US Senate Fails To Reinstate Habeas Corpus 790
Khyber notes that yesterday a vote in the US Senate fell four votes short of what was needed to restore habeas corpus — the fundamental right of individauls to challenge government detention. Here is the record of the vote on the Cloture Motion to restore Habeas Corpus. Article 4 of the US Constitution states that habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless in cases of rebellion and invasion when the public safety may require it.
Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that the linked article is an opinion piece from The Nation, self described as "the flagship of the left", so when it says things about Habeas Corpus such as, "which the Republican Congress revoked", it's not a fact, it's just what the type of article it is explicitly states: an opinion. Further, we don't have a Republican Congress anymore, so I'm not sure how that is even meaningful. I guess I'm supposed to assume that even a Democratic Congress doesn't want to "restore Habeas Corpus"? (And naturally, surprise, this is posted by kdawson.)
The fact of the matter is that Habeas Corpus was not suspended in any way, shape, or form. The Military Commissions Act does not apply to US citizens, permanent residents, or persons with a valid legal status within the United States. Only US citizens have a right to Habeas Corpus (Gonzales' ridiculous statements on the issue aside). MCA only applies to "aliens [that is, not US citizens] with no [US] immigration status who are captured and held outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States"; that is, MCA does not apply to US citizens. Therefore, Habeas Corpus was not suspended, and to argue that it was is puzzling to me.
The argument that Habeas Corpus needs to apply to literally everyone because otherwise there is no way to "prove" that you are a US citizen to which MCA doesn't apply is something of a curious one. MCA already does not apply to US citizens apprehended on US soil. You do not need a court to affirm what is already known. If you believe the authorities will ignore the fact that someone is a US citizen and detain them anyway, then there are larger fundamental issues than whether or not someone can challenge detention; indeed, if the government really wanted to secretly detain someone without cause or ability to challenge, US citizen or not, they simply wouldn't give them any recourse at all, Habeas Corpus or no, now would they?
On this general issue, there is certainly some merit to the argument that things like terrorism should be treated as a civil or criminal matter and not a military and national security issue. However, I do not subscribe to that viewpoint. Our freedoms and rights are things that US citizens and immigrants enjoy. Else, there is no function or purpose for immigration or even borders.
Some tend to confuse US citizens and residents with everyone else on the planet, and pretend that the Constitution actually applies to everyone on Earth (which it doesn't), or that it should (which it shouldn't - perhaps in an idealized world, someday, everyone can expect and enjoy such a baseline of freedoms and rights).
And to those who will come out of the woodwork saying, "What about Jose Padilla?"
That was before MCA, which is what people say "suspended Habeas Corpus". That is, Jose Padilla did have Habeas Corpus rights and yet was still detained. That's part of reason MCA came into existence: to clarify this situation. Such detention of a US citizen apprehended on US soil, regardless of designation, has subsequently been clearly determined to be legally inappropriate, and, as such, does not fall under MCA.
On top of all of this, to those that think that administration officials are going to lie and ignore any and all laws anyway, then what difference does any wording of any law really make?
Disclaimer: portions of this post were culled or paraphrased from a couple of previous posts of mine here on the topic, but is precisely on point, so there is no need to retype.
Disgustingly Partisan Vote (Score:5, Insightful)
Hagel (R-NE)
Lugar (R-IN)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Sununu (R-NH)
Democrats voting no: none
Every single Democratic senator voted in favor of the amendment. 85% of Republicans voted against it.
Its just sad that legislation to confirm a constitutionally-guaranteed right which (in theory) protects people from government abuse has been reduced to partisan bickering.
Re:Disgustingly Partisan Vote (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:5, Insightful)
The rights written in the Bill of Rights apply to all humans, and are not granted by the Constitution. The Constitution just reminds the Federal government that it can not revoke these rights, or change them. Habeas Corpus is an inherent right for all humans that we must demand to keep fully removed from any government's desire to remove it or restrain it.
Do unto others... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Disgustingly Partisan Vote (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Disgustingly Partisan Vote (Score:2, Insightful)
Obviously, the current situation is that habeas corpus is NOT constitutionally guaranteed to non-citizens captured outside of the US as terrorist suspects. Yet you continue to pretend that it's otherwise, because it's more convenient for your Republican bashing, which you do while at the same time complaining about "partisan bickering."
