RE: Bye Bye Habeas Corpus

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Bye Bye Habeas Corpus

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Bye Bye Habeas Corpus

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Bye Bye Habeas Corpus - 9/30/2006 10:00:15 PM

Archer

Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

I have no problem with the miitary court having jurisdiction over unlawfull combatants picked up in or around combat who were at the time of their capture bearing arms against the US military. Padilla I always contended should have the treatment due any American citizen arrested for something inside the US. Does that mean some terrorists might slip out the cracks? Possibly, does it mean there might be intelligence leaks to terrorists? possibly. Does that mean there might be some victims directly connected to the fact that the law is applied that way? Possibly.

I don't expect 100% safety from terrorist attacks inside the US, it's an unreasonable expectation to have. I hope for a high number of the attempts to be stopped, I hope that and expect a certain level of vigilence on the part of government to stop them.

Now as to the Gitmo unlawfull combatants, Those picked up during, in or around combat, bearing arms, that is the Habias Corpus. At least enough to warrant them standing trial before the military courts. Those picked up not specificly bearing arms I might have to think a little longer on, but I would not think that applied to very many of the Gitmo Unlawfull Combatants.

As to the Geneva Accords, they address unlawfull Combatants specificly, Those captured bearing arms not in some form of uniform can be summarily executed They have the same Geneva Status as a spy. They are not afforded the same rights that Prisoners of War, as defined in the accords, are. Since historicly they have almost always been summarily executed, and we find it unwise to simply execute them, this really is fairly new ground. Historicly those captured in or around combat not in a uniform have been declared spys and if you look those that survived capture were in fact often tortured by todays's standards.

Now granted I'm not for what "I" would consider torture, but what many are now defining as torture I do not see as torture. The problem is if you define it too broadly you eliminate all interogation beyond "Please tell me where the chemical weapons are" NO I WILL NOT, "OK have a nice day" Where will we draw that line? Who's judgement are we going to use to define what is torture and what is interrogation we are willing to accept?
I've not seen a good answer to that question.

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

Post #: 21

RE: Bye Bye Habeas Corpus - 10/1/2006 6:27:08 AM

juliaoceania

Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline

quote:

have no problem with the miitary court having jurisdiction over unlawfull combatants picked up in or around combat

Do the Geneva Conventions apply? Do they get judical review of any sort, and since they have no government do they have anyone to advocate for them... seeing military courts can be like kangaroo courts and I have no trust in that which is not transparent personally.

quote:

Padilla I always contended should have the treatment due any American citizen arrested for something inside the US. Does that mean some terrorists might slip out the cracks? Possibly, does it mean there might be intelligence leaks to terrorists? possibly. Does that mean there might be some victims directly connected to the fact that the law is applied that way? Possibly.

You are more likely to die in a car accident than be struck by a terrorist. Should we abridge our constitution because of possible victims. I have had family fight and shed blood for this country (my uncle has a purple heart) for those constitutional rights, why are we not willing to risk a few lives for freedom here?

quote:

Now as to the Gitmo unlawfull combatants, Those picked up during, in or around combat, bearing arms, that is the Habias Corpus. At least enough to warrant them standing trial before the military courts. Those picked up not specificly bearing arms I might have to think a little longer on, but I would not think that applied to very many of the Gitmo Unlawfull Combatants.

Ironic, we fight wars to free people but yet are not willing to extend the protections of civil society even the the unarmed. I wonder how many people with tribal tensions and willingness to bare false witness against those they hate have given us false tips. The founders of my country abhored rulers that imprisoned them for debts, on hersey, held them without bail, tried and convicted people without witnesses... it is why we have these protections guaranteed us in the constitution, it is very ironic we are not willing to extend the same to others because they were not "born" here. And "illegal combatant" is just a made up term to redefine people to fit a category and deny them due process,..... antithetical to the reason why my family has served this country in the military... which we take oaths to uphold the constitution, not the commander and chief... we are just to obey him (only if he upholds the constitution himself)

quote:

As to the Geneva Accords, they address unlawfull Combatants specificly, Those captured bearing arms not in some form of uniform can be summarily executed They have the same Geneva Status as a spy. They are not afforded the same rights that Prisoners of War, as defined in the accords,

\

Show me this... I haven't read that part, and I have read it...smiles

quote:

Since historicly they have almost always been summarily executed, and we find it unwise to simply execute them, this really is fairly new ground. Historicly those captured in or around combat not in a uniform have been declared spys and if you look those that survived capture were in fact often tortured by todays's standards.

