John McCain opposes the Constitution and Habeas Corpus

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

John McCain opposes the Constitution and Habeas Corpus

Bad/misleading thread title, and unfair to McCain and others who disagree with this decision.

I've been out-of-town and this decision was rendered while I was away, so I haven't read it yet.

I think this decision illustrates the persistent confusion/disagreement about whether Al Qiada & the Taliban is a law enforcement issue or a military one. Is it a *war* or is it a *crime*?

Habeus Corpus doesn't apply in conditions of war, and POWs are held until the conflict's end. Up til now, everyone has worn a uniform (unless spies. who are tried and executed), to have the judicial system rule on each POW seems stupid and unnecessary to me.

Even the SCOTUS has ruled this a *war* declared by Congress, with this ruling they have shifted rules of the game away from militray and back towards law enforcement. IMO, it's a contradiction.

Are they now charing our military with the duties of a DA or prosecutor? I suppose it does or how shall they be able to convince a court that the detainee deserves to be detained. Is it appropriate to charge our military with collecting evidence on the *battle field*? Seems inappropriate to me; and a burden unsuited for the military.

Are the Justices now creating a new *3rd* way in addition to military v law enorcement standards?

How many of the usual civilian law enforcement standards must be applied to these quasi- military court proceedings? The military would be collecting evidence without a warrent. What about the chain of custody? Do standards of unreasonable search & seizure apply? Perhaps some of these issues are addressed in the ruling. I also note that while police officers (who usually gather evidence) are officiers of the court (i.e., under the judiciary) military personnel are not (they are under the executive branch IIRC).

But Habeus Corpus is a civilian concept, and applying it here in a military/war envorinment sets up all types conflicts in logic etc. Seems a bad decision to me, and until I read it I'll consider it *PC* driven and not based on solid precident.

Fern

This logic is terrifying. You are pretty much stating that our government can hold people for the rest of their lives if they so choose based upon zero evidence. The only thing the court's ruling said was that if you're holding people for years and possibly forever not in a combat zone you need to be able to provide cause for this. It's complete common sense.

If you are trying to apply prisoner of war rules here, how can you possibly do so in a war that is against an ideology and therefore has no end? You can't. To do so would be again, monstrous and evil.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Fern

John McCain opposes the Constitution and Habeas Corpus

Bad/misleading thread title, and unfair to McCain and others who disagree with this decision.

I've been out-of-town and this decision was rendered while I was away, so I haven't read it yet.

I think this decision illustrates the persistent confusion/disagreement about whether Al Qiada & the Taliban is a law enforcement issue or a military one. Is it a *war* or is it a *crime*?

Habeus Corpus doesn't apply in conditions of war, and POWs are held until the conflict's end. Up til now, everyone has worn a uniform (unless spies. who are tried and executed), to have the judicial system rule on each POW seems stupid and unnecessary to me.

Even the SCOTUS has ruled this a *war* declared by Congress, with this ruling they have shifted rules of the game away from militray and back towards law enforcement. IMO, it's a contradiction.

Are they now charing our military with the duties of a DA or prosecutor? I suppose it does or how shall they be able to convince a court that the detainee deserves to be detained. Is it appropriate to charge our military with collecting evidence on the *battle field*? Seems inappropriate to me; and a burden unsuited for the military.

Are the Justices now creating a new *3rd* way in addition to military v law enorcement standards?

How many of the usual civilian law enforcement standards must be applied to these quasi- military court proceedings? The military would be collecting evidence without a warrent. What about the chain of custody? Do standards of unreasonable search & seizure apply? Perhaps some of these issues are addressed in the ruling. I also note that while police officers (who usually gather evidence) are officiers of the court (i.e., under the judiciary) military personnel are not (they are under the executive branch IIRC).

But Habeus Corpus is a civilian concept, and applying it here in a military/war envorinment sets up all types conflicts in logic etc. Seems a bad decision to me, and until I read it I'll consider it *PC* driven and not based on solid precident.

