Do You Support Habeas Corpus Rights for Osama bin Laden?
John Kerry and Barack Obama Do
By Ben Domenech Posted in Barack Obama | Gitmo | John Kerry | John Kerry good John McCain bad | scotus | War — Comments (123) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
From Michael Goldfarb, we learn an astounding fact: John Kerry supports granting Habeas Corpus rights to Osama bin Laden. From the NY Observer:
When asked by a reporter about the McCain campaign's assertion that Obama would want to give Osama Bin Laden habeas corpus rights, Kerry answered angrily.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that they have those rights -- this is not Barack Obama, this is the Supreme Court of the United States. If John McCain were president he'd have to give them those rights. This is a phony argument. And it is typical of what the Republican playbook is, which is, say anything, no matter what the other side has said, just say it, people may believe it, unless you folks write the truth and write it boldly and clearly. The truth is that this is exactly what they tried to say back in 2004 and the record absolutely contradicts it."
Obama himself, of course, already made the mistake of suggesting that granting habeas rights are just following the example of Nuremberg, where no such rights existed.
Conservatives would emphatically support Obama's position if it means as POTUS he would hold to the Nuremberg standard for international tribunals, since this measure would grant far fewer allowances for terrorists on trial than any court arranged by the current Administration. And it's not like Nuremberg was just a slaughterhouse - they acquitted more than one individual - they just weren't as interested in giving a whole slew of known killers and villains undeserved rights. Imagine if Nuremberg had the kind of allowances and presumptions of today's American courts? We'd have been arguing about these Nazis til the Reagan presidency.
It is a simple, straightforward, and reasonable position: Known terrorists, who have done nothing to earn the rights of American citizens but prove that they have varying degrees of skill in killing American citizens, should not have the same court experience as American citizens. The American people agree, emphatically rejecting the Obama-Kerry position in the ABC News/WaPo poll released today:
13. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that non-citizens suspected of terrorism who are being held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should be allowed to challenge their detentions in the U.S. civilian court system. (Supporters of this ruling say it provides detainees with basic constitutional rights.) (Critics of the ruling say only special military tribunals should be allowed, because hearings in open court could compromise terrorism investigations.) What's your view - do you think these detainees should or should not be able to challenge their detentions in the civilian court system?
Should 34%
Should not 61%
No Opinion 6%
Even on a question that convoluted, people have no qualms: access to the civilian court system is not a universal right, but a right that terrorists do not deserve. If caught alive, Osama bin Laden should be tried and executed. He should not be granted rights he has no claim to, by birthright or service or any other measure.
Barack Obama must answer this question: why does Osama bin Laden deserve these rights?
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | DNC Default Update: "Whoa, whoa, whoa! Nice shootin', Tex! " — Comments (14) »
Do You Support Habeas Corpus Rights for Osama bin Laden? 123 Comments (0 topical, 123 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Doesn't this mean that, if we captured OBL and granted him the right to habeas corpus, we could show legal cause for holding him?
He's been indicted for the crime and he's confessed to it. The confession seems like a pretty good reason to deny bail pending trial, and it seems like we'd get an easy conviction.
Granting him the right to a constitutional legal proceeding doesn't make it any less likely that we'd keep him out of action if we captured him alive, does it?
He would be able to learn a lot about our intelligence capabilities.
He could deny his prior statements as bravado. How do you prove that the leader of a movement actually ordered a specific attack.
As an evidentiary matter, how do you prove that OBL, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, et al actually are guilty of what they did. As an evidentiary matter, it is not an easy thing to do.
This "law and order" approach to national defense is going to get us killed.
Sure, the government was not sufficiently competent to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ was guilty of murder... but in a civil court of law, the government got him good.
I've always heard the comparison to football insofar as "beyond the shadow of a doubt" was a touchdown, "beyond reasonable doubt" was field goal distance, and "preponderance of evidence" which is the 50-yard line.
While we could hold his letter up in the air and say "Ipse Dixit!", and he could say "I was trying to impress chicks!", the preponderance of the evidence would remain on the side of the prosecution because they had his confession written RIGHT THERE. Oh, and we've got these 50 audio tapes and 20 video tapes.
Would that be a problem? A preponderance of evidence line that needs to be crossed vs. a beyond the shadow of a doubt one?
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
AQ doesn't have a lot of written records we can use.
