View Full Version : Long live Habeus Corpus! If it lives at all.
Olbermann has his say about it. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=0rK1EPlk2LQ)
Funny how we get hours and hours of PH crying on her way to jail on a continuous loop but something like this, which actually affects us, is hard to find a story about. :mad:
What say you legal types?
suspected terrorists don't need rights
SleestakSooner
6/9/2007, 03:03 PM
fear mongers don't deserve rights.
if you change the way america doles out justice for suspects you open the door for treating everyone as the former kings of england used to. "Off with his head!"
SicEmBaylor
6/9/2007, 03:08 PM
fear mongers don't deserve rights.
if you change the way america doles out justice for suspects you open the door for treating everyone as the former kings of england used to. "Off with his head!"
Since when is war a criminal matter? If you start treating terrorists as common criminals then that puts a huge burden on our military forcing them to become glorified cops rather than combat troops. Can you imagine having to build a criminal case for EVERY terrorist we capture in the field? The US Constitution and its protections therein are protections for US citizens and not meant for foreign nationals trying to kill US citizens.
SicEmBaylor
6/9/2007, 03:09 PM
And look, I'm not trying to fear monger. It's just an issue of what is practical and makes the most amount of sense under the circumstances. I personally think the threat of terrorism is way way way the hell overblown and we focus on terrorism to the detriment of much greater national security threats, but that still doesn't mean that terrorists shouldn't be dealt with swiftly, decisively, and within the context of military not criminal action.
'
soonerscuba
6/9/2007, 03:14 PM
Olberman is an unfunny ******rocket. That said, sunshine is the best disinfectant, and I feel really sorry for the president that is faced with the task of un-Bushing America.
SicEmBaylor
6/9/2007, 03:16 PM
Olberman is an unfunny ******rocket. That said, sunshine is the best disinfectant, and I feel really sorry for the president that is faced with the task of un-Bushing America.
Completely agree.
Olbermann's deal isn't to try to be funny. It seems that he tries to be a little more entertaining than others, but not a comedian by any means.
The reason I'm not fired up about Hillary in '08 is that I think she is just as divisive as W.
Regarding the writ of HC, Sic'Em makes some valid points. I disagree with them though. If we capture enemy combatants or suspected enemies, there are agreed upon rules (Geneva/Hague like) which we have completely abandoned. Another point is that if my next door neighbor, a US citizen, takes to wearing tin foil hats and joins a fringe group headquartered in northern Idaho, he could be considered a suspected terrorist. So we can't just say "war is different" when in fact the "war" is very much a policing action and has been for the past 2 years and change the rules because it's more convenient or practical to do so. I am ashamed that we have ignored principles like HC and treated it as passing fancy to be trotted out only when it is easier to use it.
SicEmBaylor
6/9/2007, 03:44 PM
Olbermann's deal isn't to try to be funny. It seems that he tries to be a little more entertaining than others, but not a comedian by any means.
The reason I'm not fired up about Hillary in '08 is that I think she is just as divisive as W.
Regarding the writ of HC, Sic'Em makes some valid points. I disagree with them though. If we capture enemy combatants or suspected enemies, there are agreed upon rules (Geneva/Hague like) which we have completely abandoned.
Those rules deal with legitimate combatants in a military conflict and don't terrorists. The assumption with those rules is that you capture an enemy soldier who is in uniform fighting for a nation/state. For example, even in WWII when we followed the Geneva Convention there were times when we'd capture German commandos operating behind our lines out of uniform and engaging in terror type activities. We didn't give those German soldiers full Geneva protections, we immediately executed them. I would argue they were even more legitimate war fighters than a terrorist is.
I'm also not real big on applying rules that are only recognized by one side.
Another point is that if my next door neighbor, a US citizen, takes to wearing tin foil hats and joins a fringe group headquartered in northern Idaho, he could be considered a suspected terrorist. So we can't just say "war is different" when in fact the "war" is very much a policing action and has been for the past 2 years and change the rules because it's more convenient or practical to do so. I am ashamed that we have ignored principles like HC and treated it as passing fancy to be trotted out only when it is easier to use it.