Fern

It's much simpler than that...really.

The Military Commissions Act, which was passed when Republicans controlled the House and Senate, was the legislation that was declared unconstitutional.


Simple as that...A badly written law rushed through a rubber-stamp Congress was found to be unconstitutional.

This is not any deep arcane pointy headed interpretation...just badly written law thrown out.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Perry404

John McCain said Friday that the Supreme Court ruling on Guantanamo Bay detainees is ?one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.?

The presumptive GOP nominee said the decision, a 5-4 ruling Thursday that determined Guantanamo detainees have the right to seek release in civilian courts, would lead to a wave of frivolous challenges.

?We are now going to have the courts flooded with so-called ? habeas corpus suits against the government, whether it be about the diet, whether it be about the reading material. And we are going to be bollixed up in a way that is terribly unfortunate because we need to go ahead and adjudicate these cases,? he said at a town hall meeting in New Jersey.

McCain said he has worked hard to ensure the U.S. military does not torture prisoners but that the detainees at Guantanamo are still ?enemy combatants.?

?These are people who are not citizens. They do not and never have been given the rights that citizens in this country have,? he said. ?Now, my friends, there are some bad people down there. There are some bad people.?

Barack Obama released a statement Thursday saying the Supreme Court decision ?ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice while also protecting our core values.?

?The Court?s decision is a rejection of the Bush administration?s attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain,? he said. ?This is an important step toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus.?

Source: Fox news


The preamble to Declaration of Independence states:

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.

John McCain claims that a government gives a man his rights.
If rights truly are unalienable and given by the creator, as the U.S. constitution states, then would God give them only to Americans or to all mankind?

I'll let go the fact that you're quoting the Declaration of Independence and crediting it to the constitution for the moment.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Atreus21


I'll let go the fact that you're quoting the Declaration of Independence and crediting it to the constitution for the moment.

He was made aware of that and edited it like 2 hours ago.

 

[Genx87]

This is new territory we are entering. The last time we had military tribunals there was a similar request to the Surpreme Court which it denied to the German infiltrators. There was even a United States citizen tried in that group and hung. However it sounds like that situation while similar was also dismilar in that FDR had an actual declaration of war which he used to his advantage to instruct the military to conduct the tribunals.

At this point I'd say let them go because there is little chance we will convict these guys in our judicial system. We simply wont meet the litmus test.

However if we are to push forward with our WoT we will be required to do something about this situation. Simply put it will make little sense to capture operatives on foreign soil if we have to try them in our court system. It will make a mockery of us, embolden them, and waste our resources even worse than we are wasting them now.

Maybe an actual declaration of war would be a good step. Make it official and enact the powers to the exectuve branch with legislative oversight. Right now we are in no mans land which is a direct result of poor planning by the Bush administration.

 

[fskimospy]

I think we should all view this for what it really is. The Republicans know they're in deep deep trouble this election cycle. What do they think they are still strong on? Terrorism. When a decision like this comes out that relates to terrorism of course they are going berserk. They will play this for everything it's worth because it's one of the only cards they have to play.

I mean we see Newt coming out and saying that American cities are going to be destroyed because we gave someone at Guantanamo a hearing? This sort of thing would be laughable if I didn't see so many people accepting it as a real possibility.

I wish people would just wake up for a minute and look at this rationally. Of course we couldn't hold people forever with no evidence and no charges. The military commissions set up the way they were obviously weren't going to fly either. (nobody really views a system as credible when it allows for 'do-overs' if the government doesn't like the verdict) The administration was repeatedly given options to dispense some middling form of justice to the people there, and it refused to do so. What did you really expect was going to happen?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Genx87
This is new territory we are entering. The last time we had military tribunals there was a similar request to the Surpreme Court which it denied to the German infiltrators. There was even a United States citizen tried in that group and hung. However it sounds like that situation while similar was also dismilar in that FDR had an actual declaration of war which he used to his advantage to instruct the military to conduct the tribunals.