We cannot torture... remember Hitler? Well he and his ilk are the reason why.

quote:

Now granted I'm not for what "I" would consider torture, but what many are now defining as torture I do not see as torture. The problem is if you define it too broadly you eliminate all interogation beyond "Please tell me where the chemical weapons are" NO I WILL NOT, "OK have a nice day" Where will we draw that line? Who's judgement are we going to use to define what is torture and what is interrogation we are willing to accept?
I've not seen a good answer to that question.

I would draw it at having people convicted in front of kangaroo courts on the word of a neighbor that may not like them.. tipped out by someone unreliable... we used to call these witch hunts. Unarmed people caught and never to see the light of day, killing themselves.... I guess they would have rather have been shot than face whatever it is they face in GITMO.

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to Archer)

Post #: 22

RE: Bye Bye Habeas Corpus - 10/1/2006 8:25:37 AM

ScooterTrash

Posts: 1407
Joined: 1/24/2005
From: Indiana
Status: offline

This not directed at you julia, you were just the last poster. I ran into this article from the American Bar Association that addresses some of the issues with the "Constitutional Rights". For anyone's reading pleasure.
http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/nslr/NSLR_july2006.pdf

_____________________________

Formal symbolic representation of qualitative entities is doomed to its rightful place of minor significance in a world where flowers and beautiful women abound.
-Albert Einstein

(in reply to juliaoceania)

Post #: 23

RE: Bye Bye Habeas Corpus - 10/1/2006 9:17:09 AM

Chaingang

Posts: 1727
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline

I think this discussion has two areas of vagueness that must be addressed:
1. U.S. citizens have Constitutional rights no matter where they are in the world or what they are doing, this is because of their status as U.S. citizens or "in personam jurisdiction."
2. Aliens have Constitutional rights within the U.S. because that's a matter of geographic jurisdiction or "jurisdiction in rem" - our house, our laws (and why Popeye was wrong elsewhere).

My opinion is that habeas corpus still applies to citizens and aliens inside our borders and other areas of federal jurisdiction - and that's how it should be. Laws do not trump the Constitution, but this new bill and the supposed claim of "time of war" status is going to make things really hard if things start to get ugly.

Now, in a foreign country in actual combat against U.S. troops things get weirder. Certain treaties may apply, but generally I'd say that it's not a U.S. jurisdiction either over the person or over the place - so it's almost a legal no man's land. That doesn't mean we throw the stipulations of the Geneva Convention to the wind but it does mean that the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply to those we might capture. So no matter how you want to slice it up, torture is out.

In truth, this bill isn't worth the paper it is written on, but it's existence means that every rights violative governmental act performed under it will have to be fought out tooth and nail in a courtroom all the way to the SCOTUS.

_____________________________

"Everything flows, nothing stands still." (Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει) - Heraclitus

(in reply to ScooterTrash)

Post #: 24

RE: Bye Bye Habeas Corpus - 10/1/2006 9:17:43 AM

juliaoceania

Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline

Padilla is probably not a nice guy... but he is still an American citizen who should not be denied due process rights

He was arrested on American soil as an American citizen, declared an enemy combatant, and hence the trouble ensues.... does the president have the right to deprive us of our constitutional rights? Isn't this tyranny?
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=13833&print=yes
Here is an outline of what occured in the Padilla case, set his alleged crime aside for a moment and search within yourself and ask if you really want to live in a country when on the word of one man you can have your rights taken away... With no recourse? How do they decide who an enemy combatant is? Is there a reviewable criteria?

