|
Would you give up liberty to be secure? (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ogvh5150 |
Sort of related since it mentions gitmo:
| quote: | December 30, 2006
Appeals Court Rejects Brief Submitted by Ex-Judges
By ADAM LIPTAK
Seven former federal judges were told yesterday that their views were not welcome at the federal appeals court in Washington.
A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which will soon decide an important case concerning detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, rejected a friend-of-the-court brief submitted in the case by the retired judges. Two former chief judges of the court were among those rebuffed.
The unsigned majority decision, for Judges David B. Sentelle and A. Raymond Randolph, said the brief violated a 1982 advisory opinion from a committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States, which is the administrative and policy-making body of the federal court system.
“Judges should insure that the title ‘judge’ is not used in the courtroom or in papers involved in litigation before them to designate a former judge,” the advisory opinion said.
Briefs by former judges supporting one side or the other in significant cases are relatively common. The brief rejected yesterday urged the appeals court to allow Guantánamo detainees to challenge their detentions notwithstanding a new law, the Military Commissions Act, that the government says now bars the courthouse door.
Judge Judith W. Rogers dissented. She said the 1982 advisory opinion was meant to address situations in which former judges acting as lawyers are referred to by the honorific title “Judge.” That practice, if allowed in court, could improperly influence juries, confuse people and make parties to lawsuits lose confidence in the judicial system.
But the situation here, with former judges submitting an appellate brief on their own behalf and with the government’s consent, is different, Judge Rogers wrote. “Indeed, denying the unopposed motion for leave to file may itself create an appearance of partiality,” she wrote.
David B. Rivkin, who was an official in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and the first President George Bush, said he detected a political undertone.
“It certainly tells you,” Mr. Rivkin said, “how at least some of the D.C. Circuit judges feel about the anti-Bush-administration judicial activism by their former colleagues.”
Judge Sentelle was appointed by Reagan, Judge Randolph by the first President Bush and Judge Rogers by President Bill Clinton. The two former chief judges on the brief, Abner J. Mikva and Patricia M. Wald, were appointed by President Jimmy Carter.
Mr. Mikva said the rejection of his brief was motivated by personal animus, not politics. “It’s not political at all,” he said in an interview. “This was clearly aimed at me.”
The judges in the majority, Mr. Mikva said, were furious with him because he opposed allowing judges to accept free trips to resorts for seminars sponsored by private groups.
“They’re so close to retirement age,” Mr. Mikva said of the judges in the majority. “They really should grow up.”
Experts in legal ethics were divided over yesterday’s ruling. Ronald D. Rotunda, a law professor at George Mason University, said it was an unexceptional application of a sensible policy.
“There is no particular reason why former judges should be able to leverage their titles in litigation,” Professor Rotunda said.
Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University, disagreed. “It’s more than petty,” Professor Gillers said of the brief’s rejection. “It’s unnecessary and insulting.”
He added that the objection was an empty formality, as former judges remain free to submit briefs if they omit references to their prior judicial service.
Whatever its basis and wisdom, yesterday’s order probably indicates that a ruling in the underlying case is near. In a 1994 libel case, a panel including Judges Mikva and Wald rejected a supporting brief that Kenneth W. Starr, a former judge on the court, had tried to submit on behalf of several news organizations. The panel decided the libel case the next day.
|
Used without permission for educational, non-commercial use only. All rights reserved. |
|
|
| Alex |
It's the 10.34% of you that scare the out of me.
Democracy isn't as intact as it used to be people, the USA is going in the wrong direction politically and all the secret mumbo jumbo the USA has been up to since WWII is a disgrace, a disgrace because it's lasted so long.
Powerful governments decieve people, and do bad stuff, I get that... The USA has probably prevented so many awful things from happening that the public will never know about, BUT! BUT! BUT! It is time the American people take a more Canadian view on government, a much more critical view that keeps the government in check.
Whenever I remember the coverage of the 2004 Republican abomination in NYC I remember distinctly all the people dressed in star spangled banner button up shirts, cowboy hats and telling the cameras how much they "love" and "trust" the President... What nonsense! This man is responsible for plunging the USA into now 6 YEARS of disorganization and loss of global power, he's turning your country into a huge joke when 20 years ago the USA commanded all the respect and all of the attention of the world arena.
Now what's the story eh? The USA's government is seemingly some sort of puppet, many of the dominant media forms insist on reporting on the negative, insist on reminding us how many terrorists there still are and insist on telling the American people that danger lurks around every corner.
The USA has it all, it is one of the best countries on this earth and being a Canadian who visits many times a year, I love the USA and I keep myself informed of American politics/sports/everything because I suppose I never jumped on the "hate America" bandwagon that so many people have.
Americans and Canadians are tough to tell apart, except for the fact that we here in Canada dont let our Government feed us this BS about securing the nation and sacrificing our rights to do so, in fact, the Supreme Court of Canada usually over-concerns itself with the needs of the individual over those of the state, the way it should be... Literally.