At this point I'd say let them go because there is little chance we will convict these guys in our judicial system. We simply wont meet the litmus test.

However if we are to push forward with our WoT we will be required to do something about this situation. Simply put it will make little sense to capture operatives on foreign soil if we have to try them in our court system. It will make a mockery of us, embolden them, and waste our resources even worse than we are wasting them now.

Maybe an actual declaration of war would be a good step. Make it official and enact the powers to the exectuve branch with legislative oversight. Right now we are in no mans land which is a direct result of poor planning by the Bush administration.

Here's the thing though, if you read the decision it specifically says that most detainees are not to be turned over to the federal judiciary. It just says that if we're holding them for years without providing any cause that they have a recourse. I mean literally some of these people have been sitting in Gitmo for SIX YEARS without even being given a reason. That's not what America is about. The military is just as free now as ever to take prisoners on foreign soil and hold them for a very long period of time.

99% of people captured by the US military will never see the inside of a federal courtroom. The people in prison in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't going anywhere. All it's doing is preventing life imprisonment without even so much as a hearing. I think this is a very good thing.

 

[Lemon law]

The point is that regardless if they are deemed good or evil by some sort of third party observer, the person acting thinks they represent good and those opposed to them are bad.

I am sorry, as an American, I consider GWB&co and the notion the absolute power they seek representing good to be totally absurd. And if a democrat were doing it, I would be similarly opposed to stinking thinking.

The external ideal of justice demands everything be weighted in a balance so it may be judged, and GWB seeks to infinitely postpone that very evaluation.

How can we claim to be good when we become the very monsters we fight?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Genx87
This is new territory we are entering. The last time we had military tribunals there was a similar request to the Surpreme Court which it denied to the German infiltrators. There was even a United States citizen tried in that group and hung. However it sounds like that situation while similar was also dismilar in that FDR had an actual declaration of war which he used to his advantage to instruct the military to conduct the tribunals.

At this point I'd say let them go because there is little chance we will convict these guys in our judicial system. We simply wont meet the litmus test.

However if we are to push forward with our WoT we will be required to do something about this situation. Simply put it will make little sense to capture operatives on foreign soil if we have to try them in our court system. It will make a mockery of us, embolden them, and waste our resources even worse than we are wasting them now.

Maybe an actual declaration of war would be a good step. Make it official and enact the powers to the exectuve branch with legislative oversight. Right now we are in no mans land which is a direct result of poor planning by the Bush administration.

Here's the thing though, if you read the decision it specifically says that most detainees are not to be turned over to the federal judiciary. It just says that if we're holding them for years without providing any cause that they have a recourse. I mean literally some of these people have been sitting in Gitmo for SIX YEARS without even being given a reason. That's not what America is about. The military is just as free now as ever to take prisoners on foreign soil and hold them for a very long period of time.

99% of people captured by the US military will never see the inside of a federal courtroom. The people in prison in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't going anywhere. All it's doing is preventing life imprisonment without even so much as a hearing. I think this is a very good thing.

I am not in disagreement with you on that. Everybody except the extreme whacko's knew Bush couldnt hold them indefinately without some kind of trial or hearing, be it Military Tribunal or within our court system.

Now that his administrations policy appears to have run its course. We have an opportunity as a nation to determine wtf we are going to do. I for one done think we have a rats chance in hell at convicting anybody within our judicial system. We just wont meet that "beyond a reasonable doubt" requirement.

So where do we go from here?

 

[StageLeft]

He may be a war hero but I wonder if he remembers what he was supposed to fight for. What many in this country endorse in regard to how to treat others is discraceful. 911 continues to be the cry that shows us the emperor has no clothes. It was easy to talk of justice and the constitution and morality until some people died and now you have vast swathes of the country wholly endorsing antiquated, immoral oppressions on what we used to take for granted as irrevocable in the US, namely freedom from oppression and justice.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Maybe an actual declaration of war would be a good step. Make it official and enact the powers to the exectuve branch with legislative oversight. Right now we are in no mans land which is a direct result of poor planning by the Bush administration.