What are you talking about? (Score:3, Insightful)
Who are these "some" that you're talking about?
If you have to ask that then there's no use explaining it to you.
The LAWS we pass are what defines our country. So the wording of those laws DOES matter, even if the law will be ignored.
Most everyone would be opposed to having a law that said that no Jews could hold public office. Even if that law was mostly ignored.
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:5, Insightful)
This recent drive to define non-citizens as nothing more than cattle with whom we can do anything we please is distressing. How would we feel if we travelled to, say, France, and the government there decided to detain us for no apparent reason and deny us access to the courts or any other means of pleading our case. Would the US Government stand for that sort of behavior? If not, why is it suddenly okay for us to treat non-citizens the same way?
The Constitution is careful to use the word "citizen" when it intends to refer to only citizens, and "person" elsewhere. The idea that the word "person" in the Constitution ever refers only to "citizens" is pure fantasy.
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:4, Insightful)
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
What part of "any person within its jurisdiction" isn't clear? Too bad we can't give these right wing fucktards their own country to trash instead of ruining this one.
Just because we started out united doesn't mean we have to stay that way. I want a divorce.
All Hail Caesars Horse! (Score:1, Insightful)
Boy was that dumb (Score:2, Insightful)
No shit? Let's read the first sentence of the Bill of Rights [earlyamerica.com], then:
"After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred representatives, nor less than one representative for every forty thousand persons."
Son of gun, you're right, it says "persons" not "citizens!" So I guess every forty thousand persons -- anywhere on the planet, whether or not they're the subject of some other king, or citizen of some other republic -- have been entitled to a representative in the US Congress since 1789. Amazing! And those bastards in Washington have just ignored this fundamental right of South Africans, Samoans, Libyans and Mongolians since the very founding of the Republic. Most of the planet has been disenfranchised for the last 220 years, apparently.
Not only that...did you notice they didn't make a distinction between criminals and free citizens? So all felons worldwide -- Nazi war criminals, Stalin's secret policemen, Pol Pot and his henchmen, Idi Amin's murdering thugs, and South African apartheidists -- have always been entitled to vote in American elections, too.
For that matter, they didn't make a distinction between adults and children, either! So this business of not letting people vote until they're old enough to, say, read and write, is totally unconstitutional.
Although...I suppose a cynic might say that the context of the Bill of Rights matters, and that only an idiot would assume the "persons" the document addresses are meant to be understood as all people everywhere, anytime as opposed to, say, the "people" specifically addressed in the opening sentence ("We the People of the United States....do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America...")
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's say, for whatever reason, the military comes to your home and takes you away to Guantanamo or some other military installation. You demand to be let go, of course, because you've done nothing wrong, and what's more, you're a U.S. citizen and they aren't legally allowed to do this to you. They say, "No, you're not a citizen." Well, now what? Normally, you'd file a habeas corpus claim challenging your detention. But, since they're alleging you're not a citizen, you have no habeas claim to challenge your detention. No court can hear your case. You have no way to prove that you're a U.S. citizen, and therefore no way to free yourself. Congratulations, you've just been disappeared.
When you take habeas corpus rights away from any class of people, you necessarily remove them from every class of people; all the government has to do to disappear anyone is allege that they are in the non-habeas class, and the detained will be unable to prove that they are not.
Re:Disgustingly Partisan Vote (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's the tragedy of it. Sure, part of the point of political parties is so that politicians can pool resources and have built-in allies. But automatic support shouldn't be unconditional support. You should get more people like Specter & co. who said, "This is a good idea no matter what the party leadership says." And it shouldn't translate into unconditional opposition for the other party.
It's been reduced to the level of a football game. Politicians are more concerned with which party "wins" than with what's actually a good idea. And the general populace is just as bad. There's a disturbing number of people -- or at least disturbingly vocal people -- who make the leap from "Dubya/Hillary/whoever supports position X!" to "I must oppose X!" without stopping to think that no, if someone on my side had proposed the same thing, I would be in favor of it. (And vice versa of course.)
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:5, Insightful)
That for me makes sense, Citizens have basic rights plus additional privileges and immunities, whilst everyone else just gets a basic subset of rights.