Also we don't wave Canadian flags and say how much we support and love the Prime Minister, we critisize him for every little mistake he makes, and the rest of the government makes, but we praise him and them for their accomplishments also (but not as much as we bitch :p).
When a country's people puts too much support into it's own government there is a serious problem, a government and it's leader are like an over-enflated ego with crazy ideas, let it's imagination run wild and there will be big big trouble!
I forget which President said this, and it isnt an exact quote but
In order for democracy to succeed an armed rebellion must take place every (?) 20 years. (Again the years are prolly wrong but ya, you get the jist of it).
And that certainly hasnt taken place! Not that it should happen like that in modern times like ours but at the very least we could dick-slap those a-holes on the hill and in the white house into thinkin with some in sense! And make them realize that the people are in charge, not them! |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
Nice post Alex.
On that note, we should once again march upon the Americans and burn their White House to the ground to give them perspective...
O'Canada eh? :p |
|
|
| Alex |
| Ahhahaha, I should hope not! Americans just need to remember their glory days and they'll get themselves back on track! |
|
|
| Lilith |
True, but to be a-political it's happening everywhere and the definitions of conservative and liberal movements are becoming a lot 'fuzzier'.
The current liberal government in Australia is a far removed cry from their predecessors in the last 20 years, theyre harder, borrow their political agenda's from their hardline nationalist allies and make it very, very hard for the little people in the name of economic prosperity for the very wealthy.
Which is a far cry from their founding on economic liberalism, freedom of trade and social advantages for everyone. Now, theyre cold and heartless conservatives, lets face it no one expects people to run a country on happy thoughts and hugs but it comes a point where they are so far removed from the average person that they wouldnt know what a litre of milk costs.
I do agree though with Alex's US sentiment, they need to go back to what made them respected as a democratic republic instead of the hardline bordering on cruelty and totalitarianism. Bit of real-world diplomacy instead of this farcical idealist diplomacy wouldnt hurt either. |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| Liberty does not exist, and neither does security. |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
| quote: | Gonzales: ‘There Is No Express Grant of Habeas Corpus In The Constitution’
Yesterday, during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales claimed there is no express right to habeas corpus in the U.S. Constitution. Gonzales was debating Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) about whether the Supreme Court’s ruling on Guantanamo detainees last year cited the constitutional right to habeas corpus. Gonzales claimed the Court did not cite such a right, then added, “There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.”
Specter pushed back. “Wait a minute. The constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?” Specter told Gonzales, “You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.” Watch it:
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/plugins/flvplayer.swf?file=http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/flv/2007/01/constitution.320.240.flv&autoStart=false
As McJoan noted, the right of habeas corpus is clear in Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Contitution: “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.”
Digg It!
Full transcript:
SPECTER: Where you have the Constitution having an explicit provision that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended except for rebellion or invasion, and you have the Supreme Court saying that habeas corpus rights apply to Guantanamo detainees — aliens in Guantanamo — after an elaborate discussion as to why, how can the statutory taking of habeas corpus — when there’s an express constitutional provision that it can’t be suspended, and an explicit Supreme Court holding that it applies to Guantanamo alien detainees.
GONZALES: A couple things, Senator. I believe that the Supreme Court case you’re referring to dealt only with the statutory right to habeas, not the constitutional right to habeas.
SPECTER: Well, you’re not right about that. It’s plain on its face they are talking about the constitutional right to habeas corpus. They talk about habeas corpus being guaranteed by the Constitution, except in cases of an invasion or rebellion. They talk about John Runningmeade and the Magna Carta and the doctrine being imbedded in the Constitution.
GONZALES: Well, sir, the fact that they may have talked about the constitutional right to habeas doesn’t mean that the decision dealt with that constitutional right to habeas.
SPECTER: When did you last read the case?
GONZALES: It has been a while, but I’ll be happy to — I will go back and look at it.
SPECTER: I looked at it yesterday and this morning again.
GONZALES: I will go back and look at it. The fact that the Constitution — again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. But it’s never been the case, and I’m not a Supreme —
SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?
GONZALES: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn’t say, “Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas.” It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by —
SPECTER: You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.
GONZALES: Um. |
|
|
|
| Magnetonium |
I wonder who the 9 people who voted YES are on this forum, wink wink, LOL (*I have a very good idea!)
:stongue: |
|
|
| Kapedan |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Shibby
Liberty does not exist, and neither does security. |
Liberty exists, and total security does not exist. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kapedan
Liberty exists, and total security does not exist. |
You tell him!!! |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
The way I look at it, total liberty = total liberty, and total security = dictatorship. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
total security = dictatorship. |
Not sure about the other one, but that was well put. To me it feels like people are literally begging for a police state to be honest. I'm sure they'll get it though. Sorry to sound pesimistic, but I've lost all faith in people taking a stand and saying enough is enough. Modern man is too conditioned; weak, docile, and highly dependand on the state. |
|
|
|
|
