View Full Version : Habeas Corpus 101
Submariner
10-12-06, 10:02
For those whose recollections of high school or college are foggy:
... The writ of habeas corpus is actually the lynchpin of a free society. Take away this great writ and all other rights – such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, gun ownership, due process, trial by jury, and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures and cruel and unusual punishments – become meaningless. [emphasis added]
From Habeas Corpus: The Lynchpin of Freedom (http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger103.html)
Yes, now, effectively eroded via the new law.
Dark days ahead.
Yes, now, effectively eroded via the new law.
Dark days ahead.
Yes please, what new law?
EDIT: Sorry, I hit the link and read the first few paragraphs. Once it started with the "let's assume" stuff it lost me. Habeas Corpus has been suspended before in the Civil War. Libros don't like to talk about that and that and the powers given to FDR in WWII. Rather they and the libs are so caught up in their "vision" of a perfect world/society they can't get past their dislike for Bush and cowboy up to fight the real enemy. Just my humble opinon of course.
Business_Casual
10-13-06, 09:21
Low Drag,
I disagree with your contention that this is a "liberal" issue. As wrong as they are on most topics, the Patriot Act and other decisions in the "War on Terror" (mostly copied from the "War on some Drugs") are time-bombs waiting for the next President that wants to become a dictator.
I think George Bush will use these powers only as necessary and for our common good; but I don't trust Hillary or Kerry to do so.
M_P
Low Drag,
I disagree with your contention that this is a "liberal" issue. As wrong as they are on most topics, the Patriot Act and other decisions in the "War on Terror" (mostly copied from the "War on some Drugs") are time-bombs waiting for the next President that wants to become a dictator.
I think George Bush will use these powers only as necessary and for our common good; but I don't trust Hillary or Kerry to do so.
M_P
When I said “libros” I meant libertarians.
Libertarians have some good ideas but when it comes to practical implementation they seem to fall down and fall back on idealism rather than reality.
However I do agree that laws need to be written for the “worst case” scenario and not count on having an ethical president and congress.
Joseywales
10-17-06, 18:57
I think the Patriot Act is OK. If someone is calling you from over seas on a watch list, your phone call is crossing international borders. Therefore, you never had the right to expect privacy. The US Feder Govt has the power and authority granted by the Constitution to regulate, restrict, and conduct searches on all US border crossings and commerce. That goes for your phone calls as well. As for domestic spying, there is nothing new other than they can tap any phone you are on, not just the one you own. This makes total sense. They are not tapping your phone, they are tapping you. This is the way it should have always been. They still need a warrant to do it. Warrentless searches only occurr if you have contact with someone on the watch list and via that contact they have evidence to pursue you. However, they must within a certain period of time file for the warrant and, if not granted, all gained evidence is inadmissable in court. As for holding an enemy combatant without trial, if you are not on the field of battle, you have nothing to worry about. I have yet to read the specific language that states otherwise.
Enemy combatants have never been given the right of habeas corpus. Terrorists, at least foreign ones, are enemy combatants.
Joseywales
10-17-06, 20:05
Enemy combatants have never been given the right of habeas corpus. Terrorists, at least foreign ones, are enemy combatants.
+1 You are correct. Only uniformed soldiers on the field of battle have rights under the International Peace Conference, Hague Convention and Geneva Convention. All others are enemy combatants and can be killed for no reason at all if they are found with weapons.
Annex to the Convention
REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS
OF WAR ON LAND
SECTION I
ON BELLIGERENTS
CHAPTER I
The Qualifications of Belligerents
Article 1.
The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:
To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
To carry arms openly; and
To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."
Art. 2.
The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as belligerents if they carry arms openly and if they respect the laws and customs of war.
Art. 3.
The armed forces of the belligerent parties may consist of combatants and non-combatants. In the case of capture by the enemy, both have a right to be treated as prisoners of war.
