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]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Bye Bye Habeas Corpus - 10/2/2006 1:08:40 PM

juliaoceania

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

Because people take offense rather easily instead of asking if offense is necessary (I am guilty of ths too btw...) I will make sure you understood what I meant by "may" and not be insulted....

Main Entry: 1may

Pronunciation: 'mA
Function: verbal auxiliary
Inflected Form(s): past might /'mIt /; present singular & plural may
Etymology: Middle English (1st & 3d singular present indicative), from Old English mæg; akin to Old High German mag (1st & 3d singular present indicative) have power, am able (infinitive magan), and perhaps to Greek mEchos means, expedient
1 a archaic : have the ability to b : have permission to <you may go now> : be free to <a rug on which children may sprawl -- C. E. Silberman> -- used nearly interchangeably with can c -- used to indicate possibility or probability <you may be right> <things you may need> -- sometimes used interchangeably with can <one of those slipups that may happen from time to time -- Jessica Mitford> -- sometimes used where might would be expected <you may think from a little distance that the country was solid woods -- Robert Frost>
2 -- used in auxiliary function to express a wish or desire especially in prayer, imprecation, or benediction <long may he reign> <may the best man win>
3 -- used in auxiliary function expressing purpose or expectation <I laugh that I may not weep> or contingency <she'll do her duty come what may> or concession <he may be slow but he is thorough> or choice <the angler may catch them with a dip net, or he may cast a large, bare treble hook -- Nelson Bryant>

< Message edited by juliaoceania -- 10/2/2006 1:26:58 PM >

_____________________________

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)

Profile

Post #: 41

RE: Bye Bye Habeas Corpus - 10/2/2006 1:19:36 PM

Amaros

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger

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

Haha, be careful Popeye, it's a trick question: just researching the patriot act is a crime according to patriot act II, and can make you an "enemy combatant".

Here and I thought conservatives didn't trust government?

The patriot act and PAII represent techically, a coup against the constitutional government of the United States - so I guess that's what you guys must mean, eh?

(in reply to UtopianRanger)

Profile

Post #: 42

RE: Bye Bye Habeas Corpus - 10/2/2006 2:20:09 PM

KenDckey

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chaingang

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.

I agree. Habeas Corpus is in the US Constitution. It applies to those within our boundries, prisioners of war, etc. However, it does not apply to those not covered under the Geneva Convention because the US Constitution does not apply to them. Different judicial processes and procedures totally. Even different courts.

(in reply to Chaingang)

Profile

Post #: 43

RE: Bye Bye Habeas Corpus - 10/2/2006 11:13:29 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

Here is an interesting thought...the United States is a signator and a member of the United Nations.
The U.N. Charter outlaws wars of aggression.
The U.N. did not sanction the invasion of Iraq.
The U.S. is involved in a war of aggression in Iraq.
So who is the illegal combatant, the aggressor or the citizen of Iraq who is trying to repel the invader?
When I was in Viet Nam I encountered many members of the opposition who wore no uniform but they were treated as POW's
It was made quite clear to us that if they carried a gun and shot at us and we captured them they were POW's and if we killed them after they were captured it was murder and a court martial offense under the UCMJ and yes there are numerous ex GI's in Levenworth and Porsmouth for that very crime. For Bush and company to change the rules because it suits them brings only shame on the profession of arms. It has been mentioned in this thread over and over that many of the illegal combatants are from third party countries. The only source for that lie is the Bush administration. Over and over the commanders in the field have said that it is not true. That the overwhelming majority of the "insurgents" are Iraquie. Who in this discussion group would not take up arms against an armed invader of our country? To expect the Iraquies to react differently is fatuous
thompson

(in reply to KenDckey)

Profile

Post #: 44

RE: Bye Bye Habeas Corpus - 10/3/2006 6:05:04 AM

KenDckey

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

I disagree with the UN sanctions on the invasion of Iraq. I believe it was previously authorized by the UN resolutions (I forgot which ones) following Gulf Ware I.

I also believe that Charlie was a military organization under the command of the NVA which would give them military status thus qualifying them for POW status. I could be wrong. They were also citizens of the bilegerent countries which would give them protected status.

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 45

RE: Bye Bye Habeas Corpus - 10/3/2006 8:41:24 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

Ken:
Let me disabuse you of some of your misconceptions. First lets have some definitions cleared up...VC ie. Viet Cong was a term manufactured on Madison avenue to demonize the Viet Minh (you see Minh sounds so very much like men and that would make them human, while Cong conjures up thoughts of king kong an animal that is ok to kill without compassion0. Charlie is an acronym for the VC created by those in the field. Charlie as you call him was predominantly from the Republic of South Viet Nam with no uniform and by all of your previous definitions a terrorists. The only legal combatants in Viet Nam were the Vietnamese as the U.S. congress (according to the U.S. constitution is the only body authorized to declare war) never declared war on anyone in Viet Nam. (You have to give Bush and co. credit for getting around that little sticking point by declaring war on terrorism instead of a country thus allowing them wiggle room to attack whom they choose by labeling them as terrorists).
The larger question here is why do you not want to allow the "unlawful combatants" due process....what is there about a fair trial with witnesses and cross examination that you would disaprove of. Are you afraid that they might be found innocent in a fair trial. Or are you afraid that the open forum of the trial would bring out the lies and subterfuge that brought them to that forum. Part of the oath that one takes when they join the U.S. military is to support and defend the constitution of the United States. So by definition how could any military member of a military tribunal trying these illegal combatants ethically deny them the protections of the constitution. It is a quagmire we enter when we speak out of our mouth and our ass at the same time...due process for me...fireing squad for thee.
thompson

(in reply to KenDckey)

Profile

Post #: 46

RE: Bye Bye Habeas Corpus - 10/3/2006 8:59:08 AM

LadyEllen

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

I denounce Thompsonx as an Al Quaeda agent. His defence of the due process of sensible reason in this instance, is evidence enough - not that any evidence is needed when there's no habeas corpus.

I also denounce Amaros the same. Clear attention to whats going on is sufficient evidence - not that any evidence is needed where there's no habeas corpus.

And Ken, for knowing enough about the US constitution to be able to comment - not that any evidence is needed when there's no habeas corpus.

And me, for not being a US citizen, commenting on this state of affairs and taking part in resistance to it - not that any evidence is needed when there's no habeas corpus.

Luckily for you three, I'd be an enemy combatant and you wouldnt. Still, I could do with working on my tan, and a holiday in Cuba would be so expensive if one went there by choice.

E

_____________________________

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

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 47