #3...

there are no pow's at gitmo, afaik...

but afaik, even pow's don't enjoy the full range of rights that domestic criminals have...

so i guess i'm gonna haff to agree witch you agan...

(if this keeps up they'll take away my membership in the recall cheney now campaign)


I agree with everything you say here. I only mentioned POWs because I don't know if we've ever had experience with unlawful enemy combatants before.

I'm sure you'll love Dick and Lynn when you get to know them. :D