But now you're comparing apples and oranges. The example you gave is of a US citizen, and as such they should absolutely be given the full rights and protections of the constitution. Even if you're dealing with a scenario where a Pakistani immigrant just received his citizenship and is found to be the leader of a terrorist sleeper cell, of course even he should be given the full protections of citizenship.
I will go so far as to say that if a terror suspect is caught on actual American soil engaging in terror related activities then the normal judicial process should be carried out. But extending constitutional protections to every allah akbar screaming moron in the sands of Iraq and Afghanistan is going just a wee bit far.
SleestakSooner
6/9/2007, 03:56 PM
The point is, in order to change those rules, so that they could hold the suspected terrorists for as long as they have (with absolutely no evidence that they have the right people), the GWB led government has taken it upon themselves to remove the rights of habeas corpus from each and every one of us.
It may not become a visible problem for some time, but once the government realizes they can start throwing anyone in jail for any reason they deem fitting then it becomes like a hidden virus that one day blooms into a deadly disease. The lack of HB in the American judicial process means the eventual loss of our rights as we know them.
Absolute power...
SicEmBaylor
6/9/2007, 04:03 PM
The point is, in order to change those rules, so that they could hold the suspected terrorists for as long as they have (with absolutely no evidence that they have the right people), the GWB led government has taken it upon themselves to remove the rights of habeus corpus from each and every one of us.
Look, I detest Bush. I'm far from one of his apologists, but I really don't recall the Bush administration having eliminated habeus corpus for American citizens. Only ONE American President has done that and it wasn't Bush.
Also, you speak again of evidence as if it's even possible to collect evidence on the battlefield in the middle of a war for future criminal prosecution. I have no problem with some sort of tribunal/review process for detainees, but I draw the line at requiring our men and women in uniform to try to build a criminal case against every thug they meet on the battlefield or else let them go to fight another day.
It may not become a visible problem for some time, but once the government realizes they can start throwing anyone in jail for any reason they deem fitting then it becomes like a hidden virus that one day blooms into a deadly disease. The lack of HB in the American judicial process means the eventual loss of our rights as we know them.
Absolute power...
I don't buy that at all. It was never the expectation of the FF that American constitutional rights would be expanded to include EVERYONE in the whole damned world especially ones who are actively engaged in trying to kill us. If you want to talk about fear mongering then statements like "Not giving terrorists caught in mountains of Afghanistan the right to habeus corpus and other constitutional protections is the first step toward dictatorship" are much more crazy than inflating the perceived threat of terrorism in the first place.
Like I said, only one American president has taken away an actual citizen's right to habeas corpus and it wasn't Bush.
Jimminy Crimson
6/9/2007, 04:05 PM
If you're suspected of being a terrorist -- you might as well be a terrorist.
No rights for you.
The end.
SicEmBaylor
6/9/2007, 04:14 PM
If you're suspected of being a terrorist -- you might as well be a terrorist.
No rights for you.
The end.
Immediate execution!
If you're suspected of being a terrorist -- you might as well be a terrorist.
No rights for you.
The end.
Zackly. We aren't capturing folks on battlefields, we are catching them in house to house policing. The apples to oranges deal works both ways. Here's the dealio, if we shoot the terrorist or zima-drinkin' libertarian or whatever, HC is not an issue. Once captured through policing however, the scenario changes substantially. Folks behind bars aren't really able to be "combatants" and should have some protection from kangaroo-court proceedings.
I'm also not real big on applying rules that are only recognized by one side.
that's part of being the good guys
sooner_born_1960
6/9/2007, 04:27 PM
Is this legislation refering to domestic detainees or does it include those detained in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc?
SicEmBaylor
6/9/2007, 04:39 PM
that's part of being the good guys
I'm a bad boy.
SleestakSooner
6/9/2007, 04:56 PM
Look, I detest Bush. I'm far from one of his apologists, but I really don't recall the Bush administration having eliminated habeus corpus for American citizens. Only ONE American President has done that and it wasn't Bush.