It does not suggest that the entire statement applies only to Citizens. As I said, I cant comment on the legal situation, but in my opinion detention without charge of anyone, anywhere is unjust. If you hold someone for something charge them with something and give them the opportunity to defend themselves, that prevents injustices being committed, more importantly it also means that a decent standard is being adhered to and prevents people from having to justify the actions of a "proud, free and just" nation by comparing it to regimes run by despots and tyrants.
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Disgustingly Partisan Vote (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to get technical, more Republicans broke with the party line than Democrats. You can interpret this one of two ways:
Take your pick.
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:5, Insightful)
The US Constitution is nothing of the sort. It outlines the explicit powers of the federal government and explicit limits on those powers, with explicit exceptions to those limits, it has been amended in certain scopes to include local governments as well.
It would be ridiculous to try to made the document apply to people outside of the US
There is only one Constitution, and that document only applies to the government, at all times, period. There is no "special" Constitution outlining the powers of the government with respect to non-citizens.
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the US Constitution applies to the US Government at all times, even when the US Government is dealing with non-Americans.
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:5, Insightful)
It applies to the U.S. Federal government and the Constitutional restriction on it to understand that those rights belong to all humans. This means that the U.S. Federal government can not restrain those inherent rights from ANYONE it deals with, locally or abroad. It doesn't mean the Federal government must defend those rights outside of its borders, but it must abide by the restrictions of power against anyone it mingles with.
And why there is even a debate regarding the conveyance of the rights enjoyed by US Citizens in peacetime towards enemies and enemy combatants of the US, outside of the US, in a time of war, is simply beyond me.
Considering the last declaration of war by the U.S. Congress was World War II, we have no enemies currently. We are currently "at peace" since there is no formal declaration of war, so the U.S. government's actions in other countries must be facilitated as if we were not at war, which we aren't, since there was no formal declaration.
If we were at war, I can understand the U.S. government forming an army, a navy and and air force from the militias it calls up, and then using those military forces to win the war it has declared, within the specifications of the declaration by Congress. As there is no war right now, there is no ability of the U.S. government to not abide by the Constitutional restricts on the Federal government. Those rights are inherent rights, and the Feds have no power to restrict those rights of anyone, citizen or alien.
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:5, Insightful)
While the Constitution "may" not apply to every citizen of the world -- it should at least apply to the "people" in the United States. The notion that we, as a nation, might condone holding anyone without charges ultimately makes us no better than the tyrants we overthrow. Habeas Corpus has been around for much longer than our United States and for good reason. Only tyrants feel it is their right to arrest someone for no reason, throw them in jail and provide no recourse for a check and balance of that power.
And *even if* the MCA claimed not to apply to citizens today, if the arresting officer claims you are not a citizen and you have no way to going before a judge, how are you to prove that you are?
While we are pushing "democracy" at the barrel of a gun, we fail to be a good example. Instead, we are well along the path to fascism.
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:4, Insightful)
You are distorting what he wrote. He is arguing that the US Government is bound by the Constitution to not violate Habeas Corpus rights of anyone it may interact with (and I would probably add the caveat under its territorial jurisdiction). So if the US is occupying Iraq, then it is feasible to argue that it would be illegal for the US to deny access to the Great Writ to occupied Iraqis insofar as they would have cause to apply for one from a US court. Likewise, a British national living and working on US soil would, due to being under the jurisdiction of the US laws, also have the right to petition for relief. If the US Congress or any other organ of the US Government denied access to the Writ, they would be acting ultra vires, and illegally.
What he is *not* saying is that as a result the US is required to guarantee that all people everywhere have recourse to the Writ of Habeas Corpus; that would be silly. It is not that the US Constitution requires that the US guarantee that an Iranian citizen is able to petition the Iranian government for the writ. It is only that if that same Iranian found him/herself in the position of interacting with the US government, the US may not deny him/her the right to petition for the Writ.
Now, how the Constitution is written and how it has come to be interpreted by authorities have never exactly been similar, but that's a whole other argument. As it stands in the text, his position is defensible, and you are distorting it into a caricature.
