TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The day King George was crowned (death of Habeus Corpus)
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Great, thank you for sharing this. Good to see things finally swinging back towards sanity.

No worries dude. This is more of a plea for sanity than anything else. We've seen how responsive this administration is, so keep your fingers crossed.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Why does it matter?

Why? there are a multitude of reasons why, the most compelling one IMO...OJ Simpson. i'm dead serious.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo Why? there is a multitude of reasons why, the most compelling one IMO...OJ Simpson. i'm dead serious.

You shouldn't be serious when making statements like this. There have been well documented cases of innocent people being jailed and tortured for years in our custody, such as this one:

quote:

The federal government agreed to pay $2 million Wednesday to an Oregon lawyer wrongly jailed in connection with the 2004 terrorist bombings in Madrid, and it issued a formal apology to him and his family. The unusual settlement caps a two-and-a-half-year ordeal that saw the lawyer, Brandon Mayfield, go from being a suspected terrorist operative to a symbol, in the eyes of his supporters, of government overzealousness in the war on terrorism. �The United States of America apologizes to Mr. Brandon Mayfield and his family for the suffering caused� by his mistaken arrest, the government�s apology began. It added that the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which erroneously linked him to the Madrid bombs through a fingerprinting mistake, had taken steps �to ensure that what happened to Mr. Mayfield and the Mayfield family does not happen again.� . . . �The days, weeks and months following my arrest,� he said, �were some of the darkest we have had to endure. I personally was subject to lockdown, strip searches, sleep deprivation, unsanitary living conditions, shackles and chains, threats, physical pain and humiliation.� Despite doubts from Spanish officials about the validity of the fingerprint match, American officials began an aggressive high-level investigation into Mr. Mayfield in the weeks after the bombings. . . . Using expanded surveillance powers under the USA Patriot Act, the government wiretapped his conversations, conducted secret searches of his home and his law office and jailed him for two weeks as a material witness in the case before a judge threw out the case against him. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/30/us/30settle.html

And the alternative to a real trial given to these suspects, the Pentagon's Combatant Status Review Tribunals is absolutely a joke of a court proceeding. More can be read here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_cr/s4081.html

And here:

http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=2416&wit_id=5772

Take a notice on that last link of yet another case:

quote:

Murat Kurnaz (Tab 4): Mr. Kurnaz, a German resident of Turkish descent, was traveling through Pakistan with Islamic missionaries in November 2001 when he was detained by local police and eventually turned over to U.S. officials. The U.S. justified Mr. Kurnaz's detention on the basis that he was associated with a man who allegedly committed a suicide bombing in Turkey. In his CSRT hearing, Mr. Kurnaz explained how he knew the alleged suicide bomber but did not know he was a terrorist; and he believed terrorism is not the way of Islam. Based on classified evidence Mr. Kurnaz was not allowed to review or answer, the CSRT upheld the determination that Mr. Kurnaz was an enemy combatant and associated with al Qaida. However, when that information was later declassified, it contained no evidence directly linking Mr. Kurnaz to a1 Qaida, and showed U.S. and foreign intelligence agencies believed that Mr. Kurnaz did not have links to al Qaida. The alleged suicide bomber was found alive in Germany, and German authorities said they had no proof that he was a terrorist. After being detained for five years without charge, Mr. Kurnaz was released in August 2006. (See Carol D. Leonnig, Panel Ignored Evidence on Detainee: U.S. Military Intelligence, German Authorities Found No Ties to Terrorists, The Washington Post, March 27, 2005, p. Al.)

Justice Jackson wrote a concurring opinion in Brown v Allen 344 U.S. 443, 533 (1953):

quote:

Executive imprisonment has been considered oppressive and lawless since John, at Runnymede, pledged that no free man should be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, or exiled save by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. The judges of England developed the writ of habeas corpus largely to preserve these immunities from executive restraint. http://www.justia.us/us/344/443/

Patrick Henry also warned us about government officials claiming the right to imprison people without trials:

quote:

Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings--give us that precious jewel, and you may take everything else! ...Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. http://teacher.sduhsd.k12.ca.us/mmontgomery/american_govt/antipapers/phenry.htm

Suspending habeas for the rationale of the mere possibility an incompetent Administration failing to make a worthwhile case against terrorist suspects should not create the burden being put upon the suspects themselves. I would certainly hope that most folks would agree that such a problem lies squarely on this Administration who's supposed to make a convincing case that these unlawful combatants are who this Administration accuses them to be?

