Go Go Habeas Corpus Options

[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.