I am deeply troubled by these questions.

< Message edited by juliaoceania -- 10/1/2006 9:18:00 AM >

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to juliaoceania)

Post #: 25

RE: Bye Bye Habeas Corpus - 10/1/2006 11:19:28 AM

sissifytoserve

Posts: 1016
Joined: 8/30/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

Now granted I'm not for what "I" would consider torture, but what many are now defining as torture I do not see as torture. The problem is if you define it too broadly you eliminate all interogation beyond "Please tell me where the chemical weapons are" NO I WILL NOT, "OK have a nice day" Where will we draw that line? Who's judgement are we going to use to define what is torture and what is interrogation we are willing to accept?
I've not seen a good answer to that question.

There shouldn't be ANY torture whatsoever. Period.

Its an UNRELIABLE method of getting information. Studies have proven this.

If someone isn't going to tell us the goods...then its not going to happen.

All we are doing is making the rest of the world SEE US for what we are.

We used to be viewed as the beacon of hope and justice.

NOW....the entire world views us as brutal, sadistic THUGS....much like the Romans were viewed.

History repeats itself.

_____________________________

A great mind must be androgynous
Samuel Coleridge

The uniting of the feminine and the masculine is the highest form of human development Carl Jung

(in reply to Archer)

Post #: 26

RE: Bye Bye Habeas Corpus - 10/1/2006 12:34:10 PM

LadyEllen

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

Hmmm. Here's an interesting thought.

You know these wildly rich widows and daughters of ex Nigerian officials that write so often? Well, Nigeria has quite a few Muslims too.

What if these letters start coming through in a slightly changed format, now that habeas corpus is to be disposed of?

"You will send me USD 5000-00, or I shall pass your name to the CIA as an Al Quaeda agent"

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to sissifytoserve)

Post #: 27

RE: Bye Bye Habeas Corpus - 10/1/2006 4:23:58 PM

caitlyn

Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline

Without having any statistics to back what is only my opinion, obviously ... I doubt that the information we may be gaining, is worth the loss of honor. If they are in our jails, we should offer them protection provided by our laws.

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Post #: 28

RE: Bye Bye Habeas Corpus - 10/1/2006 8:05:06 PM

Amaros

Posts: 1363
Joined: 7/25/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WyrdRich

What part of the phrase "Enemy Combatant" do you not understand?

quote:

(8) The term 'enemy combatant' has historically referred to all of the citizens of a state with which the Nation is at war, and who are members of the armed force of that enemy state. Enemy combatants in the present conflict, however, come from many nations, wear no uniforms, and use unconventional weapons. Enemy combatants in the war on terrorism are not defined by simple, readily apparent criteria, such as citizenship or military uniform. And the power to name a citizen as an 'enemy combatant' is therefore extraordinarily broad. (Emphasis added)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant

In other words, it's anybody they say it is, and once accused, without habeus corpus, there is no requirement to even prove that a crime was committed, or any way to appeal, or even represent or defend yourself.

Pretty handy stuff for authoritarian regimes.

< Message edited by Amaros -- 10/1/2006 8:16:37 PM >

(in reply to WyrdRich)

Post #: 29

RE: Bye Bye Habeas Corpus - 10/1/2006 8:32:23 PM

UtopianRanger

Posts: 3251
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

I haven't lost any rights since Sept 11th.
I have been inconvenienced at airports though.
Thanks a lot al qeada!

Popeye....

Have you ever read any of the sub sections of section 802 of the Patriot Act?

- R

_____________________________

"If you are going to win any battle, you have to do one thing. You have to make the mind run the body. Never let the body tell the mind what to do... the body is never tired if the mind is not tired."

-General George S. Patton

(in reply to popeye1250)

Post #: 30

RE: Bye Bye Habeas Corpus - 10/1/2006 11:28:38 PM

KenDckey

Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline

I believe that Part I Article 5 of the Geneva Convention http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm covers civilian combatants and says they are not afforded the protections of the convention.