Taking credit for the attacks does not preclude a defense of "I was just talking smack"
I don't think OBL would be a problem, but virtually everyone else will be.
Its more a problem of evidence and process (confrontation of witnesses and sources of information) than it is a problem of burden of proof.
If we don't have evidence that we were attacked by Person X (not Osama) that would stand up in a civil suit (not a criminal, a *CIVIL* suit), is that really a situation worth spending billions of dollars and risking thousands of American lives for?
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
How do you prove after a battle in a war that a particular person killed anybody? The US wins a battle, and there are injured people with guns on the battlefield.
Who can ID the shooters as they would try to do in a civilian court?
What forensic evidence can be obtained?
How does one refute a defense of "I was just minding my own business, and accidentally walked into a war zone"?
How does one refute a defense of "I was a prisoner and they made me fight"
Our justice system cannot handle the ambiguities of mass combat. It just can't.
Let's say that your country is attacked.
Now, you don't know who attacked you. You know that it might be terrorist group X, but it might also be terrorist group Y, terrorist group Z, Hostile Government P, or Hostile Government Q.
Can you see *ANY* downside to saying "we need to attack somebody... might as well say that terrorist group X did it and, if they didn't, at least we'll beat the crap out of terrorist group X"?
For me, I see a downside of "if it was terrorist group Y, we'll be preoccupied with terrorist group X and they might attack us again while we're not looking at them."
Now, a preponderance of evidence would change this calculus. "Well, we're 55% sure that it was terrorist group X."
Well, even if we're wrong, we're still in the ballpark and we had a lot of justification to do what we did. Heck, we had a preponderance of evidence... which would, I'm arguing, be sufficient.
Is it really your position that a preponderance of evidence is not even *necessary* before spending billions of dollars and putting thousands of American soldiers in harm's way because the alternative is not "getting evidence" but "lying down and dying"?
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
He does not make a case to a court. He gets an assessment from the various sources of the government and makes a decision on that basis.
As the intelligence on the WMDs shows, the precision implied in 50%+1 finding is illusory.
I don't think the US would commit to military action without a certain level of certainty, but this is not a formal finding that is subject to review.
Its not like someone can take the President to court and have the decision overturned. The consequence of bad decision making is to vote the President out of office, or in more aggregious circumstances, impeach him out.
My issue is not the standard, it is the process of making a case in a court of law. Virtually no intel would qualify as evidence in a civil court proceeding. It would all be unsubstantiated heresay. You can't exactly bring in your spies to testify. You can't exactly disclose how your satellites work.
The decision to go to war is a political judgment, not a legal one.
That makes me very uncomfortable.
But let's say that the president looks at all of the evidence and goes to Congress and asks them to declare War. They look at whatever evidence he feels like he needs to show them and they declare War.
Now that War is declared, let's get back to a discussion of habeus corpus.
Wouldn't "this guy was in a house where shots were fired upon us"? Meet a preponderance of evidence standard? By my understanding of the "preponderance of evidence" standard, it would. Sure, it wouldn't meet criminal levels of evidentiary burdens... but civil? Of course it would.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
That one aside probably deserves a diary of its own.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
He could say that he never actually asked anybody to do anything, and that he was just making predictions based on his knowledge of Islam.
My point is that Mao, Stalin, and Hitler were the three most successful murderers of the 20th century.
In a court of law, it is not a trivial matter to convict them of anything--at least if they were subject to a conventional criminal trial.
Our system of adjudication is not suited for such things.
We do not have access to the evidence.
At what point in WWII could we "prove" that concentration camps existed?
When we liberated them.
If you mean with a criminal evidentiary burden of proof, yes. When we liberated them.
If you mean with a civil evidentiary burden of proof, you get to ask questions about why we didn't bomb the train tracks going to the camps.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
We had reason to know there were people there, but we didn't really know they were "camps" --at least not in the death camp sense.
They could have been POW camps.
They could have held German traitors.
They could have held legitimate German criminals.
We were not in a position to say that they were concentration camps except on the basis of what some people were saying in the US. People by definition with no direct access to such camps.
Take an epistomology course and you will realize that proof is a tricky tricky thing.
Civilian trials allow you attack chains of custody relating to the evidence, confront accusers, call eyewitnesses, etc. These things are simply impossible in most war settings.