Senate Hearing on Habeas Corpus:
Tuesday morning at 10am the Senate Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing, "Restoring Habeas Corpus: Protecting American Values and the Great Writ." (http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=2785)
If Bush has done nothing to alter (ie; kill) habeas corpus then why, pray tell, is the United States Senate holding Judiciary Committee hearings on the subject?
And before the Rush's and Tuba's of the board start yelling COMMIE! let me say, I could give two ****s what happens to the suspected terrorists. I say hold them until they are proven innocent. But don't change habeas corpus law in order to do so!
What ever happened to just calling them prisoners of war and slapping them about like Colonel Klink?
http://www.p2ptv.co.uk/images/donkey/hogans_heroes.jpeg
TUSooner
6/9/2007, 05:24 PM
1: I'm too beery to give a thoughtful answer.
2: It's H-A-B-E-A-S Corpus.
3: Olberman = hyperbole. He oversimplifies and overstates. I don't like him.
4: IMHO, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 reduced the effectiveness of HC for more people (and more US citizens) than Bush has done. Still HC is soo important that I'm for almost anything that would strengthen it.
5: I'm SOOOOOO ready to get rid of Bush. As much as I have tried to give him the benefit of the doubt and hope that he at least "meant well," I can no longer convince myself that he is anything but an arrogant, insecure fool. And that's real dangerous.
6: If you vote for Brownback, I may come find you and stab your face. Just sayin'.
7: uhh . . . . . whatEVER!!
Frozen Sooner
6/9/2007, 06:26 PM
You know, I just won a bet about how long it would take for someone to bring up Abraham Lincoln. With myself.
SleestakSooner
6/9/2007, 06:36 PM
Another date with himself :D
GottaHavePride
6/9/2007, 06:37 PM
1: I'm too beery to give a thoughtful answer.
2: It's H-A-B-E-A-S Corpus.
3: Olberman = hyperbole. He oversimplifies and overstates. I don't like him.
4: IMHO, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 reduced the effectiveness of HC for more people (and more US citizens) than Bush has done. Still HC is soo important that I'm for almost anything that would strengthen it.
5: I'm SOOOOOO ready to get rid of Bush. As much as I have tried to give him the benefit of the doubt and hope that he at least "meant well," I can no longer convince myself that he is anything but an arrogant, insecure fool. And that's real dangerous.
6: If you vote for Brownback, I may come find you and stab your face. Just sayin'.
7: uhh . . . . . whatEVER!!
Heh.
Frozen Sooner
6/9/2007, 06:51 PM
what did you win?
I'm going to set your Country Music Award on fire.
yermom
6/10/2007, 05:11 PM
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/10/powell-gitmo/
well, Colin Powell agrees with me ;)
Okla-homey
6/10/2007, 05:38 PM
The thing is, the President is either a feckless boob manipulated and controlled by his handlers, or he is an evil genius.
Which is it? You can't have both. You gotta pick.
SicEmBaylor
6/10/2007, 05:40 PM
The thing is, the President is either a feckless boob manipulated and controlled by his handlers, or he is an evil genius.
Which is it? You can't have both. You gotta pick.
Neither.
The thing is, the President is either a feckless boob manipulated and controlled by his handlers, or he is an evil genius.
Which is it? You can't have both. You gotta pick.
Isn't the answer to that becoming increasingly obvious?
He's an evil feckless manipulated boob.
Considering him and the word "genius" in the same sentence is really only an option for those who refuse to take off the blinders.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
feck·less /ˈfɛklɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fek-lis] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. ineffective; incompetent; futile: feckless attempts to repair the plumbing.
2. having no sense of responsibility; indifferent; lazy.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source feck·less (fěk'lĭs) Pronunciation Key
adj.
Lacking purpose or vitality; feeble or ineffective.
Careless and irresponsible.
He's only halfway feckless I'd say. He's irresponsible and effective. Still, it doesn't take a genius to pull that off in American politics.
