Author Topic: so long habeus corpus. (Read 5951 times)

2Slow · « **Reply #180 on:** October 21, 2006, 10:50:47 AM »

"it is slightly more complex given the backward bloodthirsty nature of the people there but if need be.... partition the place... it's not like it was a real country anyway... maybe we need to partition the whole middle east into tribal areas."

Very good point (although a bit off topic.) From what I understand, the British Empire drew lines in the sand to define nations with the explicit purpose to make them weak and non-functional.

Hmmm...here is a brilliant idea! Let's combine Assyrians, Persians, and Kurds into one political unit that sits on a large preserve of oil. We can then maintain control of the area by pitting them against one another.

As an alternative to the failed effort of the Treaty of Sevres;
They Assyrian area could be named Enron (they would have no oil rights and be bankrupt), the Kurd area could be named Shell (gotta give something to the Brits), and the Persian area would be named Texaco. (Names are a poor attempt at humor)

If one reads the history of the region one must ask one's self, "What the hell are we doing there?" If it were not for the "cheep" oil, I think we would care less.

RedRadr · « **Reply #181 on:** October 21, 2006, 10:54:56 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking

Right now we are content with pointing fingers and criticizing.

which, at the end of the day, is all your really good for...

Nilsen · « **Reply #182 on:** October 21, 2006, 10:57:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by 2Slow
the Kurd area could be named Shell (gotta give something to the Brits)

..

*cough*

VOR · « **Reply #183 on:** October 21, 2006, 11:09:32 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
Terrorism is nothing new in Europe.

Considering the long standing record of bombers actually enacting political change in the continent, I'm glad the United States isn't looking across the pond for advice. No offense, but your ways are your ways, our ways are our ways.

I think the message the US is broadcasting is clear enough: when you attack the US or our interests abroad, you don't get what you want or even a sympathetic ear. You AND all your little like-minded friends get the **** kicked out of you and we'll take your cool stuff home with us.

The sideliners might scream "no fair" and adroitly compare us to Hitler, but I'm sure that we'll find it in our hearts to forgive them and lend them a hand when the need arises.

Shamus · « **Reply #184 on:** October 21, 2006, 11:52:03 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2

as for the bill of rights.... I think the bill of rights is only for citizens. .

lazs

Well you would be wrong then, when law enforcement hits the front porch they cant say "if you cant produce proof of citizenship we dont need a warrant"

You dont have prisons broken down to one area for citizens the other area has cat o nine tails and fingernail pulling in use.

You dont have to be a citizen to own a gun.

A non citizen cant be flogged untill he testifies against himself.

Now many of you will probably say, "maybee not but thats the way it should be" I fear that you may get your way.

I think we should remove the protections provided under the Bill of Rights from gay's next..cuz after all I am not one.

shamus

Chairboy · « **Reply #185 on:** October 21, 2006, 12:04:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
you are really going to laugh when the "unlawful combatants" start blowing up your people.

By your logic, why not classify all murderers as enemy combatents? You still haven't answered any of my questions directed at you. You don't have any response, I take it, to the Timothy McVeigh inquiry?

lukster · « **Reply #186 on:** October 21, 2006, 12:10:07 PM »

The bill of rights is nothing more than the first ten amdendments to the Constitution. I have pointed out that while legal resident aliens are protected by our laws they do not enjoy all of the privleges our Constitution provides to citizens.

Quote

Originally posted by Shamus
Well you would be wrong then, when law enforcement hits the front porch they cant say "if you cant produce proof of citizenship we dont need a warrant"

You dont have prisons broken down to one area for citizens the other area has cat o nine tails and fingernail pulling in use.

You dont have to be a citizen to own a gun.

A non citizen cant be flogged untill he testifies against himself.

Now many of you will probably say, "maybee not but thats the way it should be" I fear that you may get your way.