The fog of war prevents proof of the kind that courts expect.
If you were to conduct a war on the basis of proof as understood by courts, you would lose.
You seem to be arguing me as if I were arguing for a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of evidence.
I'm not.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
I am saying a preponderance standard in a civil court proceeding is beyond consistent possibility in the fogs of war.
For example, both sides constructed dummy tanks to mislead the enemy in terms of troup positions and enemy strength.
If a tank was spotted from the air, could the pilot accurately say by a preponderance of the evidence that it was a tank if the tank was not moving?
The answer is no.
At best, a 50/50 proposition--which fails your test.
Also, the pilot would have to testify as to everything leading up to that moment. He would have to establish why he was there, people who could vouch for him being there, etc.
Preponderance of the evidence still involves chain of custody, confronting accusers, foundation for evidence, etc.
The process is not designed for a war time environment.
Saying "I am not saying beyond a reasonable doubt" is not the issue.
You can't even have the trial without making everyone available, sharing ALL evidence with the defendant,etc.
You are simply underestimating the degree to which trials involve bending over backwards.
If war has been declared, and a guy drops a bomb on a tank, that does not strike me as a trial sort of situation. Hey, war was declared.
Now if you only have so many bombs and you know that there are X real tanks out there and Y fake ones... well, you'd probably want to *KNOW* that you're bombing something from the set of X and not from the set of Y.
Why? Because you only have so many bombs.
In the case of habeus corpus for Osama bin Laden... I think that a preponderance of evidence standard would easily result in him staying in custody.
As a matter of fact, I think that a preponderance of evidence standard would result in pretty much most of the bad baddies in custody would stay there and the only folks that it wouldn't cover are those who were handed over to the US Military at the agency of someone who received money in return for names.
Which, kinda, strikes me as it ought to be. The guy saying "Hey! I was traded for money!" is one tiny, piece of evidence. If the evidence to the contrary consists solely of "An Afghan Warlord who is now fighting the US Army from bases in Pakistan gave us his assurances that this guy was al Qaeda", then... I don't see a preponderance of harm in putting the guy back in Afghanistan.
Now, if we were in a situation where we could say "the war will be won upon condition X", I would have much less of a problem with holding prisoners of war. When condition X is met, you drop them back off in Afghanistan after some detalibanization. But no such condition has yet been named... which means that we could, conceivably, be holding these guys prisoner for the rest of their lives.
And that strikes me as a problem.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
The U.S.S. Cole ring a bell ?
Beirut Marine Barracks ?
The Cobar Towers ?
9/11
We are at war. He is not a criminal except as a war criminal. This is not a slippery slope for our personal liberties.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I'm arguing from a standpoint of making sure that a limited government acts according to the rules laid out in the Constitution, then to a lesser degree, legislation (and to a nigh-infinitely lesser degree, judicial precedent).
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
By your logic
Do the heirs of Goering, Hess, Speer, et al have a cause to seek redress from the U.S. for the violation of their civil rights ?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I'd say that they were entitled to a handwritten apology from FDR himself and have it signed at the bottom by Harry S Truman.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
The second time yes.
BTW a little more seriousness on this because this is exactly where your position leads.
Moe is quite correct, Unlawful combatants have no rights to protections as POWs. Just because Osama and co are not soldiers it doesn't make them civilians.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
When it comes to "your grandpappy screwed over my grandpappy" issues, I have problems.
If it's a case where your grandpappy stole my grandpappy's car and I want it back? Well... I think we've got a civil suit here and a judge could well decide that, yeah, the car goes back. (Substitute whatever you want for "car" if it suits you.)
Now if we're talking about something more nebulous... like we violated Eichmann's rights by supporting Israel who then went and captured the heck out of him before putting him to death?
Well... at that point I get a little less serious because it strikes me as a case where the preponderance of evidence level will *NOT* be met. And I don't mean missed by an inch but missed by a *MILE*. Hence my levity.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Really ? take a look at what wends its way through our courts,
The ninth circuit in particular comes to mind.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Tarring/feathering of public officials first and foremost.
But when I say "jury nullification" people get all "rule of law" on me and ask if I hold the justice system in contempt and then when I point out that they are the ones who brought up bad judges names start being called and I really hope to avoid something like that.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
know what to say to that it is so ludicrous....DEATH no jury no CIVIL court....hopefully a hellfire missile where the sun don't shine!!!!!
Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion
since we would still have slavery otherwise.....
Yes, it's far better to have unelected lifetime appointees passing law at whim than to have a king. Kings wear funny hats.
___________________________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)
I'm an 'adult student' at a college to get a degree in mathmatics to teach high school math.
Right now I'm just starting a history course. I'm terrified as the version of history I've learned from personal reading is likely to contrast with the left wing psychobabble that passes for history class nowdays.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
sitting in faculty meetings with these folks! *sigh* You won't believe some of the wonderful ideas they come up with.
Oh, and while we are on the same topic, do you wonder what Obama is really up to with the tuition credit for "community service" concept? This is really a backdoor method to pay college student activists who work for Democratic political campaigns ... like the Obama for Re-election campaign they are hoping for. What a great concept.
MOlsen6
Proud supporter of McCain '00 and McCain '08
Of course there are many left-oriented college professors but history is a subject that has its fair share of conservatives. Now I'm not going to say college professors don't have a tendency to be liberal. However, in my experience, it tends to vary with the program. Women's/Gender/G&L studies faculty are extremely liberal. Biology faculty tend to be liberal- stem cell research and evolution are issues biology faculty tend to be behind, and in the several institutions I've spent time at they have a tendency to view an embryo or a fetus as life but not as a person with rights. History is more mixed. There aren't many moderates and many professors will be either dedicated liberals or conservatives- studying something for so long inevitably leads you to form strong opinions regarding it. However, I've never found history faculty as a whole to lean one way or another, although individuals will.
______________________
Out with the Oak King.
Time and time again the Left (and those who support them, knowingly or otherwise) try to grant more rights to the enemies of this country than to its citizens.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Here's a galling thouht:
Say that OBL is captured alive, and one of the soldiers/marines/airmen/whatever gets a little, umm, overexuberant in the process and slaps him around a little. No premanent damage, mind you, just "conduct unbecoming", and caught on a cell phone camera. So OBL goes into the jug, and the serviceman goes to the brig/stockade/whatever. Both cases come to court at the same time.
Are we looking at a situation where OBL gets the rights, protections, and due process of the civil court system which are, at the same time, denied the serviceman who's going through the military system? In other words, the one who devoted his life to destroying the American constitution is offered the full protection of said document, while the man who honorably risked life and limb to defend that constitution doesn't.
As the libs say, if you're not outraged yet, you're not paying attention.
_________________________________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)
So is OBL entitled to Miranda rights? Maybe Obama thinks so ...
MOlsen6
Proud supporter of McCain '00 and McCain '08
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/06/gitmo-defense-lawyers-say-deta...
thats right this detainee at Gitmo after slaughtering our military man wants to have charges dropped because he was not read his "rights".....happy John Francois Kerry and how about you Barack I will meet with anyone Obama?....pathetic!
Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion
They have to be pulling our leg ... Habeus Corpus for Osama Bin Laden and the terrorists we scooped up off the battlefield in Afghanistan? You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding. Unbelievable. Thanks SCOTUS.
Somebody has to get this on the record out of Obama's mouth, and in front of a camera if possible.
MOlsen6
Proud supporter of McCain '00 and McCain '08
Wow this didn't take too long. I posted somewhere about an hour ago about how this John Kerry Vs. Rudy thing would be great cause Kerry would make a point to say our soldiers are murderers or rapist or baby eaters, 1 hour later he makes a statement just as dumb. The man is a gift that keeps on giving.
Voting for the Sexy(Pres) - Sexy(VP) Dream Ticket
Jindal/Palin 2012
Keep talking, Kerry. Keep uniting Republicans against Obama...
"The proper response to difficulty is not to retreat, it is to prevail." -George W. Bush
This quote from Kerry made me grind my teeth:
"The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that they have those rights -- this is not Barack Obama, this is the Supreme Court of the United States. If John McCain were president he'd have to give them those rights. This is a phony argument. And it is typical of what the Republican playbook is, which is, say anything, no matter what the other side has said, just say it, people may believe it, unless you folks write the truth and write it boldly and clearly. The truth is that this is exactly what they tried to say back in 2004 and the record absolutely contradicts it."
As if Obama's hasn't been demanding this Habeas Corpus treatment, its all just the SC and Obama's views are neither here nor there on the subject.
