Go Go Habeas Corpus Options

[Jim]

Habeas Corpus

Bye Bye

[pebkac]

Habeas Corpus

Bye Bye

Oh please. Civil rights are soooooo September 10th.

[GOB]

good

[Spectatrix]

[Mommy]

yup, dont care. if anything, I would approve of the legislation actually.

[Psykopath]

yup, dont care. if anything, I would approve of the legislation actually.

ah, how truly un-American of you to apathetically allow such continual rollbacks of basic legal rights.

Yeah sure, now it's intention is for "terror" suspects, but it's just a law that can open a floodgate of abuses by the administration and other like-minded individuals in power.

[Mommy]

ah, how truly un-American of you to apathetically allow such continual rollbacks of basic legal rights.

how un-American of you to think that everyone should have the same opinion as you.

this doesnt affect me or any citizens of the US so tell me again why I should care.

same stupid argument that pro-choicers gave when legislation was being enacted to outlaw partial-birth abortion. "blah blah blah its a domino effect to eventually do away with abortion alltogether". Forget the fact that it was an unnecessary and inhumane way of ending life... YES I SAID IT..LIFE. Same for the situation at hand: just because they limit the rights of those who are accused of mass murder against a country they dont belong to doesnt mean that they will limit the rights of the citizens.

If you want to talk about how they legalized the use of warrantless wiretapping in homes then I would say ok yeah legitimate case... I wont be an activist against it but i wont be for it either. This is just stupid though. Fuck them. They gave up their rights when they decided to attack our country.

[woody]

but how will i sleep at night?

[Mommy]

Yeah sure, now it's intention is for "terror" suspects, but it's just a law that can open a floodgate of abuses by the administration and other like-minded individuals in power.

why is terror in quotes?

do you not think that terror filled the hearts and minds of those present on September 11th?

Could you look a Sept 11th widow in the face and tell her that the pathetic excuse for humans that did this to our country should have the same legal rights as the citizens of this country?
Or a fatherless child?

Yes, they are suspects. However, the ones that are being held are there for a reason. If they didnt do anything wrong then the blame should lie with those Arab Muslim radicalists that planned the attack...not against the United States government because THEY ARENT PART OF OUR COUNTRY.

Im sorry, im not a racist at all. A lot of you think I am but thats fine. I joke around a lot on here. I know a lot of you will twist what Im about to say.

Racial profiling goes on every single day. Whites are socially punished by blacks for what happened to their ancestors by whites' ancestors. Guess what... I hate to say it, but well whites will have to pay the consequenes still. Its just how things go. Should it happen...no, but such TERROR is hard to overcome. Blacks were attacked for being black. We were attacked for being American. It is sad if someone that is innocent in this situation is punished, but that is how life goes. It wont stop. Hate is powerful. I guarantee though that few if any at all of those being held are innocent in this case. The majority of those being held are guilty and should be treated like shit. They orchestrated a plot which killed thousands and affected millions.

[Psykopath]

"terror" suspects...as in they could use the terrorism charge in a stretched manner to be able to utilize this new law.

[GOB]

"terror" suspects...as in they could use the terrorism charge in a stretched manner to be able to utilize this new law.

i think we've seen that they're going to do what they want



so either don't do anything bad or don't get caught.

[Spectatrix]

Denying terror suspects habeas corpus is tantamont to declaring them guilty until proven innocent.

I hope this BS gets struck down by the Supreme Court ASAP.

This post has been edited by Spectatrix: Sep 29 2006, 05:25 PM

[Mommy]

It strips detainees being held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, of a habeas right to challenge their detention in court, relying instead on procedures known as combatant status review trials, which have looser rules of evidence than the courts.

Good. American courts have too many loops and holes. I still dont see how this is a bad thing.

[Spectatrix]

It's a bad thing because the detainees haven't been proven to have done anything! Heck, many of them haven't even been charged with a crime. This bill, if I'm understanding it correctly, legitimizes their ability to detain people indefinitely. Keep them in prison the whole time if they're a flight risk, but at least charge them and get them through the courts in a timely fashion!

This post has been edited by Spectatrix: Sep 29 2006, 05:33 PM

[Rocky]

It's a bad thing because the detainees haven't been proven to have done anything! Heck, many of them haven't even been charged with a crime. This bill, if I'm understanding it correctly, legitimizes their ability to detain people indefinitely. Keep them in prison the whole time if they're a flight risk, but at least charge them and get them through the courts in a timely fashion!

Exactly.

The legislation broadens the definition of enemy combatants beyond the traditional definition used in wartime, to include noncitizens living legally in this country as well as those in foreign countries, and also anyone determined to be an enemy combatant under criteria defined by the president or secretary of defense.

In a perfect world that means catching evil doers easiery.