Non-combatants must be spontanous and non-sustained in their status. In the case of Iraq, they only have a couple of days to get organized. Once there is no military officer in power, the ablity for non-combatants to be classified as belligerents no longer exists.
The Patriot Act does not begin to cross the boundaries that Lincoln or FDR during times of war while their administrations were seated. Yes, I too believe that Bush will apply the provisions with careful thought and in the spirit of which they were intended. That is also why the second amendment must be strongly support and maintained. As Lincoln also said...it is not just the right of a people to over throw a tyannical government, but it is their DUTY.
Submariner
10-18-06, 08:33
Web could be terror training camp in U.S., politician says
BOSTON (Reuters) - Disaffected people living in the United States may develop radical ideologies and potentially violent skills over the Internet and that could present the next major U.S. security threat, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said on Monday.
"We now have a capability of someone to radicalize themselves over the Internet," Chertoff said on the sidelines of a meeting of International Association of the Chiefs of Police.
"They can train themselves over the Internet. They never have to necessarily go to the training camp or speak with anybody else and that diffusion of a combination of hatred and technical skills in things like bomb-making is a dangerous combination," Chertoff said. "Those are the kind of terrorists that we may not be able to detect with spies and satellites."
Chertoff pointed to the July 7, 2005 attacks on London's transit system, which killed 56 people, as an example a home-grown threat.
To help gather intelligence on possible home-grown attackers, Chertoff said Homeland Security would deploy 20 field agents this fiscal year into "intelligence fusion centers," where they would work with local police agencies.
By the end of the next fiscal year, he said the department aims to up that to 35 staffers.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2006-10-16T204853Z_01_N16404472_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-CHERTOFF.xml
One could argue that the Republic ended at Appomattox Court House. "These United States" became "The United States" just as Patrick Henry prophesied.
Lincoln was no friend of liberty. Rather than drinking the Kool-aid we got in public school, try reading Lincoln Unmasked. (http://www.mises.org/store/Lincoln-Unmasked-P324C0.aspx?AFID=1)
Business_Casual
10-18-06, 09:33
War Is Peace
Freedom Is Slavery
Ignorance Is Strength
One could argue that the Republic ended at Appomattox Court House. "These United States" became "The United States" just as Patrick Henry prophesied.
Lincoln was no friend of liberty. Rather than drinking the Kool-aid we got in public school, try reading Lincoln Unmasked. (http://www.mises.org/store/Lincoln-Unmasked-P324C0.aspx?AFID=1)
IIRC our Founding Fathers first started with a confederacy, and that culture survived until the Civil War.
The Civil War gave us a sense of nation that simply was not there prior to the war.
Submariner
10-18-06, 22:16
"Thus, Lincoln 'saved' the union in the same sense that a man saves his marital union by violently forcing his wife back into the home and threatening to shoot her if she leaves again. The union may well be saved, but it is not the kind of union that existed on their wedding day. That union no longer exists. The union of the founding fathers ceased to exist in April of 1865."
Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Lincoln Unmasked,, Crown Forum Books, October 2006, page 26.
Submariner
10-18-06, 22:37
Enemy combatants have never been given the right of habeas corpus. Terrorists, at least foreign ones, are enemy combatants.
This one did. He may be the only one who ever will, though.
In the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, argued before the United States Supreme Court in March 2006, Salim Ahmed Hamdan petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the lawfulness of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's plan to try him for alleged war crimes before a military commission convened under special orders issued by the President of the United States, rather than before a court-martial convened under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. On June 29, 2006, in a 5-3 ruling the Supreme Court of the United States rejected Congress's attempts to strip the court of jurisdiction over habeas corpus appeals by detainees at Guantánamo Bay, although Congress had previously passed the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), which took effect on December 30, 2005:
New legislation removes such cases from the jurisdiction of federal courts:
"[N]o court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba." §1005(e)(1), 119 Stat. 2742.
By the way, governments don't grant rights; they can take them away. Have you ever read, "...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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."?