The reality about Obama's views per the Chicago Tribune political blog:
Obama, who has campaigned with a promise that "I will restore habeas corpus'' to detainees, suggested that the court's ruling had undercut Bush's assertions of executive power, raised questions about McCain's judgment and is "an important step toward "reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus'' (the writ enabling a prisoner to petition a judge to challenge a jailor's authority to hold him.)
http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/mccain_v_ob...
If we can't stick Obama with accountability for his own outrageous statements, then we really do deserve to lose this thing.
Gift after Gift after Gift between this, his statements about drilling for oil and raising taxes. If we can't beat him with this kind of ammo, shame on us.
Follow this link to read my thoughts on this one.
Rev. Dn. +Panagiotis (Robert) Hanley
Respond to Email: skycop150@yahoo.com
I believe that the only thing that these "people" deserve is a case of lead poisoning. About 300 grains delivered right between the eyes! They are the enemy, and you kill the enemy in a war, not read them their rights! To hell with them and to hell with all of the idiot judges on the Supreme Court who believe these "people" have rights, like the right to kill everyone who do not believe what they tell them to believe.
Bullmoose1952
6ft under was "unhelpful"....well your lead and my shovel and we can both be happy ;-)
Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion
... in Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution:
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.
I'm no Constitutional scholar, but it seems to me obvious that if OSB is arrested and brought to this country (or any military base, embassy, etc., flying our flag), then he he must be afforded the rights granted under the Constitution.
The only caveat is if we are under threat of rebellion or invasion, neither of which apply in this case.
Now if OSB is shot, beheaded, 'sploded, or hang-drawn-and-quartered during his capture on foreign soil, well then oops! We won't have to worry about habeas corpus. Just a little hint to our soldiers or marines from a non-pacifist lefty.
...from the terrorists we capture. These guys know things, and we find out what they know, we can roll up entire networks. If we give them the privileges of POWs, we can't interrogate them. If we treat them like civilian criminals, we can't keep them isolated. And if we shoot them, we lose the information in their heads.
In other words, say hi to rendition, because the antiwar movement just brought it back; and the American people aren't going to give any more of a tinker's dam about it this go-round than they did last time.
Gee, thanks.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
... why the so-called antiwar movement has anything to do with rendition.
The writ of habeas corpus is clearly stated in the Constitution - it's not something that can be casually tossed aside. Alleged criminals (and I use "alleged" rhetorically. OSB is an admitted criminal) must be afforded that privilege.
As far as POW's are concerned, and again I'm no scholar, but the Geneva Conventions, of which this country is a signatory, clearly spells out their rights.
If rendition is necessary to circumvent these protections, and I would argue that point, it is because we, as a nation, have recognized certain privileges and rights that can't be casually ignored. It has nothing to do with the antiwar movement.
If you want to give up those rights and privileges, then knock yourself out. There are mechanisms to do so. But I doubt you could convince the rest of the country to agree.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
... on how the antiwar movement makes rendition necessary.
I'm not trying to be a jerk. I come to this site for lively debate. Please educate me.
I just wanted to make sure that you'll never be able to make the defense of "But nobody ever told me!" and not be lying.
And now I have, so you can go about your business now.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
... as to how the antiwar movement has anything to do with rendition.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
... but you would rather be dismissive. That's a shame.
If you can't convince someone from the left who is genuinely interested in your point of view, how do you ever expect to convince anyone who might be even slightly hostile?
“The best way to destroy an enemy is to make him a friend.” - Abraham Lincoln
Kid, I stopped caring about trying to convince your ilk the day I finally realized that the only time any of you care about human rights, democracy, and/or freedom for others is when it can't possibly be credited to a Republican.
Bored now - but be sure to send us your They Banned Me, ME!!!!! blog entry via the Contact link. We collect 'em.
Moe Lane
PS: The liberation? Not In Your Name. Any future renditions? Yeah, you can have that one.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
[...Harry Reid saying stupid things from 2007.]
[Happy you got that back on the record, Sparky? - Moe Lane]
Do you believe the US Constitution applies in areas outside the US?
Do you ever look underneath your own conclusions to identify what are the critical assumptions upon which your conclusions rest?
Words have meaning.
Conventions have requirements.
Constitutions have territorial limits.
Just saying the word habeas is in the Constitution does not define when habeas rights apply or to whom.