In reality, it means more innocent people getting fucked over.


But don't worry kids, it won't be any white people, just minorities. And when a minority is the victim, everybody will say "well, the govt was just tryin to be careful !"


I'm yet to see one reason in the "war on terror" to trust the Bush Administration, so why should I feel good about this, giving them more subjective power ?

[pebkac]

Yes, they are suspects. However, the ones that are being held are there for a reason. If they didnt do anything wrong then the blame should lie with those Arab Muslim radicalists that planned the attack...not against the United States government because THEY ARENT PART OF OUR COUNTRY.

Sadly, I think you trust our government a little too much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erroneous_ren...neous_rendition

Good. American courts have too many loops and holes. I still dont see how this is a bad thing.

As fashionable as it is to talk about how fucked up the American legal system is, we probably have one of the best in the world. It's not as common as you would think for a defendant to get off on a technicality. Besides that, it's a blatant violation of the due process clause. Instead of allowing a person a trial by a member of the judiciary, they're getting tried by someone in the executive branch.

This post has been edited by pebkac: Sep 29 2006, 06:39 PM

[impala454]

there's isn't a damn person in this thread (including me) that's read and understood the entire bill that was voted on, and yet you talk like you're fucking experts on the subject. if it was controversial enough to be "bye bye habeas corpus" it wouldn't have passed with a damn near 2/3s vote (65-34).

[pebkac]

there's isn't a damn person in this thread (including me) that's read and understood the entire bill that was voted on, and yet you talk like you're fucking experts on the subject. if it was controversial enough to be "bye bye habeas corpus" it wouldn't have passed with a damn near 2/3s vote (65-34).

The text of the bill:

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.

All Bush has to do to hold someone indefinately against their will is label them an enemy combatant and they're gone. I hope the Supreme Court does away with this one.

[impala454]

All Bush has to do to hold someone indefinately against their will is label them an enemy combatant and they're gone. I hope the Supreme Court does away with this one.

awesome, now go ahead and find me the section that talks about what an enemy combatant is.

[pebkac]

awesome, now go ahead and find me the section that talks about what an enemy combatant is.

The bill doesn't define what an enemy combatant is. According to Yale law professor Jack Balkin:

That means that if the government decides never to try an individual before a commission, but just holds them in prison indefinitely, there is no way that they can ever get a hearing on whether they are being held illegally-- because they are not in fact a terrorist; or a hearing on whether they are being treated illegally-- because they have been abused or tortured or subjected to one of the Administration's "alternative sets of procedures"-- a.k.a. torture lite.

Even if the bill did define it, would it matter? It's not like they'd have a chance to go before a jury to prove otherwise.

[impala454]

Even if the bill did define it, would it matter? It's not like they'd have a chance to go before a jury to prove otherwise.

yes it would matter, because that's what the entire thing is based on (although I have no doubt that the one long sentence you posted is about 1% of the full text of the bill).

All I'm saying if it was really blatantly as bad as you guys are leading on, it would not have passed so easily (65-34 is practically a landslide).

[pebkac]

yes it would matter, because that's what the entire thing is based on (although I have no doubt that the one long sentence you posted is about 1% of the full text of the bill).

Yes, but how would an individual prove they don't meet the criteria of an enemy combatant if they can't go to court to prove otherwise?

Secondly, if you can find any part of the bill that contradicts that one or makes that one appear misleading, I'd like to see it.

All I'm saying if it was really blatantly as bad as you guys are leading on, it would not have passed so easily (65-34 is practically a landslide).

Remember, this is an election year. Imagine the campaign ads: Senator so-and-so voted AGAINST fighting terrorism.

[impala454]

Yes, but how would an individual prove they don't meet the criteria of an enemy combatant if they can't go to court to prove otherwise?

Well it's impossible to prove someone is/isn't an enemy combatant if it's not defined in the bill. I'd bet anything it's in there somewhere.

Secondly, if you can find any part of the bill that contradicts that one or makes that one appear misleading, I'd like to see it.

Not that I have any desire to read every little bit of it, but where is the full text of the bill? I know it's not just the one sentence you posted.

Remember, this is an election year.  Imagine the campaign ads: Senator so-and-so voted AGAINST fighting terrorism.

And just as many ads: Senator so-and-so voted to remove your fundamental right to due process of law (whether it's true or not).

[Spectatrix]

And just as many ads: Senator so-and-so voted to remove your fundamental right to due process of law (whether it's true or not).

More people would get worked up about voting "against fighting terrorism".

[impala454]

More people would get worked up about voting "against fighting terrorism".

so... more united states citizens would approve of the bill than be against it? sounds to me like the senate is doing a great job in translating the interests of the people.

[Spectatrix]

No, not necessarily.