Then again, that is just wishful thinking for me to believe such thoughts about neocons.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 There have been well documented cases of innocent people being jailed and tortured for years in our custody, such as this one:

non sequitur.

next.

quote:

Suspending habeas

alright. stop right there, stupid.

no one suspended habeas. we never afforded it to them to suspend in the first place. never have.

wtf is your rationale for giving it to them? that is the question.

in any case, you got a problem with the MCA take it up with the people who wrote it and passed it into law. moron.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo non sequitur. next.

Bullshit, and you know it. The fact that these detainees were illegally held and tortured, and then let go thereby directly demonstrating their innocence (unless you believe we let terrorists go free?) directly undermines the argument against suspending Habeas. The conclusion follows the premise quite nicely with these examples.

Can you demonstrate how this is somehow inconsistent with my argument?

quote:

alright. stop right there, stupid. no one suspended habeas. we never afforded it to them to suspend in the first place. never have.

Wrong again. Rasul v. Bush:

quote:

Congress has granted federal district courts, �within their respective jurisdictions,� the authority to hear applications for habeas corpus by any person who claims to be held �in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.� 28 U.S.C. � 2241(a), (c)(3). The statute traces its ancestry to the first grant of federal court jurisdiction: Section 14 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 authorized federal courts to issue the writ of habeas corpus to prisoners �in custody, under or by colour of the authority of the United States, or committed for trial before some court of the same.� Act of Sept. 24, 1789, ch. 20, �14, 1 Stat. 82. In 1867, Congress extended the protections of the writ to �all cases where any person may be restrained of his or her liberty in violation of the constitution, or of any treaty or law of the United States.� Act of Feb. 5, 1867, ch. 28, 14 Stat. 385. See Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 659�660 (1996). . . . As it has evolved over the past two centuries, the habeas statute clearly has expanded habeas corpus �beyond the limits that obtained during the 17th and 18th centuries.� Swain v. Pressley, 430 U.S. 372, 380, n. 13 (1977). http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-334.ZO.html

The Founders of our Constitution made no distinction between citizens and non-citizens in granting Habeas. Furthermore, Habeas was designed as one of the most vital safeguards against Executive tyranny. Considering now that the President can arbitrarily call ANYONE an "unlawful combatant", this is exactly what the law was designed to halt.

Now, granted, MCA strips the federal courts of granting those petitions from non-citizens for Habeas, which was created specifically to step right over Rasul. It's sad to see our Congress overturn a 210 year trend, but it's likely it will be overturned in SCOTUS even with this Conservative majority because of these fundamentally flawed reasons mentioned. Statements in the Hamdan v Rumsfeld made by the majority opinion also bolster the likely unconstitutionality of MCA as well, especially in regards to Geneva.

Furthermore, it has been argued that this bill can apply to citizens as well as non-citizens. It appears that both Bush and our lying AG Gonzales believe this, but the recent court decision in favor of Bush's MCA law likely shoots this possibility down:

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/opinion...1-12132006a.pdf

quote:

wtf is your rationale for giving it to them? that is the question.

The question is answered with both case precedent and historical understanding of what our Founders understood Habeas was all about. Something you sincerely lack.

quote:

in any case, you got a problem with the MCA take it up with the people who wrote it and passed it into law. moron.

Indeed I do. A hurried law written right before an election was a major problem I had with Reid at the time for failing to stop this bill. He clearly got outmaneuvered. Regardless, attempts are being made to restore Habeas in Congress in a bipartisan manner (Specter's supposedly trying). Whether or not that happens prior to the case reaching SCOTUS remains to be seen. The all powerful Executive would likely veto that regardless, so it's up to SCOTUS and/or a new President that understands the balance of 3 branches of government versus an all powerful Executive branch to correctly overturn this bullshit legislation.

What's with your fetish of silly schoolyard namecalling? Still having problems with this rule I see?:

quote:

2. No Argumenta Ad Hominem: Hopefully, this is just temporary, but let's try to avoid any name-calling and/or personal attacks. We're here to discuss about politics, not to show how many insults we know in a determined language. At the slightest provocation, the necessary measures will be taken to solve the problem.