BushmasterFanBoy
10-18-06, 23:21
Low Drag,
I disagree with your contention that this is a "liberal" issue. As wrong as they are on most topics, the Patriot Act and other decisions in the "War on Terror" (mostly copied from the "War on some Drugs") are time-bombs waiting for the next President that wants to become a dictator.
I think George Bush will use these powers only as necessary and for our common good; but I don't trust Hillary or Kerry to do so.
M_P
Exactly, I've been trying to explain to my friends that such a vague policy can be interpreted differently by the next guy/hildebeast. If we allow our policies to be that vague, we might as well handcuff ourselves and walk right into jail if Hillary gets elected.
So far, the war on terror means to most Americans a war against bad guys with guns and bombs who just happen to be muslim. We haven't defined our enemy at all. This means the next pres. can go ahead and say "look at those conservatives, with their guns, and heck, they're even religious too! Lock em up!"
Business_Casual
10-18-06, 23:48
The Gov agents taking your lighter and lip balm today are the parents of the the agents kicking in your door in a few years.
The federal government can suck my dick.
M_P
Exactly, I've been trying to explain to my friends that such a vague policy can be interpreted differently by the next guy/hildebeast. If we allow our policies to be that vague, we might as well handcuff ourselves and walk right into jail if Hillary gets elected.
So far, the war on terror means to most Americans a war against bad guys with guns and bombs who just happen to be muslim. We haven't defined our enemy at all. This means the next pres. can go ahead and say "look at those conservatives, with their guns, and heck, they're even religious too! Lock em up!"
NOT liberal, libertian.
"Thus, Lincoln 'saved' the union in the same sense that a man saves his marital union by violently forcing his wife back into the home and threatening to shoot her if she leaves again. The union may well be saved, but it is not the kind of union that existed on their wedding day. That union no longer exists. The union of the founding fathers ceased to exist in April of 1865."
Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Lincoln Unmasked,, Crown Forum Books, October 2006, page 26.
A war was going to be waged due to slavery post 1791. The ideas contained within the founding documents had huge contradictions.
My favorite Lincoln detractor comment is how the Emancipation Proclamation did not free any slaves then in the next breath say how he abused the Constitution. It’s always worth a good chuckle.
Submariner
10-19-06, 08:27
The Emancipation Proclamation (http://www.nps.gov/ncro/anti/emancipation.html) "freed" slaves only in areas the Union did not oontrol. Where the Union controlled (including the border states that did not secede), folks kept their slaves to the end of the conflict. (My wife's folks in Kentucky kept their slaves until 1865.) Lincoln did eviscerate the Constitution: he suspended habeas corpus while courts were open (subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court), imprisoned Northern dissenters in military prisons without due process (including newspaper editors and owners as well as destroying their presses), initiated a naval blockade (an act of war at international law) without a declaration of war, etc.
This makes you chuckle?:confused:
There was a tariff war brewing for 37 years prior to Fort Sumter. Andrew Jackson almost went to war against South Carolna in 1833 when that state nullified the 1828 Tariff of Abominations and refused to collect tariffs. Protectionist tariffs fall most heavily on agriculural producers who receive market price for their goods but must pay higher prices fo manufactured goods from whatever source. The Morill Tariff was signed into law two days before Lincoln's inauguration, doubling the tax.
In his First Inaugural Speech:
...On the issue of slavery he was 100% accomodating, going so far as to pledge his support for a constitutioal amendment that would forever ban the federal government from interfering with Southern slavery. But on tariff collection he was ncompromising and dictatorial. "[T]here needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it is forced upon the national authority."
What was he talkng about? Failure to collect the tariff, that's what. After making the obligatory statement that it was his obligation to "possess the property and places belonging to the Government" he further stated that it was his duty "to collect the duties and imposts, but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using force against or among people anywhere." In other words, Pay Up or Die. Fail to collect the tariff, as South Carolinians did in 1828 [sic], and there will be a military invasion. He would not back off when it came to tax collection, as President Andrew Jackson had done three decades earlier.[ Lincoln Unmasked, p. 126.