Well there are a couple problems with this approach:

1. We can't declare war in the legal sense against a disparate group of people, this isn't a formal state, even Al Qaeda itself isn't a homogeneous group with a "plan". Declaring "Wars" on ideas has been an utter failure in this country and still isn't a legal definition per se.


2. There isn't an international consensus on what the definition of terrorist or terrorism is. We currently still list the ANC as a terrorist group, we want to define the Quds force as a terrorist group even though they basically engage in the same activities that our own CIA does. So who gets to make the rules? Sounds like our plan works as long as we call all the shots, but these same arguments could be used to lock our own people up in foreign courts, under the guise of them being terrorists.

 

[sandorski]

I nominate: SCOTUS deciding Bush is President Elect to be a far worse Decision.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Genx87

I am not in disagreement with you on that. Everybody except the extreme whacko's knew Bush couldnt hold them indefinately without some kind of trial or hearing, be it Military Tribunal or within our court system.

Now that his administrations policy appears to have run its course. We have an opportunity as a nation to determine wtf we are going to do. I for one done think we have a rats chance in hell at convicting anybody within our judicial system. We just wont meet that "beyond a reasonable doubt" requirement.

So where do we go from here?

That's the thing, with a Habeas Corpus petition you don't have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Habeas Corpus is just to determine if a detention is lawful or not. All you really need to prove at a hearing for a Habeas writ is that you've got a justifiable reason for holding the guy. (like you can show you have cause to think he committed a crime or whatever)

These aren't trials based on guilt or innocence, they are hearings just to see if we've got even the most basic cause to hold these people.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: ayabe
Well ooga booga, the Fear Machine is revving up to redline I see:

Newter Gingrich - "This court decision is a disaster which could cost us a city. And the debate ought to be over whether or not you're prepared to risk losing an American city on behalf of five lawyers . . . ."

Does he actually believe that this is still a valid rebuttal?

Give these men what they want and find out. It's what you want.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Genx87

I am not in disagreement with you on that. Everybody except the extreme whacko's knew Bush couldnt hold them indefinately without some kind of trial or hearing, be it Military Tribunal or within our court system.

Now that his administrations policy appears to have run its course. We have an opportunity as a nation to determine wtf we are going to do. I for one done think we have a rats chance in hell at convicting anybody within our judicial system. We just wont meet that "beyond a reasonable doubt" requirement.

So where do we go from here?

That's the thing, with a Habeas Corpus petition you don't have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Habeas Corpus is just to determine if a detention is lawful or not. All you really need to prove at a hearing for a Habeas writ is that you've got a justifiable reason for holding the guy. (like you can show you have cause to think he committed a crime or whatever)

These aren't trials based on guilt or innocence, they are hearings just to see if we've got even the most basic cause to hold these people.

But what if they find they have a reason to hold them. Can they do it forever without a trial?

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: loki8481

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all white men who own property 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.

fixed?

but I agree with Obama on this.

Why call McCain white trash? You think Obama isn't black trash?
No they are not trash but merely two individuals equally unfit to preside over the nation.

wait, what?

Bitter people clinging to their guns and religion. Check
But she is a typical white person. check.
Nope, Obama doesn't say stupid shit that would make him look like an uninformed, stereotyping piece of black trash either.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Genx87

I am not in disagreement with you on that. Everybody except the extreme whacko's knew Bush couldnt hold them indefinately without some kind of trial or hearing, be it Military Tribunal or within our court system.

Now that his administrations policy appears to have run its course. We have an opportunity as a nation to determine wtf we are going to do. I for one done think we have a rats chance in hell at convicting anybody within our judicial system. We just wont meet that "beyond a reasonable doubt" requirement.