Just saying the phrase Geneva Convention does not mean that it applies to a particular circumstance.
If you never look at the detail, you will never really educate yourself.
Would I be quibbling over semantics if I pointed out that the Writ of Habeas Corpus is a Privilege not a Right?
The reason I point this out is because our "Rights" in the Constitution come from God. All "Privileges" are granted by other powers that be.
Article. I. Section. 9. reads, The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Case of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Am I wrong?
... or any variation of God (Creator, etc.) that I know of mentioned in the US Constitution.
However, you are correct: privileges are granted by "other powers that be," specifically in this case, the US Constitution, which the President, Congress, Judiciary and all members of the military have sworn to uphold.
We do have a mechanism to alter or amend the Constitution. Article five spells it out quite clearly. If you would like to suspend habeas corpus, just follow these simple steps: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article5
Have fun!
of what, exactly, this inane comment has to do with anything.
------------
... that if he wants to change a privilege described in the Constitution, then there is a mechanism to do so.
I asked you to indicate how anything you said was relevant to anything being discussed.
... that if he wants to change a privilege described in the Constitution, then there is a mechanism to do so.
Let us put aside your ignorance of the subject matter at hand and focus instead on establishing where coffee260 suggested changing anything in the Constitution.
------------
... at least in part. Privileges DO come from "powers that be," namely in this case, the US Constitution. My comments about changing the Constitution were my own and meant only as a courteous reminder.
Where exactly do our rights derive, if your inference is that, since God or a Creator isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution?
[...twenty seconds to replace with a Youtube video that demonstrates that Senator Obama doesn't even know recent American history. See how that goes, retread? - Moe Lane]
is it clear now? If so, please explain it to me, 'cause I am totally befuddled!
First, I assume the distinction (in this case) between a privilege and a right is that a privilege is conditional. It exists by default and may be suspended under certain circumstances. I think these circumstances are hinging on the words rebellion and invasion.
[Aside: I don't know if these words have a substantial legal definition, so I'm going by Merriam-Webster's Dictionary.]
I don't think anyone is suggesting this country or any applicable part of it is in a state of rebellion, so I'm just going to skip that over for a moment.
The next question is what constitutes an invasion. Does anyone know of any cases that set precedent? My concern is while the word has a distinct meaning, it's qualifications are fuzzy. Under a strict interpretation of the constitution, I would think an invasion means the incursion of uniformed soldiers under another country's flag on sovereign American territory. There's a strong precedent to treat uniformed and non-uniformed "invaders" under different guidelines- the former are sent to POW camps while the latter go to court for treason.
[Aside: During/after WWII did we try spies in civillian courts or in tribunals? That strikes me as something that would set precedent or follow precedent which would be applicable for Al-Qaeda fighters.]
You could also go with a loose interpretation of the constitution and declare an invasion is the unlawful incursion of any non-citizen on American territory, but I think this is a slippery slope to get into. What, are we going to suspend habeas corpus in any court proceeding with an illegal immigrant? You could even say victims of human trafficking in forced prostitution in the U.S. don't have the right to habeas corpus if picked up. This would concern me. That said, I'm assuming that the general population of RedState, all things being equal, tend to favor the strict interpretation.
So that comes back to the issue of rebellion- if you're going to suspend habeas corpus, this is where I think you need to make your case in this situation. By my reading, I take this to mean that there is an active rebellion happening in the country representing a breakdown of law and order. I don't think this is happening right now.
Where I think a case could be made- not one I agree with, but a case nonetheless- that the fact Al-Qaeda is actively inciting a breakdown of law and order in the United States demonstrates intent and that the actual presence or absence of a rebellion is immaterial. In other words, the fighter detained in Afghanistan is guilty of rebellion as he is an active member of an organization attempting to spur a state of rebellion in the United States. I don't buy this because of two things in how Article I.9 is written. First, the phrase "Case of Rebellion" suggests to me an actual breakdown of law and order rather than the mere intent to cause such a case. When Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in D.C. during the Civil War, there was terrible rioting he used as justification. Nextly, the section is written such that if intent were proper grounds in the "Case of Rebellion," it would also proper grounds in the "Case of ... Invasion." What if by some freak accident, every British troop transport in the War of 1812 sank en route to North America? Would Britain's mere intent to invade the United States be justification for the suspension of habeas corpus? For these reasons, I would read a strict interpretation of the constitution to require either an active state of rebellion in the country or an invasion of uniformed soldiers. I don't see either.