I believe that Part I Article 4 of the Geneva Convention http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm covers third country nationals and says they are not afforded the protection of the convention.

It's long and its dull but it's interesting to read

(in reply to UtopianRanger)

Post #: 31

RE: Bye Bye Habeas Corpus - 10/2/2006 10:03:13 AM

juliaoceania

Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline

quote:

Article 5Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State. Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention. In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be

.

Am I mistaken... or what does the colored portion mean? That they are to be treated humanly while in captivity and not tortured, and given due process of some sort as is called for by the conventions.. at least that is what my reading comprehension tells me.

Third party nationals within this country are covered under our constitution.. BTW, and that is what this thread is truly about... Habeas Corpus and our constitutional rights....

< Message edited by juliaoceania -- 10/2/2006 10:04:30 AM >

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to KenDckey)

Post #: 32

RE: Bye Bye Habeas Corpus - 10/2/2006 10:36:31 AM

KenDckey

Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline

OK Look at it this way.   They are not covered by the Convention. If they were, then clearly they would be entitled to speedy trials in ways so similar to American Juris Prudence that for all intense and purposes the Constitution would apply. Protected persons are Military combatants and non-combatants of the combatant countries.

The people at question are outside the box. They are not military, they show no military rank, many are from third countries. As such there are no international protections afforded them.   They are alos not in the United States. The US Constitution does not apply to everyone in the world.   Only to those in the US.

If we decide that the US Constitution applies to all persons in the world, then maybe we sould look at taking over the countries of the world and straightening out all the governments. There is a direct collation here. If the countries of the world apply their laws to people of thier country and their laws contraviene the US Constitution and our laws, then they would be violating our constitution. The President, as well as all other elected and appointed positions who take an oath are required to support and defend the Constitution. Therefore, if they knowingly allow any country to disregard it, they have violated their oath. Thus if we apply the Constitution to all the peoples of the world, then we have one world government and anyone who disagrees could be subject to treason so we are back to shooting them.

I know that this is an oversimplification of an extremely complex problem and I appologize, but this is what books are written about.

Should they be tortured?   No   Should they be afforded the protections of the Geneva Convention?   No Should they be afforded the protections of the US Constitution?   No Should they be afforded Habeas Corpus protections? No These are persons outside the norm. If they enter the US, then their status would change and then the answer would be yes.    It is a technical point, but that is the way our system is set up.

(in reply to juliaoceania)

Post #: 33

RE: Bye Bye Habeas Corpus - 10/2/2006 11:17:12 AM

popeye1250

Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

I believe that Part I Article 5 of the Geneva Convention http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm covers civilian combatants and says they are not afforded the protections of the convention.

I believe that Part I Article 4 of the Geneva Convention http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm covers third country nationals and says they are not afforded the protection of the convention.

It's long and its dull but it's interesting to read

Ken, it also says in section 1 of the GC that "refugees" once their country is stabilized like Kosovo & Bosnia now is can be repatriated back to their home countries.
We STILL have 300,000 - 500,000 "Refugees" from Kosovo & Bosnia in the U.S.
Can anyone tell me when they'll be repatriated?

(in reply to KenDckey)

Post #: 34

RE: Bye Bye Habeas Corpus - 10/2/2006 11:31:46 AM

caitlyn

Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
We STILL have 300,000 - 500,000 "Refugees" from Kosovo & Bosnia in the U.S.
Can anyone tell me when they'll be repatriated?

We took a vote and decided they would all be moving in just down the street from you.

Sorry ... democracy sucks.

(in reply to popeye1250)

Post #: 35

RE: Bye Bye Habeas Corpus - 10/2/2006 11:36:49 AM

juliaoceania

Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline

I think you have the Geneva Conventions mixed up with the constitution and our rights under that document... thats ok though. I am not mixing the concepts together, but you have fun with that intellectual exercise.

quote:

No Should they be afforded the protections of the US Constitution?

If apprehended here, yes. If held here, yes. You may like rewriting the constitution, I frown on that.