So where do we go from here?

That's the thing, with a Habeas Corpus petition you don't have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Habeas Corpus is just to determine if a detention is lawful or not. All you really need to prove at a hearing for a Habeas writ is that you've got a justifiable reason for holding the guy. (like you can show you have cause to think he committed a crime or whatever)

These aren't trials based on guilt or innocence, they are hearings just to see if we've got even the most basic cause to hold these people.

But what if they find they have a reason to hold them. Can they do it forever without a trial?

While this has not been decided for certain, probably. At least they would be able to hold them for a very long time. Were there to be a trial of sorts it would very likely be a military tribunal of sorts, something like that. This is mostly conjecture on my part but a finding that their detention was valid would certainly allow the military and the executive broad scope to hold people for large periods of time.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Genx87
This is new territory we are entering. The last time we had military tribunals there was a similar request to the Surpreme Court which it denied to the German infiltrators. There was even a United States citizen tried in that group and hung. However it sounds like that situation while similar was also dismilar in that FDR had an actual declaration of war which he used to his advantage to instruct the military to conduct the tribunals.

At this point I'd say let them go because there is little chance we will convict these guys in our judicial system. We simply wont meet the litmus test.

However if we are to push forward with our WoT we will be required to do something about this situation. Simply put it will make little sense to capture operatives on foreign soil if we have to try them in our court system. It will make a mockery of us, embolden them, and waste our resources even worse than we are wasting them now.

Maybe an actual declaration of war would be a good step. Make it official and enact the powers to the exectuve branch with legislative oversight. Right now we are in no mans land which is a direct result of poor planning by the Bush administration.

I agree with most of what you said, but the last paragraph doesn't sit well with me. We aren't talking solely about conflicts in nations like Iraq or Afghanistan; these are suspects in the war on terror. You cannot have a formal declaration of war against an idea. Declaring war on a country is simple, as is defining POWs in that sense; we're at war with Iraq, so a citizen of Iraq could reasonably held as a POW. Terror doesn't have citizens. Sure, we can brand people terrorists, but that's a judgment call as we pick people up (and I really, really don't trust this administration to apply the label correctly; we already have documented examples of people being branded terrorists and being detained at Guantanamo, only to be released years later with no charges filed).

And the war on terror isn't the only ideological war we have in this country. How about the war on drugs? Should we start putting suspected pot smokers in Gitmo without filing charges? After all, they could be druggies! We're at war here! Or the war on poverty? Maybe we should just ship all the homeless off to Gitmo; it would certainly make our streets cleaner for us socially upstanding respectable monied citizens. Yeah, that's what I want to see: roving squads that will leap into action at the sound of the words "spare change."

I realize these are absurd scenarios. Personally, I find declaring war on any noun, no matter how terrible an offense it is (and terror is pretty bad), to be a pointless cocksuck designed to give the illusion of attempting to stop a perceived problem in society without actually accomplishing anything (good thing drugs and poverty don't exist any more, right?). It's an exercise in futility. Terrorism will never cease to exist. Ever. Quote me. As long as there are disparities in income and wealth, differing religions or ideologies, wars, ruling classes, hierarchical structures of power, tyrants, despots, paranoia, fear or just plain crazy people, terrorism will exist. It's a sad reality, and I wish it weren't so, but you will never see an end to terrorism. Declaring war on it is setting ourselves up for failure, and serves only as a pretense to allow this administration to subvert the constitution and withhold the rights of citizens and non-citizens alike.

 

[Moonbeam]

I just knew there was something wrong with that guy.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

This logic is terrifying. You are pretty much stating that our government can hold people for the rest of their lives if they so choose based upon zero evidence. The only thing the court's ruling said was that if you're holding people for years and possibly forever not in a combat zone you need to be able to provide cause for this. It's complete common sense.