Okla-homey
6/10/2007, 05:54 PM
There is a lot of stuff he's done I don't agree with. K? But, these conspiracy types who beleive the Iraq War was all a cunning plan calculated to line the pockets of GWB and the VP is utter balderdash and gives the administration way too much credit for being able to pull off such a scheme. Nobody is that good.
No, for a d00d that couldn't field a profitable baseball team in Dallas, that is way out of his league (intentional pun). He has a knack for bumbling in big ways and compensates for it by sticking rigidly to Plan A and running over those who disagree. I don't doubt his advisors consider the benefits to their base and funders when advising though.
And I think even his handlers seem to be baffled by his incompetence (not to be confused with ineffectiveness because he's both effective and incompetent - a dangerous combination IMO) about half the time.
SicEmBaylor
6/10/2007, 06:18 PM
No, for a d00d that couldn't field a profitable baseball team in Dallas, that is way out of his league (intentional pun). He has a knack for bumbling in big ways and compensates for it by sticking rigidly to Plan A and running over those who disagree. I don't doubt his advisors consider the benefits to their base and funders when advising though.
And I think even his handlers seem to be baffled by his incompetence (not to be confused with ineffectiveness because he's both effective and incompetent - a dangerous combination IMO) about half the time.
Right. On.
I'm OK with this being reduced to a W dogpile but I am still hoping for some spirited legal philosophy from some of the more informed legal type Ovalians.
So...is HC important? Necessary? A US legal bedrock?
Will it be mentioned on the teevee during the next month of continuous news loops about what PH ate who she called from the hoosgow?
SteelClip49
6/10/2007, 08:50 PM
Olbermann is the most credible of them all and does a lot better job than O'Reilly.
TUSooner
6/10/2007, 09:33 PM
So...is HC important? Necessary? A US legal bedrock?....
YES YES YES.
Whether it is in grave danger simply because of the treatment of a unique class of suspected evil doods, I'm not 100% sure, but it is in danger In that way and by the AEDPA, for the simple reason that it is just not "efficient" to provide justice for everyone. Some folks just decided we could eliminate frivolous HC litigation by hacking away at all of it.
BTW, I'm with counsellor Homey as far as the conspiracy nuts go. These folks believe in a whole lot of conspiracies that just are not possible or practical because NOBODY could keep all the secrets needed to pull them off. To the extent the Iraq deal hasn't turned out as hoped, it's much more of a short-sighted blunder than it is any concerted plan to make rich guys richer.
And to say Olberman is better tha O'Reilly is damning with faint praise. I don't dislike Olberman himself so much, he's just another participant in the whole "debate by hyperbole" scene.
G'night, Gracie!
Vaevictis
6/11/2007, 01:00 AM
So...is HC important? Necessary? A US legal bedrock?
That's rhetorical, right?
If it's not, look at it this way: it's only important enough that it managed to make it into the Constitution the first time. Think about all the rights that had to wait for an amendment.
def_lazer_fc
6/11/2007, 01:03 AM
Olberman is an unfunny ******rocket. That said, sunshine is the best disinfectant, and I feel really sorry for the president that is faced with the task of un-Bushing America.
unbushing america. my new favorite line.
def_lazer_fc
6/11/2007, 01:09 AM
I'm a bad boy.
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e376/def_lazer_fc/BADBOY2.gif
SicEmBaylor
6/11/2007, 01:42 AM
You know, I just won a bet about how long it would take for someone to bring up Abraham Lincoln. With myself.
Who on earth did that?
Frozen Sooner
6/11/2007, 03:22 AM
I'm far from one of his apologists, but I really don't recall the Bush administration having eliminated habeus corpus for American citizens. Only ONE American President has done that and it wasn't Bush.
Um, you did. Unless you're talking about that OTHER US President who suspended HC for citizens.
SicEmBaylor
6/11/2007, 03:23 AM
Um, you did.
;)
Frozen Sooner
6/11/2007, 03:28 AM
;)
Of course, there was this little fracas going on at the time...
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.
