Author Topic: so long habeus corpus. (Read 6080 times)

Sixpence · « **Reply #90 on:** October 19, 2006, 12:50:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by RedTop
Chair,

With all due respect, and I mean that totally ,

Exactly what right are you giving up here?

I don't feel I have given up ANY rights at all and I CERTAINLY don't feel like I have given one up here in this instance.

I'm not a combatant.
I'm not an alien.
I'm not a terrorist.
I'm not an unlawful combatant.

I'm just a law abiding citizen of the U.S..

What exactly , since I'm not a lawyer , is this new "Terrible Law" going to do to me? How will it effect my daily life?

And now the BIG question.....

Why in the world should I care about what happens to MaHatMyCoat from some country that shoots at our troops with no army designation. He isn't an Iraqi. He isn't Afghani. Perhaps he is Saudi. Maybe Iranian. He is just there to kill americans. So I should give him rights? I should feel bad that he can't get a fair trial or a trial at all for that matter. I should feel bad about he doesn't get enough prayer time? I should feel bad his koran isn't just so? Rights you say?

Heak Chair I got all the rights I had yesterday. And the day before that. And the day before that.

I wonder , if say your brother , or perhaps like some I know , a son , that was shot and killed , or just wounded , by somoeone whose fight with the U.S. was not for thier country , but just to kill the infidel , if you would feel the same.

You said a person willing to trade thier rights was not a patriot. Perhaps it's not a willingness at all to give up anything. Perhaps the LAW is what it is and some choose to stay within the bounds of it. Perhaps the constitutional changes don't infringe on our rights. PErhaps you feel violated. That doesn't mean others do and therefore are not patriots.

IF your such a Patriot , as you seem to imply , why not take up arms , and try to get things changed like you want. Then you may get a chance to try out this new law to see if it's so bad.

You'll probably relise that the only so called "Rights" people are giving up are the ones they don't ever give 2 thoughts about ever. Until it suits thier political agenda and gives them something else to gripe about. I don't see the government really takeing away rights right now. Perhaps I am blind tho and need education.

~~Sir...I certainly feel bad your life is so infringed upon.~~

Until Hillary gets elected and takes away your automatic weapons. You vow to keep them, won't give them back. You are then classified as

a combatant.
a terrorist.
an unlawful combatant.

You are missing a very important point here. We fought a revolution to get away from kings and give the power to the people. What is happening here is the president is slowly gaining absolute power. Maybe you feel we should go back to age of kings, because you feel we are not losing any rights, I am not ready to do that.

So while you think you have lost nothing, you are slowly losing everything. Think about that when Hillary gains absolute power

Eagler · « **Reply #91 on:** October 19, 2006, 12:56:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mosgood
Actually, this is all done because the Repubs are planning on fixing the elections with their fancy dancy new electronic voting machines and if they get caught they can arrest anyone that gives them any grief about it.....

Arrest this man!!!

JB88 · « **Reply #92 on:** October 19, 2006, 01:14:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
you just don't get it, the "enemy" is ploting to kill us, and you want to debate law.

please define specifically what the enemy is john.

i'll wait.

john9001 · « **Reply #93 on:** October 19, 2006, 01:22:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by JB88
please define specifically what the enemy is john.

i'll wait.

you won't have to wait long, it's the Islamic radicals that say "convert or face the sword".

Shamus · « **Reply #94 on:** October 19, 2006, 01:22:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
you just don't get it, the "enemy" is ploting to kill us, and you want to debate law.

Agreed, The rule of law is an outdated concept, we need to be ruled by good men.

shamus

JB88 · « **Reply #95 on:** October 19, 2006, 01:25:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
you won't have to wait long, it's the Islamic radicals that say "convert or face the sword".

so your definition of an enemy is an islamist radical that says convert or face the sword?

oh.

well why didnt they just put that in the bill and make it easier for all of us?

2Slow · « **Reply #96 on:** October 19, 2006, 01:44:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
you just don't get it, the "enemy" is ploting to kill us, and you want to debate law.

I do get it. We need to pursue them to the ends of the Earth and kill them all. However, I refuse to sacrifice my liberties in order to do it. Nor do we need to sacrifice our liberties.

Thrawn · « **Reply #97 on:** October 19, 2006, 01:46:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
you just don't get it, the "enemy" is ploting to kill us, and you want to debate law.

I sure that some enemy was plotting to kill Americans for most of it's existance. But for most of it's existance the right to a writ of habeus corpus wasn't questioned.

But I understand, you're scared and would rather pretend that this law somehow makes you more safer.

mosgood · « **Reply #98 on:** October 19, 2006, 02:00:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
you just don't get it, the "enemy" is ploting to kill us, and you want to debate law.

And how do YOU propose manageing a society while the enemy is plotting to kill us? By not debating the law?

Mickey1992 · « **Reply #99 on:** October 19, 2006, 02:23:16 PM »

Olbermann sums it up nicely.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15321167/

lazs2 · « **Reply #100 on:** October 19, 2006, 02:27:24 PM »

chair said.... "Why not use the _existing_ legal guidelines? We already have procedures for handling people who murder and assault people. Timothy McVeigh was handled under the existing legal system and executed, why are special new laws that can be used to subvert the constitution needed?"

I believe that this is the best/only way to handle any crime commited by a citizen.

lazs

JB88 · « **Reply #101 on:** October 19, 2006, 02:34:26 PM »

so. how do we get it back?

oboe · « **Reply #102 on:** October 19, 2006, 02:49:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mickey1992
Olbermann sums it up nicely.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15321167/

That was well worth watching, Mickey-- thanks. Olbermann reminds me alot of Edward R Murrow. Hope he stays on the air after that.

JB88 · « **Reply #103 on:** October 19, 2006, 03:02:11 PM »

i was actually going to use obermans vid in the initial post to this thread, but i didnt want it to get killed in utero by you know who.

bj229r · « **Reply #104 on:** October 19, 2006, 06:51:19 PM »

This guy has a nice take (I guess it's cool to post a snippet, even talk shows are allowed to play so-many-seconds of a song as bumper music without violating copyright thingies)

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009113

Quote

During the bitter controversy over the military commission bill, which President Bush signed into law on Tuesday, most of the press and the professional punditry missed the big story. In the struggle for power between the three branches of government, it is not the presidency that "won." Instead, it is the judiciary that lost.

The new law is, above all, a stinging rebuke to the Supreme Court. It strips the courts of jurisdiction to hear any habeas corpus claim filed by any alien enemy combatant anywhere in the world. It was passed in response to the effort by a five-justice majority in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld to take control over terrorism policy. That majority extended judicial review to Guantanamo Bay, threw the Bush military commissions into doubt, and tried to extend the protections of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions to al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, overturning the traditional understanding that Geneva does not cover terrorists, who are not signatories nor "combatants" in an internal civil war under Article 3.

Hamdan was an unprecedented attempt by the court to rewrite the law of war and intrude into war policy. The court must have thought its stunning power grab would go unchallenged. After all, it has gotten away with many broad assertions of judicial authority before. This has been because Congress is unwilling to take a clear position on controversial issues (like abortion, religion or race) and instead passes ambiguous laws which breed litigation and leave the power to decide to the federal courts.