Re:Disgustingly Partisan Vote (Score:3, Insightful)
2) Luckily for us, you didn't write the US Constitution. The US Constitution specifically states that all men* are created equal. (* men having the modernized meaning of people). The Constitution is a rule set for how the Government can interact with people. The Constitution does not GIVE you rights. You already HAVE rights, they are inalienable, you were born with them, along with every other person in the world. The Constitution defines what the Government can/cannot do in relation to those rights. It doesn't give you the right to free speech, it prevents the government from limiting your speech. It doesn't give you the right of habeas corpus, you already have it. It prevents the government from taking away anyone's right to habeas corpus.
The administration has been playing fast and loose with the rules, using fear, scare tactics, and marketing to twist people's view on what the constitution is, and the legitimacy of what they are doing.
The bitch about this specific law and the actions of the administration is that it IS unconstitutional. But congress doesn't have the votes to tear into it, and the supreme court is only going to hear cases where the plaintiff is someone who was detained. But if the detainees have no recourse, they have no way of filing for a hearing in front of the supreme court.
-Rick
as David Sirota says, (Score:2, Insightful)
I usually roll my eyes at complaints of the "two party system", but we need to be able to vote out these cowardly Democrats without handing their seats over to even worse Republicans.
It also has to be mentioned the great Republican hypocrisy of the "up or down vote". They blasted Democrats for being obstructionist, but now threaten to filibuster everything. I wonder if the media will lampoon Senator Warner for "voting for the bill before he voted against it" the way they did Kerry. But then, IOKIYAR.
The Master of Propaganda Speaks (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason you have not responded is that your post is professional propaganda paid for by the US government. You are an employee of a government agency with a sordid history of using propaganda against our citizens. Why should we believe you are not engaged in that activity right now? You know quite well how propaganda works: you've made your point, and made it first. You don't need to refute anything. The people who want to believe you will, and the people who don't, never would have. You've already won over the idiots and the easily swayed, so you've done your job and will certainly get kudos from your employer.
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:3, Insightful)
Note that the linked article is an opinion piece from The Nation, self described as "the flagship of the left", so when it says things about Habeas Corpus such as, "which the Republican Congress revoked", it's not a fact, it's just what the type of article it is explicitly states: an opinion. Further, we don't have a Republican Congress anymore, so I'm not sure how that is even meaningful.
Um, hello, this is a cloture movement, which takes 60 votes. They got 56. Not a single Democrat (unless you count "independent" Lieberman) voted "Nay". Only six Republicans voted "Yea" (Lugar, Hagel, Smith, Snowe, Specter, and Sununu). This is very close to a party line vote.
Has the GP not even watched the Republican debates? They're all about posturing on "being tough on terrorism". Should we double the size of Guantamao or triple it? No, waterboarding and "enhanced interrogation techniques" aren't "torture". No, they don't deserve a trial. And on, and on.
Re:Granting Habeas Corpus To Our Enemies?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, good thing we god rid of that one. Shit, if she had had a chance to have crimes (what were they again?) reviewed by a judge, there's no telling what havoc she'd be wreaking upon our nation and our children. What a horrible, horrible person.
Yeah, destroying the Constitution in order to protect it makes so much more sense than using our existing Constitutional powers to prosecute and detain those who actually do wish to destroy it.
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:4, Insightful)
We have an on-going occupation of a foreign sovereign nation. That is NOT A WAR.
The whole notion of calling anything after the first week of a US presence in Iraq a "war" is nothing more than spin, talking points, and repetitive lies. The Enemy Combatant designation is also a horrendous violation of rules of warfare. If we are at war, they should be treated as prisoners of war and be afforded rights as such. If we are not at war, they should be extradited and prosecuted in a criminal court. Calling them 'Enemy Combatants' so that we can lock them up indefinitely, torture them, and transport them across international boarders to avoid oversight, is just down right evil. A loophole created specifically for the purpose of stripping a person of their rights so that the government can do what ever they like with them. Sick and twisted is what it is.
-Rick
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:2, Insightful)
How, exactly?
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't run a country without breaking a few legs, is that it?
Yours first, if you feel that way.
Re:A pox on both their houses and slashkos too (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does it seem all the Slashdot political articles seem to pop up only when they show the Democrats in a good light (which I admit isn't so difficult to do these days)? The sponsor of this particular bill was a Republican.