By the way, governments don't grant rights; they can take them away. Have you ever read, "...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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."?
You must really hate the WWII vets that shot Germans out of uniform or in our uniforms on sight.
Submariner
10-19-06, 15:36
You must really hate the WWII vets that shot Germans out of uniform or in our uniforms on sight.
Why do you say that? Everyone is entitled to due process. Due process may sometimes be a bullet. I note that the Germans were not detained indefinitely and tortured, unlike these "unlawful combatants". It takes a very special person to torture another human being or hold them forever.
ETA: The accounts I recall were of Coast Guardsmen apprehending Germans coming ashore. IIRC, they were tried. Do you have any other accounts? As for Germans caught in non-German uniforms, could they not be shot summarily? Again, any real accounts of such shootings?
Why do you say that? Everyone is entitled to due process. Due process may sometimes be a bullet. I note that the Germans were not detained indefinitely and tortured, unlike these "unlawful combatants". It takes a very special person to torture another human being or hold them forever.
ETA: The accounts I recall were of Coast Guardsmen apprehending Germans coming ashore. IIRC, they were tried. Do you have any other accounts? As for Germans caught in non-German uniforms, could they not be shot summarily? Again, any real accounts of such shootings?
Actually, there were Germans who were detained indefinitely. Unless, of course, you contend that the US new the war in Europe would end on May 8th 1945.
There are many accounts of Germans being shot summarily. Especially during the Battle of the Bulge. Hell, we shot Germans on D-Day because there was no place to keep them prisoner.
And Germans captured in the US from U-boats, especially sabateurs were treated as enemy combatants.
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5002026795&er=deny
Hell, in the US we detained people indefinitely, scratch that CITIZENS of this country indefinitely because of their heritage. Do you honestly think the Roosevelt administration had any reservations about detaining actual enemy combatants indefinitely?
[QUOTE=Submariner]The Emancipation Proclamation (http://www.nps.gov/ncro/anti/emancipation.html) "freed" slaves only in areas the Union did not oontrol. Where the Union controlled (including the border states that did not secede), folks kept their slaves to the end of the conflict. (My wife's folks in Kentucky kept their slaves until 1865.) Lincoln did eviscerate the Constitution: he suspended habeas corpus while courts were open (subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court), imprisoned Northern dissenters in military prisons without due process (including newspaper editors and owners as well as destroying their presses), initiated a naval blockade (an act of war at international law) without a declaration of war, etc.
This makes you chuckle?:confused:
[QUOTE]
To keep the scope managable, do you know why the Empancipaiton Proclamation did not free slaves in the states that remained in the Union?
And you will not get any argument from me on the topic of Lincoln expanding the power of the president.
One could argue that the Republic ended at Appomattox Court House. "These United States" became "The United States" just as Patrick Henry prophesied.
Lincoln was no friend of liberty. Rather than drinking the Kool-aid we got in public school, try reading Lincoln Unmasked. (http://www.mises.org/store/Lincoln-Unmasked-P324C0.aspx?AFID=1)
Speaking of Patrick Henry....the "Give me liberty or give me death" line of his speech was (to me) not the line with the greatest meaning. Two sentences prior to that was "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" Sometimes, history misses the point...
MontanaVet
10-19-06, 23:59
They lost my vote and I will tell you why. You may agree or disagree, I don't really care.
First, a person with a gun or bomb trying to kill you is your enemy. You can make up names like "unlawful combatant" all day long, but they are still the enemy.
With the War on Drugs" they gave us property confiscation intended to be used on the drug cartels. Now it is used on everyone. Of course no one likes a drug dealer, but a kid with marijuana in his car is overstepping in my opinion.
Now we have all these Patriot Act laws supposedly to be used to track terrorists. The problem is there are no safeguards for American Citizens and you can bet you a$$ they will be used well past the intent of the law.
