Supreme Court restores Habeas Corpus, rebukes Bush and the Military Commissions Act

[Darlin]

Originally Posted by 7960

Godwin's Law: (paraphrased) the first time someone makes a comparison to hitler and/or nazis the argument is over and the person who made the comparison has lost.

But, I don't think I was the first to mention Nazis. (see post #31)

BTW, I was not comparing a person to hitler or nazis in order to slander, but to show that prisoners in a war are just that - prisoners.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Darlin

But, I don't think I was the first to mention Nazis. (see post #31)

BTW, I was not comparing a person to hitler or nazis in order to slander, but to show that prisoners in a war are just that - prisoners.

Don't get discouraged by posts like that. It's more of a friendly jab to the ribs as a joke.

This is a good discussion, and you're starting to bring up some good points IMO.

[Darlin]

Originally Posted by Phantom

Don't get discouraged by posts like that. It's more of a friendly jab to the ribs as a joke.

This is a good discussion, and you're starting to bring up some good points IMO.

Oh, I wasn't discouraged. Just pointing out I hadn't "lost" just yet, under Godwins Law.

I'm getting a fresh insight myself. And I must say I am having a very exhilarating first day! I'm enjoying everyone's input.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Then why are we holding them? IF they are criminals then we either try them ourselves or we send them back to thier home country to be tried as criminals there.

Originally Posted by Phantom

The problem with this is this war is different. There is no end in sight to this war, no enemy to make a treaty with and end the fighting.

No matter what has been done in the past, the majority of the population is not going to let our government hold people indefinitely without the ability to at least challenge their detention - especially after it has been discovered that some of these people held never did anything to justify their capture/detention.

And today it is not just the military that the Court elbows aside. A mere two Terms ago in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U. S. 557 (2006), when the Court held (quite amazingly) that the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 had not stripped habeas jurisdiction over Guantanamo petitioners’ claims, four Members of today’s five-Justice majority joined an opinion saying the following:
“Nothing prevents the President from returning to Congress to seek the authority [for trial by military commission] he believes necessary. “Where, as here, no emergency prevents consultation with Congress, judicial insistence upon that consultation does not weaken our Nation’s ability to deal with danger. To the contrary, that insistence strengthens the Nation’s ability to determine—through democratic means—how best to do so. The Constitution places its faith in those democratic means.” Id., at 636 (BREYER, J., concurring).1

Turns out they were just kidding.

Justice Scalia


SC to the Congress and President, pass a better law than Detainee Act of 2005
Congress and the President pass Military Commissions Act of 2006, SC overturns it before it is implemented and decides that a federal judge will make the policy not the people's representatives.

I often wonder why we accept SCOTUS decisions.

[kombayn]

Originally Posted by Darlin

There are people in our prisons today who are innocent - but there are plenty who are guilty as sin.

Not every terrorist at Gitmo is innocent.

Agreed, which is why we need to restore Trials for these men, so we can separate the people who are wrongfully accused (like the camera-man stuck 6 years in Gitmo). I don't see what's the big deal for the Supreme Court doing the right thing by restoring Habeas Corpus.

[Darlin]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Justice Scalia


SC to the Congress and President, pass a better law than Detainee Act of 2005
Congress and the President pass Military Commissions Act of 2006, SC overturns it before it is implemented and decides that a federal judge will make the policy not the people's representatives.

I often wonder why we accept SCOTUS decisions.

[Darlin]

Originally Posted by kombayn

Agreed, which is why we need to restore Trials for these men, so we can separate the people who are wrongfully accused (like the camera-man stuck 6 years in Gitmo). I don't see what's the big deal for the Supreme Court doing the right thing by restoring Habeas Corpus.

They do not need to give the right of habeas corpus (not restore - give) to non-citizens in order to do the right thing.

It is not doing the right thing I am against..it is applying our constitution to non-citizens I oppose.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Justice Scalia


SC to the Congress and President, pass a better law than Detainee Act of 2005
Congress and the President pass Military Commissions Act of 2006, SC overturns it before it is implemented and decides that a federal judge will make the policy not the people's representatives.

I often wonder why we accept SCOTUS decisions.

Funny, you've used SCOTUS decisions plenty of times in the past to support your view when it does such, in debates with me...

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Darlin

They do not need to give the right of habeas corpus (not restore - give) to non-citizens in order to do the right thing.

It is not doing the right thing I am against..it is applying our constitution to non-citizens I oppose.

Our constitution doesn't grant rights to anyone. It limits the power of the government.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by thewise1

Our constitution doesn't grant rights to anyone. It limits the power of the government.