In case you haven't noticed, 6 straight years of a Republican Senate, House, Presidency, The New Cheney Branch, and Supreme Court (ALL facets of our government) have resulted in unmitigated disasters both at home and abroad. That's what you get for electing people to run your government who think government is a bad thing. Don't try to blame this mess on BOTH parties now.
Re:This is being reported incorrectly (Score:1, Insightful)
And I remember only two years ago, during the Alito nomination, hearing how a filibuster was "undemocratic" and that we must have a "straight up or down vote." And now that the Republicans are in the minority, that whole idea just vanished. How convenient. They are going to TRIPLE the previous record for number of filibusters in a two year session (which was 58; we're on target for at least 160 at the present rate).
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:1, Insightful)
Too many of our own people/troops argue that if torturing/killing someone *might* save the life of some of our troops then it was worth it, and this makes us *exactly* like Saddam, that was his excuse for gassing/torturing/killing various people - some of them really were out to kill him or his family so under the above *CRAP* argument all of his war crimes were perfectly OK and not actually crimes, he committed them to secure his family/position/person, it was just bad luck that he got a lot of innocent people in the process of getting the actual people that were out to get him. Saddam (and most dictators) aren't crazy, they just go to extremes to protect their family and/or position from the few hostile people after them, and don't really worry about the large number of non-hostiles that get killed in the process that is necessary to protect their family. When troops/people start think that way they are only different from Saddam in the magnitude of the crime, not in the basic wrongness of the crime.
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:1, Insightful)
Slashdot should be a fairly clean web site, judging from all the crates of soap.
Re:surprise (Score:3, Insightful)
And after at least tens of thousands people killed with in Iraq that you paid for (you pay taxes, don't you?), you certainly deserve to be stopped.
We're not talking about detaining citizens, or even migrants. Only those individuals who are either illegal (ie: should be either kicked out of the country or thrown in jail anyways) or enemy combatants engaged in foriegn conflict zones.
We are talking about detaining people. Habeaus Corpus is a human right, not American citizen's right.
From the point of view of other coutries (eg. Iran, China, Canada or whatever) you are an "enemy combatant" and deserve to be "detained". If you voted for Bush then you get a life sentence.
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:1, Insightful)
Shame that the government refuses to accept the prisoner of war label for the people they have captured.
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:3, Insightful)
I firmly believe that the Bill of Rights expresses the rights that _every_ person _should_ have. These are _human_ rights that the Constitution speaks of, not just US Citizen's rights. I would have been completely happy going to war to defend those rights of non-US citizens in the case of a serious injustice (think first gulf war).
The fact the that US is (supposedly) for upholding those rights is one of the great things about this nation. However, the way that we've done things recently makes my stomach turn.
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:5, Insightful)
Very true, "people" did not apply to black slaves for quite some time.
Of course if you do not have habeas corpus (a writ requiring a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court, esp. to secure the person's release unless lawful grounds are shown for their detention), then Due Process is a joke.
I think our leaders have sunk us down to the level of the extremists. The fact that we would even argue about whether we are breaking the Geneva Conventions is a sad, sad, state of affairs. The fact that we call them "enemy combatants" to try and circumvent the title "prisoner of war" speaks to what depth we will go to. We use double speak to avoid the reality: We don't "torture", we use "alternative integration techniques". We don't have "prisoners of war", we have "enemy combatants". Is this what our nation has become? I guess we have done away with taking the high moral ground.
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, your 'end of conflict' has no meaning here since there will never be an end to terror, it is as old as mankind and will exist until the end of days, so your 'end of conflict' release does not exist in a 'war on terror'.
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:2, Insightful)
The above is the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America. Please try to read the Preamble, such that the Constitution as a whole is NOT restricted in scope to the "United States", its "People" and the "Posterity" of those "People". I don't believe that a reasonble person can do so.
The U.S. Constitution applies ONLY to the "People" of the United States and within its borders/territories/protectorates, etc. No other people or places are encompassed by its protections. Further, to reason that by "People of the United States" that the Framers meant citizens and legal immigrants is, in my opinion, no stretch of logic whatsoever. I consider that to believe that our Founding Fathers intended to offer such protections to the entirety of the planet and to the citizens of every other sovereign state to be shear fantasy.
