Author Topic: so long habeus corpus. (Read 5948 times)

lukster · « **Reply #240 on:** October 22, 2006, 05:58:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by bsdaddict
I certainly don't expect to change the minds of you die-hard republicans.

Here's the thing. What you assume to be "die-hard republicans" aren't really so much pro-republican as they are anti-progressive liberal socialists.

2Slow · « **Reply #241 on:** October 22, 2006, 06:02:06 PM »

This is not and never has been unconstitutional. It's NOT unconstitutional to deny Habeus Corpus to either Legal or Illegal Enemy Combatants. As a matter of fact, it's good that the Congress is finally feeling it's oats with regard to reining in the Courts who keep grabbing more and more power to themselves. This is exactly what the Constitution calls for to redress power grabs by one of the three branches.

(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.

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.

The last paragraph, in blue, negates the ones in bold and italics. It is that simple. All it awaits is a court challenge. There has been no declaration of Rebellion or Invasion. Therefore, the act is invalid. One cannot legislate constitutionality. It is, or isn't.

Eagler · « **Reply #242 on:** October 22, 2006, 06:04:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by bsdaddict
I DO see a problem with having to prove who I am..

you do not believe in personal identification? wow

Chairboy · « **Reply #243 on:** October 22, 2006, 06:08:21 PM »

Your papers, immediately.

2Slow · « **Reply #244 on:** October 22, 2006, 06:14:47 PM »

This dead horse has been flogged beyond recognition. I think it is time to unsubsribe from this thread and lay to poor animal to rest.

lukster · « **Reply #245 on:** October 22, 2006, 06:14:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
Your papers, immediately.

Kinda like cops have been doing for the last 70 years when they detain you on the side of the road? Next the government will be squelching our freedom of speech and demanding our hard earned money. Whoops, there they went.

JB88 · « **Reply #246 on:** October 22, 2006, 06:43:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 2Slow
This dead horse has been flogged beyond recognition. I think it is time to unsubsribe from this thread and lay to poor animal to rest.

it has not. the law still exists.

Mace2004 · « **Reply #247 on:** October 22, 2006, 07:12:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 2Slow
This is not and never has been unconstitutional. It's NOT unconstitutional to deny Habeus Corpus to either Legal or Illegal Enemy Combatants. As a matter of fact, it's good that the Congress is finally feeling it's oats with regard to reining in the Courts who keep grabbing more and more power to themselves. This is exactly what the Constitution calls for to redress power grabs by one of the three branches.

(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.

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.

The last paragraph, in blue, negates the ones in bold and italics. It is that simple. All it awaits is a court challenge. There has been no declaration of Rebellion or Invasion. Therefore, the act is invalid. One cannot legislate constitutionality. It is, or isn't.

Three points.
I find it kind of appalling that you don't consider Sept 11 and other acts or plans of terrorism within the US as an "invasion".

In any case, no where does the Constitution say that a Rebellion or Invasion has to be "declared". The only mention of even a remotely relevant "declaration" regards a declaration of war. Even so, the war powers of the President do not require such a declaration for him to act.

The law does not constitute a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus by the Congress (which is the section you quote), nor does it apply to US Citizens. The Congress BTW, has the right to "make rules concerning captures on land or water" so they do have some say in how captives are handled while the Constitution says nothing about Judicial power in this area. Most importantly though, the law denies the court's authority in this matter, something that is completely within the Legislature's power and reasserts the limits to Judicial power recognized by all previous Supreme Courts. These limits are part of "checks and balances."

Chairboy · « **Reply #248 on:** October 22, 2006, 10:06:56 PM »

Quick question for the folks who support the legislation: If Hillary Clinton were elected president, do you feel she should have the legal ability to decide that anyone she wants is an 'enemy combatent', then have them arrested without charges?

Toad · « **Reply #249 on:** October 22, 2006, 10:20:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shuckins

If there were any real justice in the world...the attack of 911 should have taken place in 1995....so that master of international politics then occupying the White House could have finessed us through the entire thing.

Well, the first one on the WTC did.

Quote

In the World Trade Center bombing (February 26, 1993) a car bomb was detonated by Arab Islamist terrorists in the underground parking garage below Tower One of the World Trade Center in New York City. The 1,500-lb urea nitrate-fuel oil device killed six and injured 1,042 people. It was intended to devastate the foundation of the North Tower, causing it to collapse onto its twin.

The attack was planned by a group of conspirators including Ramzi Yousef, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, El Sayyid Nosair, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Ahmad Ajaj, and Abdul Rahman Yasin. They received financing from al-Qaeda member Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, Yousef's uncle.

The bomb exploded in the underground garage at 12:17 P.M., generating a pressure estimated over one GPa and opening a 30-meter-wide hole through four sublevels of concrete. The detonation velocity of this bomb was about 15,000 ft/s (4.5 km/s). The cyanide gas generated is assumed to have burned in the explosion.

Urchin · « **Reply #250 on:** October 22, 2006, 10:24:04 PM »

But wait.... shouldn't the first WTC bombing actually be Bush senior's fault? Since 9/11 is Clintons fault, even though he had left office already. I thought the consensus was that the only possible way 9/11 could have been stopped is if Clinton stopped it, since Bush had no time to do it.

Mace2004 · « **Reply #251 on:** October 22, 2006, 10:26:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
Quick question for the folks who support the legislation: If Hillary Clinton were elected president, do you feel she should have the legal ability to decide that anyone she wants is an 'enemy combatent', then have them arrested without charges?

Read again the pertinent part:

(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.

Your point is well taken however. I don't trust Hillary either but I'd be more concerned about my tax records seeing as she's shown a propensity for collecting private tax records before, and, despite the fact the records belonged to Republicans I think that even the most vociferous Democrates would not go so far as to say Republicans aren't US citizens. Also, the collection of these tax records by the Clinton administration was demonstrably illegal in every aspect. Doesn't appear as if the law matters one way or the other to them so what difference would it make?

Bottom line is that I'm not, and no other American citizen is an "alien" so, just by simply reading the law it clearly doesn't apply to US citizens.

lukster · « **Reply #252 on:** October 22, 2006, 10:27:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Urchin
But wait.... shouldn't the first WTC bombing actually be Bush senior's fault? Since 9/11 is Clintons fault, even though he had left office already. I thought the consensus was that the only possible way 9/11 could have been stopped is if Clinton stopped it, since Bush had no time to do it.

Blame for the bombings lies with the bombers. It's the inaction thereafter that Clinton must bear for all time.

Toad · « **Reply #253 on:** October 22, 2006, 10:27:47 PM »

Salt on a raw nerve there Urchin?

I didn't allude any fault to anyone.

The response was to this bit I quoted from Shuckins:

Quote

so that master of international politics then occupying the White House could have finessed us through the entire thing.

You can unclench your hair now.

Mace2004 · « **Reply #254 on:** October 22, 2006, 10:39:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Urchin
But wait.... shouldn't the first WTC bombing actually be Bush senior's fault? Since 9/11 is Clintons fault, even though he had left office already. I thought the consensus was that the only possible way 9/11 could have been stopped is if Clinton stopped it, since Bush had no time to do it.

Interesting thought but you don't carry it through. My vote for the first failure to prevent both the first WTC bombing and 9/11 goes to Zynab bint al-Harith. She was a Jewish woman from the Khaybar oasis that was captured by Muhammad. She tried to kill him with poison but unfortunantly she failed.