If you are trying to apply prisoner of war rules here, how can you possibly do so in a war that is against an ideology and therefore has no end? You can't. To do so would be again, monstrous and evil.

So you attack my logic, yet supply no rebuttle other than reaching for the emotional and waving the most extreme of all possibilities - indefinte detention?

Are you incapable point-by-point rebuttle? E.g., do you disagree that HC has heretofor been confined to criminal law?

What if we were still engaged in WWII, would you be so concerned with our German POWs? (You do know under conventional war POWS are legally held until the conflict ends?)

Whether or not held in a combat zone is irrelevant. German POWs were held here in my town during WWII, none of them were granted Habeas Corpus or trials. This was not a combat zone during WWII either.

Instead of jumping to the most extreme "held forever" stuff, is it not in the realm of possibility that upon the conclusion of Afganistan & Iraq (as the Dems promise) they may be returned to their home countries or place of capture?

Finally, you say that POW rules cannot apply because it's an "ideology", even though they are engaged against our military. What should apply - criminal law? Why is it any more fitting that US criminal law applies to the "ideology" of foreigners outside of the USA? Geesh, talk about the US throwing it's weight around outside of it's own borders.

Fern

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

This logic is terrifying. You are pretty much stating that our government can hold people for the rest of their lives if they so choose based upon zero evidence. The only thing the court's ruling said was that if you're holding people for years and possibly forever not in a combat zone you need to be able to provide cause for this. It's complete common sense.

If you are trying to apply prisoner of war rules here, how can you possibly do so in a war that is against an ideology and therefore has no end? You can't. To do so would be again, monstrous and evil.

So you attack my logic, yet supply no rebuttle other than reaching for the emotional and waving the most extreme of all possibilities - indefinte detention?

WTF are you smoking? eskimospy is right. You posted nothing logical to be rebutted. The historical tradition of habaes corpus predates our own Constitution by centuries, and you're spewing FUD that attempts to diminish and restrict it with nit picking distinctions between human beings.

Start by asking yourself how holding ANY prisoner who happens to be innocent for undefined, extended periods of time squares with any reasonable understanding of justice as practiced in the United States.

I'll be interested in hearing your opinion AFTER the jack booted thugs come for you and stash you out of range of any and all communication with the outside world... assuming anyone ever hears from you again. And before you answer, remember, the fact that you have committed no offense, whatsoever, is meaningless, and you wouldn't be allowed to complain about it to anyone or have anyone represent you... ever.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

So you attack my logic, yet supply no rebuttle other than reaching for the emotional and waving the most extreme of all possibilities - indefinte detention?

Are you incapable point-by-point rebuttle? E.g., do you disagree that HC has heretofor been confined to criminal law?

What if we were still engaged in WWII, would you be so concerned with our German POWs? (You do know under conventional war POWS are legally held until the conflict ends?)

Whether or not held in a combat zone is irrelevant. German POWs were held here in my town during WWII, none of them were granted Habeas Corpus or trials. This was not a combat zone during WWII either.

Instead of jumping to the most extreme "held forever" stuff, is it not in the realm of possibility that upon the conclusion of Afganistan & Iraq (as the Dems promise) they may be returned to their home countries or place of capture?

Finally, you say that POW rules cannot apply because it's an "ideology", even though they are engaged against our military. What should apply - criminal law? Why is it any more fitting that US criminal law applies to the "ideology" of foreigners outside of the USA? Geesh, talk about the US throwing it's weight around outside of it's own borders.

Fern

Oh spare me. At what point is it okay to complain about indefinite detention? How many years need to go by?

Habeas Corpus has sort of been confined to criminal law. It's also an aspect of military justice. What's your point?

I have to be honest that I've lost a little respect for you finding you defending these ideas.