______________________
Out with the Oak King.
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
Is there any discussion here of what habeas corpus actually does? The right to petition the court to determine if detention is unlawful. That's it. The court 1) doesn't have to grant the petition and 2) doesn't by default grant standing to a habeas petitioner to do anything else such as bring a civil suit. Much sturm und drang fur nichts.
Not trying to hijack this thread, but I'm wondering why what applies to Gitmo wouldn't apply to everywhere we have detainees in any foreign country, on a ship, wherever. Can someone now get a federal judge to force the government to release names and status of all prisoners taken since we went into Afghanistan and Iraq, including any that have been turned over to foreign countries? Or is this abomination decision somehow limited only to Gitmo? For example, if it applies anywhere, then we certainly violated rights of any prisoners whom we used rendition on, so we certainly must help them figure out how to sue us for millions.
~~
Obama's guiding principle: "I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks."
I stated this somewhere else and just thought I'd try and see if anyone heard anyone try to make the same point.
All these people who now state the SCOTUS made the right choice are trying to use WTC '93 as an example, stating that we gave these men a trial. Yet no one has made the point that the men were captured in the United States, Jersey City, NJ to be exact (My hometown, YAY) Some of these men were already in the country for a long period of time. When captured here (by what I assume was FBI) they are subject to our laws. On the other hand people in Gitmo weren't taken on US soil and weren't taken by a FBI agent or Police Officer, they were taken by Military or CIA, so by saying these guys and those from WTC '93 are the same all these politicians (BARRY) are looking way past the bigger picture and bypassing all the facts.
Voting for the Sexy(Pres) - Sexy(VP) Dream Ticket
Jindal/Palin 2012
a criminal trial in the US. The only issue at hand is whether the government can hold someone without charge for an indefinite period of time. The SCOTUS decision only affords these detainees a hearing on their status in civil courts. They still can and will be tried in military courts for thier crimes when and if they are charged.
You're STILL affording Constitutional Protection to Enemy Combatants/Terrorists captured on the field of battle in another country.
You are STILL supporting Judicial Activisim.
You are STILL suggesting that the "conservative" stance is to support Judicial Activism and the creation of rights under the Constitution for people that the Constition never applied to.
You are 'suggesting' quite a bit more than you say.
The Constitution is NOT a living document. You cannot just randomly apply its protections to people as you see fit, even if you are one of 5 Judicial Activists on the Supreme Court.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
I was not arguing, at this time, about the SCOTUS ruling. I was responding to rbastid's specific point about proponents using WTC '93 as a basis for their support of the decision. rbstid then conflated that belief into the supposition that these detainees would be afforded criminal trials and US Constitutional protections at these trials. That is not true. This ruling will not automatically free any detainee nor will it grant them a US Criminal trial if they are found to be held legally in a habeas review.
See, but you're still arguing based on the idea that these enemy combatants/terrorists have some right to a habeas corpus review.
They don't.
It must REALLY suck for you to be trying to argue against the Constitution, in support of Judicial Activism, and try and call yourself a conservative.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Was this person properly captured and detained as an enemy combatant waging war against the US?
Throughout all of world history, incl western civilization and American history, Commanders in Chief have gathered intel on the enemy, identified the enemy, and killed the enemy or captured/detained same till the end of hostilities or until he deemed the prisoner no longer a threat.
Charging such persons and meting out punishment is totally separate matter, and in those instances, such trials are usually held before military tribunals unless the illegal enemy combatant was summarily shot, which was also allowed under the law of war.
read and learn
Even LEGAL pows never got civilian status trials like SCOTUS is granting these ILLEGAL warriors.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
Yesterday this individual was suggesting that a real conservative would be supporting this Supreme Court decision...
... might be a lost cause here...
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
anything about "true" conservatives. I find that type of argument ridiculous even though it's often made by folks in an effort to imbue their argument with some kind of authority.
I merely offered you a counter argument made by other Conservatives. I was making the point that it was not just the Liberals who supported the SCOTUS ruling. Of course, you are so he** bent on spewing your talking points, you missed the entire point.