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to KenDckey)

Post #: 36

RE: Bye Bye Habeas Corpus - 10/2/2006 12:38:03 PM

KenDckey

Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

I believe that Part I Article 5 of the Geneva Convention http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm covers civilian combatants and says they are not afforded the protections of the convention.

I believe that Part I Article 4 of the Geneva Convention http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm covers third country nationals and says they are not afforded the protection of the convention.

It's long and its dull but it's interesting to read

Ken, it also says in section 1 of the GC that "refugees" once their country is stabilized like Kosovo & Bosnia now is can be repatriated back to their home countries.
We STILL have 300,000 - 500,000 "Refugees" from Kosovo & Bosnia in the U.S.
Can anyone tell me when they'll be repatriated?

I am not aware that we have that many refugees in the US from those countries, but I won't belittle the point. I believe it states can is the operative word. That doesn't mean we package them up and ship them out. The INS has to process however many request for immunity, etc.

(in reply to popeye1250)

Post #: 37

RE: Bye Bye Habeas Corpus - 10/2/2006 12:42:44 PM

KenDckey

Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

I think you have the Geneva Conventions mixed up with the constitution and our rights under that document... thats ok though. I am not mixing the concepts together, but you have fun with that intellectual exercise.

quote:

No Should they be afforded the protections of the US Constitution?

If apprehended here, yes. If held here, yes. You may like rewriting the constitution, I frown on that.

First of all it is apparent that you really don't have a clue. The two are intertwined when it involves us. I believe that the US Supreme Court (under our form of government) has no authority over detainees held un the Geneva Convention. I believe that is a case for the World Court. Habeas Corpus is not a case for the American Juris Prudence System. It is a case for the World Court under the Geneva Convention.

Now I DEMAND THAT YOU SHOW ME EXACTLY WHERE I RECOMMENDED OR SUGGESTED REWRITING THE CONSTITUTION? I am syaing apply them accoridng to the law. One is national and the other (GC) is international.

(in reply to juliaoceania)

Post #: 38

RE: Bye Bye Habeas Corpus - 10/2/2006 12:47:53 PM

juliaoceania

Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

I think you have the Geneva Conventions mixed up with the constitution and our rights under that document... thats ok though. I am not mixing the concepts together, but you have fun with that intellectual exercise.

quote:

No Should they be afforded the protections of the US Constitution?

If apprehended here, yes. If held here, yes. You may like rewriting the constitution, I frown on that.

First of all it is apparent that you really don't have a clue. The two are intertwined when it involves us. I believe that the US Supreme Court (under our form of government) has no authority over detainees held un the Geneva Convention. I believe that is a case for the World Court. Habeas Corpus is not a case for the American Juris Prudence System. It is a case for the World Court under the Geneva Convention.

Now I DEMAND THAT YOU SHOW ME EXACTLY WHERE I RECOMMENDED OR SUGGESTED REWRITING THE CONSTITUTION? I am syaing apply them accoridng to the law. One is national and the other (GC) is international.

I never said you did, I said "you may", not that "you did"... look up the word "may" and then get back to me with yelling in all caps... I will not even consider the rest of the post because of that.

Back to the thread at hand.. Habeas Corpus.

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to KenDckey)

Post #: 39

RE: Bye Bye Habeas Corpus - 10/2/2006 1:06:31 PM

Chaingang

Posts: 1727
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline

KenDckey:

Your posts are barely intelligible. Habeas corpus is in the U.S. Constitution. Fuck, look it up.

Article I, Sect. 9:
"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."

There is no rebellion. There is no invasion. So now you can connect the dots for yourself.

FWIW, the U.S. has occasionally extended a Constitutional jurisdiction to include the whole planet. See: USA v. Noriega.

In the U.S. the law is a whore, to be bent to whatever will rules the day. A lot of us would like to change that back to the more temperate "rule of law" that is pretended to exist instead.

_____________________________

"Everything flows, nothing stands still." (Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει) - Heraclitus

(in reply to juliaoceania)

Post #: 40

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Bye Bye Habeas Corpus

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.094