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:3, Insightful)
I have regular lunches with Muslim clientele, as well as Jewish clientele, and neither party has any knowledge of anyone within their families abroad who hate me, or most other American citizens. The few who do have hatred hate the United States for occupations and denial of freedoms, not for promoting of freedom or securing its own border. I also own property in a primarily-Muslim region in Mumbai, India, and I've never met a Muslim who hates me, or my citizenship.
I'm not sure why Gitmo is dedicated to Muslims, alone. We've been fighting undeclared wars for 60+ years, against Christians, Jews, Muslims, Athiests, Hindus, Sikhs, and many other believers of various faiths. I'm a anarcho-pantelist Christian, and I find the United States one of the least Christian, most vile and evil governments in the world because nothing it does has any basis in the New Testament or the actions and words of Jesus. There is no just war in the New Testament, there is no judgment towards others there, either. If you're so fearful of Muslims, maybe it is your job to preach to them rather than kill them with the sword?
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:3, Insightful)
But the point is at some point we had to define the "people" as people within these particular bounds. That's the nature of creating a new governing body.
From the Articles of Confederation (the document that establish the prior gov't)
Article IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them.
Here "citizens" were basically defined from the "free inhabitants of each of these States.." (it's interesting that paupers and vagabonds were excluded).
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:3, Insightful)
The only option available is to try to get the US to keep it's own ship in order, because no-one else can.
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:4, Insightful)
While some of the torture may mimic a 21 year-olds partying life, it is INTENDED to inflict severe mental pain and suffering. The dropping of "a book" misses that you're dropping what to the person is a holy book. The INTENTION is to belittle, demean and humiliate the person and/or his belief system. I believe that many Christians might find dropping "the book" (aka Bible) in the toilet to be just as demeaning and degrading to them.
We have some folks that enjoy being tied up, gagged and whipped and others that actually like being pissed/deficated on. That does not mean we should be doing that because some folks "enjoy" that sort of thing.
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:3, Insightful)
Since we have not declared war, and the violence happened on land which is not in the jurisdiction of the US, they should be tried in the courts and by the laws of the country they were seized in.
Thank you Dave Schroeder (Score:4, Insightful)
I appreciate you bringing some logic and sanity to the rabid 'digg-like' politics section of
Thank you for being here.
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:5, Insightful)
The torture and the suspension of habeas corpus authorized by the Bush administration directly tread on the Geneva Conventions. Even when the kangaroo courts don't conflict with the letter of the law of those treaties, they sorely damage our reputation for fairness and transparency. Talk about making us unsafe: when we make people unwilling to trust our leadership, we have to resort to military force more and more. Don't get me wrong: military force is a necessary part of building security. But it can never supplant the need to win hearts and minds. Fair, humane, and transparent standards of law are what win us hearts and minds, and the sooner we restore them, the better we do at make the world and ourselves safe.
All of this is true broadly, without even making reference to the fact that many of the people in Gitmo are demonstrably neither terrorists nor enemy combatants. That they are in the "No-Habeas Zone" at all is a testament to how foolishly our government has neglected HUMINT in favor of whizbang technological solutions like Carnivore and WarrantlessWiretappingTM (sponsored by AT&T). If we had a decent set of informants, operatives, sympathizers and soldiers that spoke languages like Pashtun and Farsi, we'd have a hell of a lot better idea of who's on what team when we move into a country. Instead, because few in our military and intelligence apparatus speak the local language, we wander around taking people at their world and getting sucked into local conflicts and politics. We got bamboozled by Iran into taking out their enemy #1 one, now we're getting drawn into power struggles between Iraqi factions, we picked up a bunch of dudes in Afghanistan that got ratted on, and we detained and shipped off for torture lots of people that we didn't know anything about.
There's nothing tough-minded about torture or undemocratic no-habeas courts. It's just old-fashioned brutality. The toughest guy on the playground isn't the bully, it's that quiet, strong dude who sticks up for the little guy - even when the little guy is a pissant.
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:3, Insightful)
For instance, to vote in a primary election in Ohio you must affirm that you support the party in question. Similarly to sign a petition to start a new party, you must affirm you will support the party in question. No one really gives a damn if you cross over and vote in another party's primary. I do.