O Captain! Our Captain! Hero's Day Is Done

Captain America is dead.

Read the full article at Washington Post

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Can you demonstrate how this is somehow inconsistent with my argument?

nice try, but we didn't exactly let them walk out of the Main Gate at Guantanamo, did we? is that what you want us to believe? absurd.

try telling us what was actually done to them, or for them i should say. then i'll tell you what their own countries afforded them by way of "The Great Writ".

out of 520 detainees at GITMO that have gone through the CSRT and re-patriated, you got Kurnaz? thats it right?

you ever heard of the term "time served"?

quote:

Wrong again. Rasul v. Bush:

no, youre wrong. Rasul demostrated that the SCOTUS could make a bad decision based soley on federal statute, not the Constituion. hardly an originalist argument if you are meaning to make one(why else would you invoke the Founding Fathers for an argument ) and hardly a sound one seeing as how the Rasul decision depended entirely on the distortion of said Federal Statute and the courts jurisdictions outside the U.S.

in addition, Rasul failed granting full habeas provisions to enemy combatants short of an act of Congress. which is exactly what happened.

EDIT> not only are you wrong in bringing up Rasul it turns out the SCOTUS ignored it's own precedent in Johnson v. Eisentrager circa 1950 not granting Habeas Corpus to aliens held by the military overseas.

IOW Rasul is a poor argument.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 The question is answered with both case precedent and historical understanding of what our Founders understood Habeas was all about. Something you sincerely lack.

i lack? try reading Article I section 9 of the Constitution, jackass.

don't ever invoke the Founding Fathers to me ever again. it should be a G** Damn priviledge.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo nice try, but we didn't exactly let them walk out of the Main Gate at Guantanamo, did we? is that what you want us to believe? absurd.

Was there anything in what I said for you to conclude as much? Here, let me help you:

quote:

The fact that these detainees were illegally held and tortured, and then let go thereby directly demonstrating their innocence

Now where out of that or out of anything else that I said can you conclude that we "let them walk out"? More on this below.

quote:

try telling us what was actually done to them, or for them i should say. then i'll tell you what their own countries afforded them by way of "The Great Writ".

Are you being serious? You really going to hold me to that just one single case? You realize how many people have been let go free after years of detention at Gitmo? You really going to try to sell us your silly argument that it was merely 1 person held and tortured at Gitmo, and then let free?

Are you sure you want to go there?

quote:

out of 520 detainees at GITMO that have gone through the CSRT and re-patriated, you got Kurnaz? thats it right? you ever heard of the term "time served"?

Time served? For what? Tell that to these men:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/m.../guan-m19.shtml

Or these men:

quote:

Nearly 30 percent of the Guant�namo detainees have been cleared to leave the prison but remain jailed because the U.S. government has been unable to arrange for their return to their home countries, the Pentagon said Friday. The Pentagon refused to identify these 141 men despite having released on Wednesday its first comprehensive list of detainees held at the prison for foreign terrorism suspects at the U.S. naval base at Guant�namo Bay, Cuba. Of these 141 detainees among the 490 still at Guant�namo, various military reviews have cleared 22 to be freed in their home countries and the remaining 119 for transfer to the control of their home governments. http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/21/news/gitmo.php

And what happens to these "criminals" and "terrorists" once they reach their homelands? By and large, this:

quote:

-- The Pentagon called them "among the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth," sweeping them up after Sept. 11 and hauling them in chains to a U.S. military prison in southeastern Cuba. Since then, hundreds of the men have been transferred from Guantanamo Bay to other countries, many of them for "continued detention." And then set free. Decisions by more than a dozen countries in the Middle East, Europe and South Asia to release the former Guantanamo detainees raise questions about whether they were really as dangerous as the United States claimed, or whether some of America's staunchest allies have set terrorists and militants free. The United States does not systematically track what happens to detainees once they leave Guantanamo, the U.S. State Department says. Defense lawyers and human rights groups say they know of no centralized database, although one group is attempting to compile one. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6121600200.html

Those darn criminals, the whole lot of them, being set free once they leave our blessed custody. Stop selling that bullshit here.

quote:

no, youre wrong. Rasul demostrated that the SCOTUS could make a bad decision based soley on federal statute, not the Constituion. hardly an originalist argument if you are meaning to make one(why else would you invoke the Founding Fathers for an argument ) and hardly a sound one seeing as how the Rasul decision depended entirely on the distortion of said Federal Statute and the courts jurisdictions outside the U.S.