It's a pretty arguable case that the United States was in a state of insurrection at the time Lincoln suspended habeas corpus.
I do find it odd that habeas corpus is referred to in the Constitution as a privilege, not a right.
And Jeff Davis also suspended habeas corpus, though of course he was just a simple man trying to keep the encroachment of the federal government to a minimum. ;)
There was also some limitation on habeas corpus immediately after the Murrah building bombing.
SicEmBaylor
6/11/2007, 03:35 AM
Of course, there was this little fracas going on at the time...
It's a pretty arguable case that the United States was in a state of insurrection at the time Lincoln suspended habeas corpus.
I do find it odd that habeas corpus is referred to in the Constitution as a privilege, not a right.
And Jeff Davis also suspended habeas corpus, though of course he was just a simple man trying to keep the encroachment of the federal government to a minimum. ;)
There was also some limitation on habeas corpus immediately after the Murrah building bombing.
I actually didn't know about the post-OKC bombing limitations. That's interesting actually...did that become permanent in that anti-terrorism legislation that Clinton signed after the bombing? I forget exactly what the purpose of the new law was, but I'm thinking that may have been a provision.
StoopTroup
6/11/2007, 03:36 AM
My Habeus Corpus itches.
Vaevictis
6/11/2007, 03:39 AM
I do find it odd that habeas corpus is referred to in the Constitution as a privilege, not a right.
The way I understand habeas corpus works, it may not technically be a right; rather, I think that perhaps it is a power of the courts to compel the government to produce a prisoner and require the government to justify that person's incarceration.
that's part of being the good guys
This is how you lose wars. You can't fight uncivilized people using civilized ways.
Sic em, are you talking about FDR? You know, for gathering up Amercans of the Japanese race and throwing them into camps.
TUSooner
6/11/2007, 08:58 AM
That's rhetorical, right?
If it's not, look at it this way: it's only important enough that it managed to make it into the Constitution the first time. Think about all the rights that had to wait for an amendment.
Exactly. And, of course, the writ is waaaaay older than our Constitution.
OklahomaTuba
6/11/2007, 09:01 AM
We aren't capturing folks on battlefields, we are catching them in house to house policing.
Wow, you really do believe this, huh???
Amazing.
Maybe while we are at it, let's give every prisoner or war all the benefits and protections an American citizen enjoys. Hell, why not give them universal health care, free college tuition, unlimited food stamps, free housing, and employment protection as well. God I love liberalism.
yermom
6/11/2007, 09:09 AM
so everyone we have detained was captured on the battlefield holding an IED or a rifle or something?
Petro-Sooner
6/11/2007, 09:10 AM
Hell, why not give them universal health care, free college tuition, unlimited food stamps, free housing, and employment protection as well. God I love liberalism.
Might as well. Thats what we are doing for the illegal messicans.
OklahomaTuba
6/11/2007, 09:11 AM
so everyone we have detained was captured on the battlefield holding an IED or a rifle or something?
I doubt we "detained" those folks.
OklahomaTuba
6/11/2007, 09:13 AM
Might as well. Thanks what we are doing for the illegal messicans.
This falls in line with John Edwards plan to fight the global war on terror with the peace corp.
Frozen Sooner
6/11/2007, 11:20 AM
I actually didn't know about the post-OKC bombing limitations. That's interesting actually...did that become permanent in that anti-terrorism legislation that Clinton signed after the bombing? I forget exactly what the purpose of the new law was, but I'm thinking that may have been a provision.
It was. Under the Clinton anti-terror bill a statute of limitation was added to habeas corpus that tolled after one year.
soonerscuba
6/11/2007, 12:17 PM
Maybe while we are at it, let's give every prisoner or war all the benefits and protections an American citizen enjoys. Hell, why not give them universal health care, free college tuition, unlimited food stamps, free housing, and employment protection as well. God I love liberalism.
BURN, STRAWMAN, BURN!!!!
OklahomaTuba
6/11/2007, 01:30 PM
BURN, STRAWMAN, BURN!!!!