I don't take oaths lightly, especially an oath that theoretically places me under the dominion of someone else.
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:5, Insightful)
There is only one Constitution, and that document only applies to the government, at all times, period. There is no "special" Constitution outlining the powers of the government with respect to non-citizens.
We so often think of the Constitution as a laundry list of favors that the Government, in its all-powerful benevolence, has decided to grant us. It's not. It's a list of the ways in which we, the people choose to limit our form of government. It doesn't grant you the freedom of speech, it prevents the government from taking it away.
The Constitution outlines the limitations of the Federal Government of the United States. It doesn't say that laws concerning non-citizens can limit speech, it just says that laws shall not limit speech. Thus, no law (concerning any person) may limit speech.
Anyone who tells you that the Constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens needs to re-read the document because while they're correct, that fact doesn't mean what they think it means.
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:3, Insightful)
If the soldiers were in the US as legal immigrants, then yes. Mind you -- that just means things like due process are a key part of any prosecution.
> By your logic, if Osama bin Laden walked into a United States military base in a foreign country with 50 pounds of TNT strapped to his chest, military police would be required to mirandize him prior to taking him into custody.
Yes, that's different than detaining him. We do this all the time with criminals. They are detained and then mirandized as they are taken into custody.
> By your logic, US troops during WWII had no right to shoot any German soldier who was not an imminent threat to them, and United States police (or military police) should have been brought in to investigate the killing of every German soldier by a US soldier.
Umm, remember how we decided to lock up Japanese families because we thought they were a threat. These were Japanese families that were actually American citizens. I also believe that many Germans were also detained during the war. And if a US soldier is killing Germans on US soil, then yes -- there should be an investigation.
> If that makes any sense, I'm insane.
I guess you're insane then because as our police force works today. There are times when the police do use deadly force. We do not allow folks to just go around killing people and then say "oh -- he was the enemy". We are (thus far) based on the rule of law. Due process is one of the key ingredients. And if you can be held indefinitely with no cause, there is no hope of due process.
And NO.. I am not a fan of Osama bin Laden or of the Nazis or of Stalin. In fact, the very point is we should not be imitating their actions.
Re:Granting Habeas Corpus To Our Enemies?! (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose, but denying Constitutional Rights to the President seems a bit harsh. I mean, it's not just supposed to be for those who believe in it. Even George Bush should be granted Constitutional rights.
Re:surprise (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:2, Insightful)
i know opinion isn't a good reason for moderation, but i really feel (from the clips of Fox News and O'Riley that i've seen) that you're just not too far off the mark.
Pretty sad..
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thanks! (Score:3, Insightful)
After a tribunal has actually determined that someone is, in fact, a member of such a group, sure. The official policy has been directly opposed to that for a long time, however.
Re:GC loop hole (Score:5, Insightful)
Blah blah blah Might Makes Right.
The U.S. signed and ratified the Fourth Geneva Conventions. (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=375&ps=P) We promised to uphold those principles. If we don't, then we're a bunch of immoral liars.
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:3, Insightful)
North Korea?
It's kind of hard to declare a war against an ambiguous enemy.
Huh? We declared a war on poverty, and then a war on drugs.
Enemy combatants are identified by behavior, not by uniform or flag. Since they are a militia of no government (and if they were, of no government we are at war with, since we have not declared war with any government that remains) these enemy combatants caught in acts of aggression are mere criminals and are not in fact prisoners of war.
So, we pick person X, see that we are not at war with his government, declare him a "mere criminal", and incarcerate him without POW status or the consent of his goverment? Even if he donned a uniform to fight as a partisan?
Wow, I guess all those Polish and French resistance guys deserved what they got.
Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked" (Score:3, Insightful)
And "war on poverty" and "war on drugs" were not declared wars either. Those were metaphorical fights at best.
If he put on a uniform and armed himself so he could be identified as a combatant for a particular group, then he could be a prisoner of war. AQ, like the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese before them, have no regard for the Geneva Conventions. The Nazis and the Imperial Japanese at least put their forces in uniforms, but none of them provided the prescribed minima of treatment for prisoners.
Are we far enough from the topic yet?