It's disgusting to see neocon supporters like yourself pretend to hold the Founding Fathers in the highest regard while you deliberately piss all over exactly what they fought and stood for - a government with checks and balances, ESPECIALLY in regards to keeping the Executive branch in check. Please stop pretending to act like you care about the Founders.

As for what they said, if you can find ANYWHERE where they believe Habeas stood ONLY for American citizens, grab a cigar for yourself and light it up. Johnson v. Eisentrager was a case that set a 52 yr. precedent against nationals of countries at war with the U.S., as well as and engaged in or plotted acts of aggression against us. Prior to that, please cite a source.

quote:

in addition, Rasul failed granting full habeas provisions to enemy combatants short of an act of Congress. which is exactly what happened. EDIT> not only are you wrong in bringing up Rasul it turns out the SCOTUS ignored it's own precedent in Johnson v. Eisentrager circa 1950 not granting Habeas Corpus to aliens held by the military overseas. IOW Rasul is a poor argument.

Hmmm, that makes sense. Yep.

Oh yeah, I guess in order for your silly tripe argument to REALLY make sense, we would have to believe that Rasul somehow completely undermined Eisentrager. Did it really do that? In order for that to occur, we would have to believe that the terrorists captured at Gitmo are nationals at war with the U.S. If you can demonstrate that those captured detainees have such markings of any sort, give yourself another cigar.

Now up until recently, they were not even given the "luxury" of tribunals. But thanks to our dipshit Congress, they are now given a lovely kangaroo court that my previous links outlined the utter fallaciousness of those courts. Neither DTA nor MCA follows the guidelines set forth by the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision to set up courts with respect to Geneva, nor was there any real guidelines set up with respect to how an "enemy combatant" is truly defined other than the arbitrary decision of our fearless Leader. This is why those decisions will likely be overturned by SCOTUS.

Back to Eisentrager, they decided based on a Constitutional entitlement to habeas. It did not, however, have anything to say much at all about the STATUTORY entitlement to habeas review, which is what Rasul argued correctly about. Furthermore, Justice Kennedy argued (and I believe correctly) that Eisentrager had a bit of a sliding scale of granting habeas accordingly:

quote:

For his argument, he relies on the Eisentrager framework, which sets out a sliding scale of constitutional protection for individuals depending on their connection to the U.S. Among the relevant criteria are citizenship, physical presence in the U.S. (or in territories controlled by the U.S. such as Guantanamo), and attitude towards the U.S. (friend or foe). In addition, factors of military exigency may be considered. On the basis of these factors, Kennedy concludes that the writ of habeas corpus is available to the Guantanamo detainees: they are on U.S. controlled territory, their status as friend or foe has not been determined (because they have been deprived of any legal proceedings), and after two years there is no credible claim of military exigency. http://www.lawsocietyblog.com/archives/3

So does Gitmo fall in U.S. controlled territory? If not, how can we be holding any prisoners there in the first place?

So in summary:

1. Rasul did NOT overrule Johnson in this particular case because there has not been any convincing argument to any courts that captured detainees at Gitmo are nationals of countries at war with the U.S. and have been engaged in plotted acts of aggression against the U.S. (which is what Johnson outlined against the captured Germans), nor was the central argument in Rasul in regards to a Constitutional right to Habeas review but rather a statutory one (although Stevens makes the argument that because of Gitmo falling under the same guidelines as Johnson with respect to U.S. controlled territory, the question of Constitutional right to habeas review should also be examined.).

2. You're still a clown.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i lack? try reading Article I section 9 of the Constitution, jackass.

Uhh, Q, what part of this does you any favors?:

quote:

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.

Not ONE argument, even by the most ardent neocon fascists have made any remotely compelling argument that we have been invaded nor has there been any case of rebellion. No argument has even approached that in any language by this Administration. If you're going to come to that conclusion, I suggest you try to support your conclusion.

quote:

don't ever invoke the Founding Fathers to me ever again. it should be a G** Damn priviledge.

