slippery slope getting steeper

[archenemy]

Habeas Corpus is the right to a speedy, fair trial before you are punished.

The right to a speedy fair trial is a different deal.

Habeas Corpus only occurs after you have already been imprisoned in order to detirmine if you were imprisoned lawfully or not. It is meant to protect you against arbitrary and lawless state action.

You can still be picked up and jailed for suspicion of anything regardless of this particular bill.

[foraker]

 

ummmm.. the same things that stop the police from classifying you as a murderer or any other common criminal.

 

 

are you being willfully naive???

[Fairweather]

[Fairweather]

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

 

Suspension during the Civil War and Reconstruction

 

Habeas corpus was suspended on April 27, 1861, during the American Civil War by President Lincoln in Maryland and parts of midwestern states, including southern Indiana. He did so in response to riots, local militia actions and the threat that the Southern slave state of Maryland would secede from the Union leaving the nation's capital, Washington, D.C., in the south. He was also motivated by requests by generals to set up military courts to rein in "Copperheads" or Peace Democrats, and those in the Union who supported the Confederate cause. His action was challenged in court and overturned by the U.S. Circuit Court in Maryland (led by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney) in Ex Parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (C.C.D. Md. 1861). Lincoln ignored Taney's order. In the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis also suspended habeas corpus and imposed martial law. This was in part to maintain order and spur industrial growth in the South to compensate for the economic loss inflicted by its secession.

 

In 1864, Lambdin P. Milligan and four others were accused of planning to steal Union weapons and invade Union prisoner-of-war camps and were sentenced to hang by a military court. However, their execution was not set until May 1865, so they were able to argue the case after the Civil War. In Ex Parte Milligan 71 U.S. 2 1866 the Supreme Court of the United States decided that the suspension of the writ did not empower the President to try and convict citizens before military tribunals. The trial of civilians by military tribunals is allowed only if civilian courts are closed. This was one of the key Supreme Court Cases of the American Civil War that dealt with wartime civil liberties and martial law.

 

In the early 1870s, President Grant suspended habeas corpus in nine counties in South Carolina, as part of federal civil rights action against the Ku Klux Klan under the 1870 Force Act and 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act.

[edit]

 

Suspension during the War on Terrorism

This article documents a current event.

Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.

 

The November 13, 2001 Presidential Military Order gives the President of the United States the power to detain certain non-citizens suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism as enemy combatants. As such, that person can be held indefinitely, without charges being filed against him or her, without a court hearing, and without entitlement to a legal consultant.

 

Many legal and constitutional scholars contend that these provisions are in direct opposition to habeas corpus, and the United States Bill of Rights. Specifically, American citizens declared enemy combatants by the President may be denied their constitutional rights as set forth in Amendments 4, 5, 6 and 8. One recent example is the José Padilla case. In the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, argued before the United States Supreme Court in March 2006, Salim Ahmed Hamdan petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the lawfulness of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's plan to try him for alleged war crimes before a military commission convened under special orders issued by the President of the United States, rather than before a court-martial convened under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. On June 29, 2006, in a 5-3 ruling the Supreme Court of the United States rejected Congress's attempts to strip the court of jurisdiction over habeas corpus appeals by detainees at Guantánamo Bay, although Congress had previously passed the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), which took effect on December 30, 2005:

 

"[N]o 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 Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba." §1005(e)(1), 119 Stat. 2742.

 

As of 26 September, 2006, the U.S. Congress was debating a bill which would suspend habeas corpus for all non-U.S. citizens detained on foreign soil.[1]

[fear_and_greed]

They will need room for their "New Order"

http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=eed74d9d44c30493706fe03f4c9b3a77

[cj001f]

Fairweather said something not at all relevant

 

continue the faux debate. How are the colonies darling?

[Fairweather]

My post is wholly relevant and meant to temper the conspiratorial spew that you are simultaneously ejecting and swallowing. God forbid (!) anyone post context or attempt to inform. This might interfere with the misinformation vetted here on this site. Now go back to your self indulgent trust-fund travels. Run along.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

You do realize that under the current bill, we could term you a terrorist, and you could be shipped away and held indefinitely - with no possibility of habeas? That prospect doesn't frighten you?

 

So you say. I believe nothing that the left says. Such is our current state of affairs in this country. The boy has cried wolf one too many times, and there's been far too much hyperbole for me to believe any of what is being posited about this bill in this debate.

Read the fucking bill yourself you dumbshit.

 

You can read can't you?

 

Fuck you, shithead.

[olyclimber]

adding to the steaming pile:

 

[olyclimber]

My post is wholly relevant and meant to temper the conspiratorial spew that you are simultaneously ejecting and swallowing. God forbid (!) anyone post context or attempt to inform. This might interfere with the misinformation vetted here on this site. Now go back to your self indulgent trust-fund travels. Run along.

 

Spoken just like po white folk. Po whitey. Whatz he gonna do? He ain't priviledged!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Spoken just like po white folk. Po whitey. Whatz he gonna do? He ain't priviledged!

 

Racist!

[catbirdseat]

My post is wholly relevant and meant to temper the conspiratorial spew that you are simultaneously ejecting and swallowing. God forbid (!) anyone post context or attempt to inform. This might interfere with the misinformation vetted here on this site. Now go back to your self indulgent trust-fund travels. Run along.

Fairweather's post was totally relevant. It says the courts have historically protected CITIZENS from suspension of the right of Habeas Corpus.

[cj001f]

Spoken just like po white folk. Po whitey. Whatz he gonna do? He ain't priviledged!

 

Racist!

 

If you can't hate white people who can you hate?

 

now back to your never ending war against an enemy you get to define as you see fit.