I think we should remove the protections provided under the Bill of Rights from gay's next..cuz after all I am not one.

shamus

oboe · « **Reply #187 on:** October 21, 2006, 12:14:39 PM »

The suspension of Habeas Corpus has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights.

Congress is specifically prohibited from suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus, except in cases of Rebellion or Invasion, by Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution. It is not part of an amendment - it is in the original text of the main body of the Constitution.

Yet that is exactly what Congress has done in this act. Every one of those congressmen who voted 'yes' took an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution, yet look what they did.

It'll be up to the Supreme Court now, I guess. We'll just have to wait and see what happens.

john9001 · « **Reply #188 on:** October 21, 2006, 12:26:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
By your logic, why not classify all murderers as enemy combatents? You still haven't answered any of my questions directed at you. You don't have any response, I take it, to the Timothy McVeigh inquiry?

sorry chairboy, i must have missed the question, what did you want to know about McVeigh?

lukster · « **Reply #189 on:** October 21, 2006, 12:46:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by oboe
The suspension of Habeas Corpus has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights.

Congress is specifically prohibited from suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus, except in cases of Rebellion or Invasion, by Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution. It is not part of an amendment - it is in the original text of the main body of the Constitution.

Yet that is exactly what Congress has done in this act. Every one of those congressmen who voted 'yes' took an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution, yet look what they did.

It'll be up to the Supreme Court now, I guess. We'll just have to wait and see what happens.

Are you suggesting that Habeus Corpus should apply to the Taliban now being held in Gitmo? These Taliban that were captured by US troops while fighting in Afghanistan without respect for the GC? Does the GC stipulate the penalty for militia who fight out of uniform and often target civilians? Perhaps it should, until then this new law will fill the bill.

oboe · « **Reply #190 on:** October 21, 2006, 01:05:23 PM »

I'm suggesting Congress should've chosen a tack that would allow them to deal with these detainees in a way that did not involve doing something they are expressly forbidden from doing by our Constitution.

How many suits have been filed challenging the act already? How long for the legal wheels to turn and render a decision? It's just hard to believe this was the best, most efficient way to handle it.

lukster · « **Reply #191 on:** October 21, 2006, 01:07:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by oboe
I'm suggesting Congress should've chosen a tack that would allow them to deal with these detainees in a way that did not involve doing something they are expressly forbidden from doing by our Constitution.

I think they did just that. We'll just have to disagree.

bsdaddict · « **Reply #192 on:** October 21, 2006, 01:41:01 PM »

so many things wrong with the MCA. First of all, it’s blatantly unconstitutional. In the section defining an unlawful enemy combatant it says “(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006…” ummm, it doesn’t take a genius to see that the retroactive language there makes this an ex post facto law. yet, it still passed…

second point I’d like to make, especially to you die-hard Republicans, is this: How in the hell are you supposed to prove you’re NOT an unlawful enemy combatant if you’re locked up and kept incommunicado for a period of time and without means to defend yourself?

third point, possibly the most important one, is this power to summarily determine that an individual is an Unlawful Enemy Combatant that Bush is granting himself, will be transfered to our next president, and to the one after that, ad nauseum. How’d you like Hillary empowered to knock down doors and abduct people, citizens even, as she sees fit?

oboe · « **Reply #193 on:** October 21, 2006, 01:42:58 PM »

excerpt from the Act:
(e)(1)No 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 United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

Article I, Section 9, U.S. Constitution:
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.

I don't see how the Act doesn't run afoul of the Constitution but I'm sure you're not alone in your thinking. Suspending the writ for only certain cases still amounts to suspending it, and the Constitution is clear that the Congress does not have authority to do such.

Guess we'll have to wait until the SC renders a decision.

JB88 · « **Reply #194 on:** October 21, 2006, 01:46:53 PM »

well, let's hope that we havent gotten so far off track that the congress or the president decides to ignore the rulings of the court.

whole thing falls then.

it seems to me that they are testing that line.