No one has the right to suspend "Habeas Corpus" for American Citizens and if they do they are enemies to the Constitution they took an oath to protect. Well guess what just happened on October 17th, 2006?
I have a new term, "Unlawful Politicians". That's my .02 cents. MV out!
Submariner
10-20-06, 05:09
To keep the scope managable, do you know why the Empancipaiton Proclamation did not free slaves in the states that remained in the Union?
And you will not get any argument from me on the topic of Lincoln expanding the power of the president.
It would have been a taking under the Fifth Amendment requiring compensation to the owners; Lincoln did not want to pay.
"Unlawful politicians".:D The image that comes to mind is a groundhog-like creature poking its head out of a "continuation of government" bunker.
It would have been a taking under the Fifth Amendment requiring compensation to the owners; Lincoln did not want to pay.
"Unlawful politicians".:D The image that comes to mind is a groundhog-like creature poking its head out of a "continuation of government" bunker.
This is why I chuckle. Libros and Constitution party folks love to dislike Lincoln and point the not freeing any slaves in Union states. Then say in the next breath he had no regard for the Constitution.
The plain and simple fact of the matter is it would have been unconstitutional to do so.
Check the LOC site, see the 13th & 14th Amendmentments and their dates:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdoxmainpg.html
You'll also find the Bill of Rights has a preamble that makes it pretty plain what the FF wanted. Nice ammo when dealing with an anti-gunner since most folks don't even know it's there.
Submariner
10-20-06, 18:56
This is why I chuckle.
The plain and simple fact of the matter is it would have been unconstitutional to do so.
Check the LOC site, see the 13th & 14th Amendmentments and their dates:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdoxmainpg.html
You'll also find the Bill of Rights has a preamble that makes it pretty plain what the FF wanted. Nice ammo when dealing with an anti-gunner since most folks don't even know it's there.
I would rather not spend my life in ignorance. Would you please explain to me what you are saying?
I would rather not spend my life in ignorance. Would you please explain to me what you are saying?
Hit the link the the Library of Congress site and read the Constitution and it's amendments. You can copy them to your hard drive if you like.
You may recall the slavery was written into the Constitution, the "fraction" of a man thing that so-called civil rights folks get wrong all the time. The Founders did not think slaves should not be counted as citizens and therefore slaves should not directly contribute to the number of reps in the US House.
The 13th and 14th Amendments abolish slavery. Had Lincoln freed the slaves in the Emancipation Proclamation (prior to the Constitution being amended) it would have been unconstitutional.
That's why I chuckle when I hear folks saying how bad Lincoln was and the unconstitutional things he did.
However, I think I need to restate something I've posted somewhere above. Laws need to be written with your worst case president in mind, not the best case. If you don't mind the Patriot Act under Bush but would freak out if Hilary Clinton was elected, it's a bad law. Make sense?
Business_Casual
10-21-06, 08:07
"That's why I chuckle when I hear folks saying how bad Lincoln was and the unconstitutional things he did."
If I understand your argument, he respected one element while ignoring many others and that makes him OK? I respect many traffic laws but I sometimes exceed the speed limit. Do you think that will get me out of a ticket next time I'm pulled over? :confused:
M_P
"That's why I chuckle when I hear folks saying how bad Lincoln was and the unconstitutional things he did."
If I understand your argument, he respected one element while ignoring many others and that makes him OK? I respect many traffic laws but I sometimes exceed the speed limit. Do you think that will get me out of a ticket next time I'm pulled over? :confused:
M_P
Nope. Just not as bad as folks like to paint him.
It's just that the overwelming majority of people who carp about slaves not being freed from the boarder states need to be better informed. I for one was not taught the Constitutional issue in school either.
I am now motivated to do some research on Habeas Corpus and I'll get back with you guys, since I may actually have some time this weekend. I know FDR did some pretty strong things, so did Truman in the name of national security. Just like Lincoln.