[cj001f]

Fairweather's post was totally relevant. It says the courts have historically protected CITIZENS from suspension of the right of Habeas Corpus.

and this legislation is specifically aiming to undermine those protections

[catbirdseat]

As applied to non-citizens. Not that I agree with it.

[JayB]

Here's another one for the "Yea - they, like, hate our freedom- tee hee hee." Files.

 

"Meanwhile in France, a philosophy teacher is under police protection after receiving death threats over an op-ed article [French text here] which he wrote in a national newspaper. In the article, which was published in the conservative daily Le Figaro of September 19th, Robert Redeker accused Islam of "exalting violence." Mr Redeker has not attended classes at his school near Toulouse since the article was published. Pierre Rousselin, the editor in chief of Le Figaro, apologized on Al-jazeera for the publication of the article. A number of Islamic countries, including Egypt, banned Le Figaro following the publication of Redeker's piece. Mr Rousselin said the publication of the op-ed was a mistake. He said the article did not express the paper's opinion. The article is no longer available on the Figaro website.

 

Mr Redeker has written a letter to his friend, the philosopher André Glucksmann, describing his ordeal [French text here]:

 

"I am now in a catastrophic personal situation. Several death threats have been sent to me, and I have been sentenced to death by organizations of the al-Qaeda movement. [...] On the websites condemning me to death there is a map showing how to get to my house to kill me, they have my photo, the places where I work, the telephone numbers, and the death fatwa. [...] There is no safe place for me, I have to beg, two evenings here, two evenings there. [...] I am under the constant protection of the police. I must cancel all scheduled conferences. And the authorities urge me to keep moving. [...] All costs are at my own expense, including those of rents a month or two ahead, the costs of moving twice, legal expenses, etc.

 

It's quite sad. I exercised my constitutional rights, and I am punished for it, even in the territory of the Republic. This affair is also an attack against national sovereignty ­ foreign rules, decided by criminally minded fanatics, punish me for having exercised a constitutional right, and I am subjected, even in France, to great injury." "

[catbirdseat]

Way to go Jay. Completely divert the discussion with an off-topic article. Very Bush of you.

[Luna]

No doubt that there is a fraction of the Islamic nations that is reactionary and intolerant. It is unfortunate that, as a nation, we are codifying our retreat from democratic values. Fear is leaving liberty in its wake.

[SmallShoes]

So what we learned is: Don't accuse Islam of "exalting violence" or followers of the religion will threaten you with violence/death.

[cj001f]

So what we learned is: Don't accuse Islam of "exalting violence" or followers of the religion will threaten you with violence/death.

 

What colour was the herring?

[Luna]

Back on subject - it was rather disappointing to see how quickly those republicans with a spine folded under the political pressure of the white house. McCain is so floppy it's not funny as he considers the run for the nomination in a year. Fairweather is right on one thing - we have done similar things when we were scared before - see the Japanese internment. And we have regretted it as we will this. And the congress are a bunch of sheep. Our senators voted the against the bill, which is something I guess.

Edited September 29, 2006 by Luna

[chucK]

A lot of that bill is probably necessary and maybe even good (stuff like setting up a system for actually trying the detainees, and prohibiting at least some forms of torture), but what is most shameful is the voting down of the amendment to remove the restrictions on Habeas. Those are 51 people who may end up with some bad shit on their consciences.

 

All I gotta say is hopefully the next president, who inherits all this power, will be more trustworthy and competent than the current guy.

 

Serve those 51 right if it's a democrat with vengeance on her mind

 

In fact, that might be the GOP slogan for 2008. "Now that we've made the presidency all-powerful, we must now, more than ever, AT ALL COSTS, keep Hillary out of the White House!"

 

Sorry for lapsing back into blatant partisanship .

[SmallShoes]

Alright, alright - Back on topic:

Read in the paper yesterday about the political maneuvering surrounding the voting on the bill. Specifically Dennis Hastert released a statement in which he said:

"In fact, Democrat Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and 159 of her Democrat colleagues voted today in favor of MORE rights for terrorists. So the same terrorists who plan to harm innocent Americans and their freedom worldwide would be coddled, if we followed the Democrat plan."

Now, the thought occurs why shouldn't we be giving terrorists the rights they deny others? Bush said that terrorists in Guantanamo would be

"treated with the humanity that they denied others”.

If they are deserving of the humanity wouldn't rights be an extension of that? Shouldn't we be acting like the more righteous people that we say we are? I seem to remember hearing some words somewhere about how we held some truths to be self-evident that all men were created equal.

More beer for thought.

[stepping off soapbox now]

[StevenSeagal]

Hastert's statement also seems to suggest that anyone arrested is already guilty (i.e., a 'terrorist')(i.e i.e. 'this only applies to the bad guys', which assumes the authorities are infallible). The concern here is that innocent people will be arrested and tortured in the course of finding out that they aren't actually terrorists. Then, maybe, continued to be imprisoned just in case. I think most supporters of this bill are just incredulously saying "that could never happen here...this is America". With the hysteria of the modern age, I wouldn't be so sure of that.

[catbirdseat]

Hastert's statement also seems to suggest that anyone arrested is already guilty (i.e., a 'terrorist')(i.e i.e. 'this only applies to the bad guys', which assumes the authorities are infallible). The concern here is that innocent people will be arrested and tortured in the course of finding out that they aren't actually terrorists. Then, maybe, continued to be imprisoned just in case. I think most supporters of this bill are just incredulously saying "that could never happen here...this is America". With the hysteria of the modern age, I wouldn't be so sure of that.

If we can't torture you, how are we going to find out whether or not you are a terrorist or not?