It's no "priviledge" sir. It's a basic understanding of what they are and who they stand for. IOW, the exact ANTITHESIS of neocons like yourself that are doing everything they can to piss on what the Founders believe. Stop pretending like you give a shit about the very thing you neocons out to destroy.

Man Q is turning into such a troll it's ridiculous. Hey man, here's an idea, if you can't debate without insulting people don't come to a debate forum.

Oi, Opus and Q5, calm down you guys!

I'm closing this thread before the situation gets any worse - but please, let's try to keep ad hominem at a minimum level. We're here to discuss facts, not to abuse one another

Edit: All right, carry on, but please stop that childish discussion. Specially you, Opus, you know you don't need to get that low when you're such a good poster

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Oi, Opus and Q5, calm down you guys! I'm closing this thread before the situation gets any worse - but please, let's try to keep ad hominem at a minimum level. We're here to discuss facts, not to abuse one another Edit: All right, carry on, but please stop that childish discussion. Specially you, Opus, you know you don't need to get that low when you're such a good poster

Fair enough. My apologies to you and Q. I thought I would give it my due notice to my opponent about the language, which if I recall is the second time I've had to do so. I broke that rule finally on the third time to make a point. Perhaps not the best tactic, but I'm more than willing to carry on the debate without the silly personal name calling. Hopefully Q will agree as well.

Added in Edit: I cleaned up my last two messages a bit more. Hopefully that's a bit more appropriate without losing the content given.

It's always nice to see you and Occ trying your best to keep the discussion civil and rational Opus. Nice post there, that last one that is. Good job .

The U.S. is Now an "Endemic Surveillance Society", WORST in Democratic World in Privacy Protection, Study Says

quote:

The U.S. has been downgraded from "Extensive Surveillance Society" to "Endemic Surveillance Society," according to Privacy International's 2007 International Privacy Ranking released on Friday. We now share the "Endemic" distinction with China, Russia, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Taiwan, and the UK: In terms of statutory protections and privacy enforcement, the US is the worst ranking country in the democratic world. In terms of overall privacy protection the United States has performed very poorly, being out-ranked by both India and the Philippines. It's worth noting that Canadian and EU papers have reported on this, but I have yet to find coverage in a U.S. newspaper. It's up to you and me to let our friends and family and presidential candidates know that we rank at the bottom when it comes to: Legal protections Privacy enforcement Use of identity cards and biometrics Visual surveillance Communications interception Workplace monitoring Medical, financial and movement surveillance Border and trans-border issues Take a gander at the report for a thorough explanation. Then think about where you'd like to live! Romania and Canada are in the best shape (though Canada is slipping due in part to cooperation with U.S. data gathering and border programs). Greece stands out as a the only country with "adequate safeguards" against abuse. ... No right to privacy in constitution, though search and seizure protections exist in 4th Amendment; case law on government searches has considered new technology No comprehensive privacy law, many sectoral laws; though tort of privacy FTC continues to give inadequate attention to privacy issues, though issued self-regulating privacy guidelines on advertising in 2007 State-level data breach legislation has proven to be useful in identifying faults in security REAL-ID and biometric identification programs continue to spread without adequate oversight, research, and funding structures Extensive data-sharing programs across federal government and with private sector Spreading use of CCTV Congress approved presidential program of spying on foreign communications over U.S. networks, e.g. Gmail, Hotmail, etc.; and now considering immunity for telephone companies, while government claims secrecy, thus barring any legal action No data retention law as yet, but equally no data protection law World leading in border surveillance, mandating trans-border data flows Weak protections of financial and medical privacy; plans spread for 'rings of steel' around cities to monitor movements of individuals Democratic safeguards tend to be strong but new Congress and political dynamics show that immigration and terrorism continue to leave politicians scared and without principle Lack of action on data breach legislation on the federal level while REAL-ID is still compelled upon states has shown that states can make informed decisions Recent news regarding FBI biometric database raises particular concerns as this could lead to the largest database of biometrics around the world that is not protected by strong privacy law

Source: privacyinternational.org

Here's a more detailed report on the US specifically: =x-347-559478]PHR2006 - United States of America

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.