So, to sum up what you say:
You would NEVER suggest that an argument is more valid because it would be a 'conservative' argument, and you were just quoting 'conservatives' who agreed with you because it was an attempt to make your argument more valid.
Gotcha...
So, are you a standard 'run of the mill' Judicial Activism supporter, or are you one of Obama's "Hope for Change" Judicial Activism supproters?
Who DOESN'T the protection of the Constitution apply to?
You apparently believe it applies to people born in another country who never lived in the United States or became citizens of the united states, who were arrested on the field of battle trying to kill soldiers from the United States.
If it applies to them, who DOESN'T it apply to?
(well, I imagine 'the unborn' is at the top of your list.)
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
at various and sundry times.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
The two exceptions being on this issue and on issues of social conservatism in general. Unfortunately, Lance doesn't understand that we can have disagreements as Americans, as Conservatives, as Republicans and still be on "the same team" at the end of the day.
What I understand is that you support Judicial Activism, avoid direct questions, hurl insults and refuse to even read the Constitution to see what the Constitution says about its own applicability.
I haven't quite seen what your Conservatives stances are.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
I'm a Liberal. I wasn't yesterday but your mighty powers of observation have turned me. I'll be making my tin foil hat when I get home from work.
I didn't call you a liberal.
I said I don't see what your conservative stances are.
I will note that support of nonconsitutional judicial activism is not a hallmark of the Right.
Of course, you still haven't done anything to make me think you're an actual conservative, or if you just play one on blogs.
You also haven't discussed what the Constitution says about its applicablility and who it does and does NOT apply to, nor have you mentioned my 'true motives' in all of this.
You have done little but pander to a point of view that is held by the Left, which is to support the SCOTUS decision by 5 Judicial Activists.
I would LOVE to be dazzled by your conservativism, but thus far when I look for it, I am a camel in the desert, searching for water.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
I wrote about them yesterday. I would venture that it is fear of the "other" simply because you would be willing to grant habeas rights to Confederate traitors but not to these detainees. Go back and read it.
U.S. soil --- key to the legal analysis
uniformed personnel --- key to the public policy
The Confederates were native born Citizens of the United States and had the protection of the Constitution.
These "other" folk (I guess you're trying to insinuate that I am a racist or a bigot? Why the scare quotes? Be plain when you speak, lest people think you are a dolt.) as you put it, were not native born citizens, nor naturalized citizens, and do not have the protection of the Constitution.
Any more doubts to cast on my character?
Maybe toss in a fat joke?
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
They made a claim to independence from the Union. If you want to make a logical argument on this, see JSobieski's comments.
Secondly, I was not and am not calling you a racist or relgious bigot. I made that very clear in my post yesterday. I made the assumption based on your apparent willingness to give Confederate soldiers HC rights but not give them to these detainees. It's easier to feel sympathy for someone that you can relate to than to someone you cannot. It has nothing to do with racism.
Yes, and Lincoln wanted to remove their HC rights based on that.
But those actions were overthrown, weren't they?
Not because the Constitution applies to everyone (as your case is trying to push) but because they were Citizens of the United States by birth.
They also were soldiers in Uniform, so if this was happening today, they'd also have protection under the Geneva Convention.
These enemy combatants/terrorists that you are defending via support of this decision have NO protections under the Geneva Convention or the Constitution, apart from what you and the Judicial Activists you support make up.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
The court ruled that the executive branch does not get to decide, with impunity, who is and who isn't an enemy combatant. I can see your point that the Constitution does not specifically state that enemy combatants have rights. If that's your definition of strict constructionism and therefore American Conservatism, then fine. I don't agree nor do many others, some of whom are Conservatives in good standing.
Yes, one cornerstone of Conservativism is a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
You keep making me believe you are not actually conservative.
And the Conservatives in Good Standing that you have linked to have had some doubt cast as to that nature.
Though, I still await your conservative stances (espcially since you claimed I was calling you a liberal, it must mean that you are not one) that somehow make this "Judicial Activism and a Living Document Constitution are fine and dandy" bend of yours balanced out.
As to who can decide who is an enemy combatant.... I don't see that listed as the role of the Judicial Branch.
I do see Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution, which gives the president authority to be Commander in Chief. . . . including the ab
It's worth pointing out that, as Andrew McCarthy notes, this is the tenth anniversary of the indictment of Osama bin Laden in federal court.