IIRC their actions ended with the conflicts they were in, but like I said I'll get back to you.
baffle Stack
10-21-06, 09:42
Hit the link the the Library of Congress site and read the Constitution and it's amendments. You can copy them to your hard drive if you like.
You may recall the slavery was written into the Constitution, the "fraction" of a man thing that so-called civil rights folks get wrong all the time. The Founders did not think slaves should not be counted as citizens and therefore slaves should not directly contribute to the number of reps in the US House.
The 13th and 14th Amendments abolish slavery. Had Lincoln freed the slaves in the Emancipation Proclamation (prior to the Constitution being amended) it would have been unconstitutional.
That's why I chuckle when I hear folks saying how bad Lincoln was and the unconstitutional things he did.
However, I think I need to restate something I've posted somewhere above. Laws need to be written with your worst case president in mind, not the best case. If you don't mind the Patriot Act under Bush but would freak out if Hilary Clinton was elected, it's a bad law. Make sense?
Wow I've never thought of it like that. That does make sense Thanks.
Submariner
10-21-06, 12:34
Lincoln still considered the Southern states part of the "perpetual Union"and, thus, under the jurisdiction of the federal goverment and US Constitution. If it were unconstitutional for him to free them in the states that had not seceded and in the occupied ares of the states which had seceded, how would it be possible to contitutionally free then in the unoccupied areas of the states which had seceded?
Do you have a link to someone who has written more extensively on your theory?
Lincoln still considered the Southern states part of the "perpetual Union"and, thus, under the jurisdiction of the federal goverment and US Constitution. If it were unconstitutional for him to free them in the states that had not seceded and in the occupied ares of the states which had seceded, how would it be possible to contitutionally free then in the unoccupied areas of the states which had seceded?
Do you have a link to someone who has written more extensively on your theory?
My theory?????
Did you read the darn 13th & 14th Amendments? If not please read it and get back with me. Otherwise a conversation really won't amount to much.
Submariner
10-21-06, 20:08
Yes, I have read them numerous times. They had not been ratified as of the date of the Emancipation Proclamation which freed slaves in the unoccupied South. If freeing them was unconstitutional, how could he do it?
Yes, I have read them numerous times. They had not been ratified as of the date of the Emancipation Proclamation which freed slaves in the unoccupied South. If freeing them was unconstitutional, how could he do it?
How did he do it, Martial Law - that is if you contend Lincoln thought the south was still part of the union. Our military was engaged in an active conflict after all.
But you're tap dancing.
IIRC, the 13th & 14th Amendments were ratified in 1865, well after the Civil War, so freeing slaves in boarder states would have been unconstitutional. The point is crystal clear and not open to debate. The amendments passed in 1865 and the Emancipation Proclamation was Jan 1st 1863. It's a fact and not open to debate and not a matter of opinion.
Submariner
10-22-06, 06:23
Dred Scott (ca. 1795 – September 17, 1858) was a slave who sued unsuccessfully for his freedom in the famous Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1856. His case was based on the fact that he and his wife Harriet had lived, while slaves, in states and territories where slavery was illegal, including Illinois and parts of the Louisiana Purchase. The court ruled 7 to 2 against Scott, stating that slaves were property, and the court would not deprive slave owners of their property without due process of law according to the Fifth Amendment.
BTW, what is an "active conflict" ? I searched the constitution in vain for that term. There is power in Congress to "declare war" but that wasn't done in the 1860's.
BTW, what is an "active conflict" ? I searched the constitution in vain for that term. There is power in Congress to "declare war" but that wasn't done in the 1860's.
You're still tap dancing. Did you search the Constitution in vain for the sections on slavery? Freeing slaves prior to 1865 would have been unconstitutional.
BTW, in an "active conflict" the president has much more power to deal with problems. As in martial law. The "War of Southern Aggression" started with a state militia firing upon a US Army installation. And the Constitution CLEARLY states the president is commander and chief of the Army, Navy and Militias. America was attacked at Fort Sumter.