Tell John Edwards that. :D
The plan Mr. Edwards presented yesterday — which he dubbed "A Strategy to Shut Down Terrorists and Stop Terrorism Before It Starts" — calls for a 10,000-person "Marshall Corps" to deal with issues ranging from worldwide poverty and economic development to clean drinking water and micro-lending.
Petro-Sooner
6/11/2007, 01:35 PM
BWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Thats funny John. Got any more???
yermom
6/11/2007, 01:44 PM
Tell John Edwards that. :D
have you been drinking?
We aren't capturing folks on battlefields, we are catching them in house to house policing.
Wow, you really do believe this, huh???
Amazing.
Maybe while we are at it, let's give every prisoner or war all the benefits and protections an American citizen enjoys. Hell, why not give them universal health care, free college tuition, unlimited food stamps, free housing, and employment protection as well. God I love liberalism.
so everyone we have detained was captured on the battlefield holding an IED or a rifle or something?
I doubt we "detained" those folks.
Tuba, you're making my point for me. If these "detainees" were all captured after gunfights as we are led to believe, I'll buy some beachfront in Arizona from you. :texan:
If our system (the one that Colin Powell thinks we should be using) is too lenient for them, then I guess we should just lock 'em up forever without due process since they aren't US citizens?
TUSooner
6/11/2007, 09:00 PM
Wow, you really do believe this, huh???
Amazing.
Maybe while we are at it, let's give every prisoner or war all the benefits and protections an American citizen enjoys. Hell, why not give them universal health care, free college tuition, unlimited food stamps, free housing, and employment protection as well. God I love liberalism.
OK, you've gone off into straw-man land now: exaggerate your opponent's position to the point of absurdity and claim victory. You have some good arguments, but that's not one.
My work is done. :O :D
yermom
6/11/2007, 10:41 PM
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/11/breaking-bush-administration-loses-major-terror-case/
In a “major setback” to President Bush’s terrorism detention policies, a federal appeals court ruled today that the administration “cannot legally detain a U.S. resident it believes is an al-Qaida sleeper agent without charging him.
so what about American citizens Tuba?
Frozen Sooner
6/11/2007, 11:17 PM
Technically, that doesn't just apply to citizens. It applies to ANYONE residing in the US.
I got these from the liberal media. :rolleyes:
Some of these folks were arrested at their homes. In the US. And later declared "enemy combatants."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10943271
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10947948
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10732625
I got these from the liberal media. :rolleyes:
Some of these folks were arrested at their homes. In the US. And later declared "enemy combatants."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10943271
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10947948
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10732625
When NPR reports that "A U.S. resident was arrested..." are they talking about someone who is a citizen, or someone who is here on a visa?
Sooner24
6/12/2007, 08:40 PM
No, for a d00d that couldn't field a profitable baseball team in Dallas, that is way out of his league (intentional pun). He has a knack for bumbling in big ways and compensates for it by sticking rigidly to Plan A and running over those who disagree. I don't doubt his advisors consider the benefits to their base and funders when advising though.
And I think even his handlers seem to be baffled by his incompetence (not to be confused with ineffectiveness because he's both effective and incompetent - a dangerous combination IMO) about half the time.
They are in Arlington and he made several million when he sold them.
Sooner24
6/12/2007, 08:45 PM
Wow, you really do believe this, huh???
Amazing.
Maybe while we are at it, let's give every prisoner or war all the benefits and protections an American citizen enjoys. Hell, why not give them universal health care, free college tuition, unlimited food stamps, free housing, and employment protection as well. God I love liberalism.
That's reserved for our illegal aliens thank you. ;)
usmc-sooner
6/12/2007, 08:45 PM
If President Bush would try to fix the Mexican Border thing, he'd be perfect.
Sorry Democrats being a p*ssy is not an option, at least for me
SicEmBaylor
6/12/2007, 09:15 PM
If President Bush would try to fix the Mexican Border thing, he'd be perfect.
Sorry Democrats being a p*ssy is not an option, at least for me
*slaps forehead*
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.