Semantics? The reason we have certain rights and those rights are protected is because the constitution and the amendments lay them out.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Semantics? The reason we have certain rights and those rights are protected is because the constitution and the amendments lay them out.

ack! That is so wrong I think I just got cancer

[7960]

Originally Posted by Darlin

That is not where I'm headed in this discussion.

then you better re-think and re-read what you're typing, becasue that's exactly where you're heading.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Semantics? The reason we have certain rights and those rights are protected is because the constitution and the amendments lay them out.

I assume you're talking about the 'bill of rights' part of that since the rest is impossible to read (on my screen at least)... but it would be absurd to apply the title of the document to this argument.

Every single one of those first 10 amendments limits the power of the federal government to violate inherent rights of free human beings.

Congress shall make no law...
The right of the people ... shall not be infringed...
no soldier shall...
the right of the people to be secure in their... ...shall not be violated

I could go on but you are welcome to look for yourself, they all limit the power of the federal government (and in many cases state governments now as well, because they have been incorporated).

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by thewise1

Funny, you've used SCOTUS decisions plenty of times in the past to support your view when it does such, in debates with me...

they get to make the most important policy decisions in our country and I have made threads questioning it in the past.

I am surprised that you are in the majority, the constitutionals were lined up in opposition.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by thewise1

I assume you're talking about the 'bill of rights' part of that since the rest is impossible to read (on my screen at least)... but it would be absurd to apply the title of the document to this argument.

Every single one of those first 10 amendments limits the power of the federal government to violate inherent rights of free human beings.

Congress shall make no law...
The right of the people ... shall not be infringed...
no soldier shall...
the right of the people to be secure in their... ...shall not be violated

I could go on but you are welcome to look for yourself, they all limit the power of the federal government (and in many cases state governments now as well, because they have been incorporated).

And by saying certain things are off limits of the government to regulate it is granting us rights by default.

Why do you believe you have the right to own a firearm? Because it's in the bill of rights. You can't own certain drugs. Why not? But if Congress passed an amendment that said you could ingest whatever drugs you wanted, suddenly you'd be granted that right.

You have the right to due process. Why? Because it's in the Bill of Rights.

Does it restrict the powers of the government? Absolutely. But then by default those restrictions are granting you certain rights.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

they get to make the most important policy decisions in our country and I have made threads questioning it in the past.

I am surprised that you are in the majority, the constitutionals were lined up in opposition.

I'm not aware of anyone who values the constitution - all of it, erring on the side of liberty - that supports holding them without a fair trial.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by JaJae

And by saying certain things are off limits of the government to regulate it is granting us rights by default.

Why do you believe you have the right to own a firearm? Because it's in the bill of rights. You can't own certain drugs. Why not? But if Congress passed an amendment that said you could ingest whatever drugs you wanted, suddenly you'd be granted that right.

You have the right to due process. Why? Because it's in the Bill of Rights.

Does it restrict the powers of the government? Absolutely. But then by default those restrictions are granting you certain rights.

Actually, unless there is a law against it, I can do it. This is the entire basis for the folk at opencarry.org.

Certain rights are inalienable. The government doesn't grant them.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by JaJae

And by saying certain things are off limits of the government to regulate it is granting us rights by default.

Why do you believe you have the right to own a firearm? Because it's in the bill of rights. You can't own certain drugs. Why not? But if Congress passed an amendment that said you could ingest whatever drugs you wanted, suddenly you'd be granted that right.

You have the right to due process. Why? Because it's in the Bill of Rights.

Does it restrict the powers of the government? Absolutely. But then by default those restrictions are granting you certain rights.

Oh Jesus H Christ, the tumor your first post gave me just grew 3 sizes larger.

We KNOW what you're suggesting is incorrect because the founders said so explicitly in Federalist 84.

Originally Posted by Federalist 84

It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Carta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John...It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.

[...]

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

The Federalist #84

And I've heard people say that The Federalist Papers aren't the Constitution, which is true... but SCOTUS has cited them in 38 different cases, so it's fair game to base interpretation of intent on them.

Anyway, what is in red is EXACTLY what you're doing. You're excusing the taking of liberties because they are not expressly given in the Constitution. The government has no right to limit what drugs we put in our bodies because we did not give them that right (and still haven't). For all intents and purposes, those laws are unconstitutional.

But constitutionality questions never pass SCOTUS on those issues because it's highly politicized and none of the judges are willing to stand up against what is commonly believed (by citizens) and take a truly constitutional stance on the issue.

Repeating what Hamilton wrote in Federalist 84, the Constitution is a series of limits placed on the government. They are rights that we willingly gave up to a governing body (for instance, the right f