The absolute bottom line that you librarian types do not want to acknowledge is the Civil War root cause with slavery. It is morally wrong and was opposite the ideals laid forth in the Constitution and other founding documents.
If I'm going to do that research into Habeas Corpus I'll have to stop sparing with you for in bit. BTW, conceding a point (which you seem unwilling to do) does not mean you loose the debate. But when I come back we'll be doing some Hebeas Corpus 202. Study up!;)
Here’s a good one on Lincoln:
http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/did_lincoln.htm
Here’s another one:
http://www.civilwarhome.com/pulito.htm
In the recently enacted Military Commissions Act, Congress acceded to President Bush’s request to remove the power of federal courts to consider petitions for writ of habeas by foreign citizens held by U.S. officials on suspicion of having committed acts of terrorism.
Key phase – FOREIGN CITIZENS
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=16911
I suggest the group read this, it has a great break down of the act and defines “unlawful combatants”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006#Scope_of_the_Act
The Wikipedia link is a good one. You'd think a guy could find the test of the actual law everyone is up in arms about. I'll be back.
Here's the senate bill itself:
It's long so it'll take some time to read. Enjoy all.
EDIT to fix link:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c109query.html
Enter this string to search on:
Military Commissions Act of 2006
Business_Casual
10-22-06, 22:36
Thanks, I'll read all that stuff in my prison cell where I've been sent for being a domestic terrorist and having a "compound" and an "arsenal." Since the Govt doesn't have to charge me with anything to hold me, I'll have plenty of time to read it.
Or maybe it will be confiscated by the TSA because it has a paper clip on the print out. You may enjoy having your rights violated and look for justifications for it all you want, but it won't change what is and has happened.
M_P
Submariner
10-23-06, 09:04
Unless we have been invaded or there is an insurrection, Congress has no authority to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, even for foreign citizens, according to the US Constitution:
Section 9 - Limits on Congress
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.
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.
Unless we have been invaded or there is an insurrection, Congress has no authority to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, even for foreign citizens, according to the US Constitution:
Section. 9.
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.
That public safety thing is the basis of the new law me thinks.....
Submariner
10-24-06, 06:51
Under rules of statutory construction, when the public safety requires it qualifies the cases of insurrection or rebellion. If there is a rebellion or insurrection and if public safety requires it, then it can be suspended.
A text without a context is a pretext.
Under rules of statutory construction, when the public safety requires it qualifies the cases of insurrection or rebellion. If there is a rebellion or insurrection and if public safety requires it, then it can be suspended.
A text without a context is a pretext.
Isn't terrorism insurrection?
BTW, so was the War of Southern Aggression (The Civil War).
BTW, has anyone read the links I posted? Did anyone take the time to read the definitions section of the law?
Rather than taking the word of knee jerk talking heads may I suggest we inform ourselves on the law before taking the bridge? I've read a good chunk of it now and it's not the sinister law it's painted to be by Bush haters and libertarian alarmists.
Submariner
10-24-06, 13:01
Isn't terrorism insurrection?
BTW, so was the War of Southern Aggression (The Civil War).
At federal law, insurrection is a rising or rebellion of citizens against their government, usually manifested by acts of violence. Has the President declared there to be an insurrection by US citzens against the US government? No. There are insurrections in Afghanistan and Iraq; some of their citizens are rising up against the US-installed governments. That's why the US government refers to them as "insurgents".;)
Southern states argued that with succession, they were no longer part of the union and their citizens were no longer citizens of the United States. They did not join a "perpetual union". (These words, contained in the Articles of Confederation, were proposed and specifically excluded by the Constitutional Convention.) They left the union the same way the colonies left England. They lost the war and, at least for now, the argument.