I feel like you are maybe not understanding what Habeas Corpus is, or what it represents. If you did, you would not use the examples of German POWs in WW2. When someone is captured with a weapon in the uniform of the enemy, there is little doubt that the person you just captured is someone who was fighting against you. The entire purpose of these Habeas Corpus petitions is to determine if the person being held in Guantanamo is in fact someone fighting against us at all, not if they are guilty of this or that. How is this in any way a radical idea? The administration has been repeatedly ordered to provide this sort of remedy, it has repeatedly set up kangaroo courts. This decision to me seems like the USSC realizing that the administration is unwilling to follow its orders.

The standard of proof necessary to hold someone from a Habeas writ is not high, but it is an independent evaluation of the status of the detention. Currently there is no independent evaluation, it all operates on the executive's say-so. This is a ridiculous idea.

In addition, the Supreme Court unfortunately disagrees with you on whether or not someone is in a combat zone is relevant or not. In combat, there is neither the time, the resources, or the desire to exactly sort out who you are holding, and the status of their holding in that area is likely to be brief. To transfer someone to a prison a hemisphere away and leave them there for the better part of a decade understandably places a different sort of light on the necessities of war.

In terms of 'jumping to the extreme', you instead ask me to simply rely on the benevolence of our government to return people when the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are over (whenever the hell that might be.) Since when does our system of law function on the "well lets just hope they're nice" principle? That would be ridiculous.

Considering the administration has said that this conflict will be a 'generational conflict', ie. lasting many decades, there is no particular reason to believe that the 'conflict' these people are being held in will be over any time this decade, or maybe even next decade. To support reasoning that says we can hold people for decades without trial or even a minimum standard of outside oversight is insanity.

Shame on you for supporting it.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

WTF are you smoking? eskimospy is right (Actually, he didn't say "no logic". He said "terrifying logic".) You posted nothing logical to be rebutted. The historical tradition of habaes corpus predates our own Constitution by centuries, So you wanna cite me the origins of HC?. Fine, go find and cite an incidence of it being applied in the military context by the King of Merry Old England. and you're spewing FUD that attempts to diminish and restrict it with nit picking distinctions between human beings.

There is also a long established distinction in the USA of applying the Constitution and Bill of Rights to citizens vs non-citizens, and military combatants vs criminal law cases.

Non-US citizens abroad have long been ruled to lack many rights US citizens have.

Yeah, there are "distinction" between human beings, and they aren't "nit picking" according to the SCOTUS.


Start by asking yourself how holding ANY prisoner who happens to be innocent for undefined, extended periods of time squares with any reasonable understanding of justice as practiced in the United States.

Sounds like in a time of conventional war you promote holding trials for POWS, or else you believe this is a criminal law mater, not a military matter.

I'll be interested in hearing your opinion AFTER the jack booted thugs come for you and stash you out of range of any and all communication with the outside world... assuming anyone ever hears from you again.

Irrelevant and an emotion-based appeal. I'm a US citizen here within borders. I, nor anyone I've ever heard of, have ever opposed HC for US citizens here.

The closest thing was Hamdi, captured abroad on the battlefield.


And before you answer, remember, the fact that you have committed no offense, whatsoever, is meaningless, and you wouldn't be allowed to complain about it to anyone or have anyone represent you... ever.

You continue to overlook or deny any distiction between the application of HC to criminal vs military matters. Moreover, your understanding is mistaken. Prior to this decision they did have someone to complain to, and someone to represent them (if no representation, how'd they get into the SCOTUS? ) This decision gets them into the domestic federal court system.

See bolded above.

Fern

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Fern

See bolded above.

YAWN!!! You're still posing nickel-dime nit picking attempts to defend the indefensible, inhumane, dictatorial actions of the Bushwhacko traitors who have shredded our Constitution. :thumbsdown:

There is ZERO excuse! Remember your words when they come for you. :shocked:

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Atreus21


I'll let go the fact that you're quoting the Declaration of Independence and crediting it to the constitution for the moment.

He was made aware of that and edited it like 2 hours ago.

yea but the question is does the OP know the difference? i think he doesnt so his argument is thrown out the window.