Lincoln was the President. He suspended habeas corpus by fiat, without constitutional authority, and imprisoned his opposition long before Congress ever got around to suspending the writ. Only Congress can suspend the writ during an insurrection (against the US government by US citizens) when public safety may require it or during a rebellion (against the US government by US citizens) when public safety may require it, not anytime they think public safety may require it. Insurrection or rebellion are conditions precedent, i.e. required first before action may be taken.
Think, the President may declare an insurrection but the Congress might not agree that public safety requires a suspension of the writ for whatever reason. It is but one of the checks and balances that protect our liberties from tyranny.
ETA: Of course, there may be some who say that if you are not for the government then you are against it. Is that an insurrection? Are you an "unlawful combatant"? Can you lose your citizenship? Then you are an alien who just might qualify under the law. Who decides? The Courts or The Decider? What if Hitlery were the next Decider?
At federal law, insurrection is a rising or rebellion of citizens against their government, usually manifested by acts of violence. Has the President declared there to be an insurrection by US citizens against the US government? No. There are insurrections in Afghanistan and Iraq; some of their citizens are rising up against the US-installed governments. That's why the US government refers to them as "insurgents".;)
OK then your logic.
Should a US citizen be found to support a known terrorist group that has declared war on America as AQ has. Would that person be an insurgent here in the US to you? That is a fair and straight question.
Next. If a non citizen was found supporting a known terrorist group that has declared war on America as AQ has. Would that person be an insurgent here in the US to you? Another fair question.
Who decides? Read the link to the act that I posted. It states definitions that congress and the president agreed to. Therefore both congress and the president decided.
And to your Hilary question..... As I've already posted, laws should be written with your worst case president in mind, not the best case.
Submariner
10-25-06, 06:57
Congress makes the law. The executive branch executes the law. The courts determine if the law was violated (or if the law and/or action of the executive is unconstitutional). That is our system and "it works pretty good".
Where in the law does it state there is an insurrection onging in the United States? Simple question. To have "insurgents" there must be declared an "insurgency". The constitutional term is "insurrection". OK? The issue in the thread is suspension of habeas corpus.
ETA: Iraqi and Afghani "insurgents" oppose the duly instituted (by the US) government of Iraq and support withdrawal of US troops from their countries. If a US citizen were to support withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, would that make the US citizen an "insurgent"?
Furthermore, at international law, only nations can declare war. AQ is not a nation. Nations make war; non-nation organizations commit crime and are subject to the jurisdiction of the nation in which or against which the crime is committed. Due process for criminal actions is generally through the courts.
Congress makes the law. The executive branch executes the law. The courts determine if the law was violated (or if the law and/or action of the executive is unconstitutional). That is our system and "it works pretty good".
Where in the law does it state there is an insurrection onging in the United States? Simple question. To have "insurgents" there must be declared an "insurgency". The constitutional term is "insurrection". OK? The issue in the thread is suspension of habeas corpus.
ETA: Iraqi and Afghani "insurgents" oppose the duly instituted (by the US) government of Iraq and support withdrawal of US troops from their countries. If a US citizen were to support withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, would that make the US citizen an "insurgent"?
Furthermore, at international law, only nations can declare war. AQ is not a nation. Nations make war; non-nation organizations commit crime and are subject to the jurisdiction of the nation in which or against which the crime is committed. Due process for criminal actions is generally through the courts.
The Constitution sates the congress can raise & maintain and army and navy even though we may not be at war. Confused?
We also have an Air Force yet the Constitution does not say anything about it. Confused?
Bottom line is this. I posted lots of links to info I dare say you did not take the time to read, at least you did not answer my polite questions.
You just carped.
I asked you some polite, straight forward questions you didn’t answer (it’s hard to have a discussion with a guy engaged in pontificating a monologue).
But on a bright note, your carping did get me to take the time to read up on the issue so I’m more informed.
Now if I missed a question that you asked I'll do my best
If you're not going to have a discussion have a great time, I'll spend my time reading the act you're upset about and make up my own mind.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.