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

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by thewise1

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.

This is the precedent:
Johnson v. Eisentrager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't see how the Constitution applies to aliens who committed their action out of the country and they have never been inside the country.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Darlin

Yes, it does, by securing our rights.

circular reasoning ftmfl

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Darlin

No, I am for looking at the situation the prisoners are in at Gitmo, I am against giving them access to civillian courts and affording them the rights and priveledges given to citizens of this country.

There is a difference.

These rights are also given to resident aliens and illegal immigrants

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

This is the precedent:
Johnson v. Eisentrager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't see how the Constitution applies to aliens who committed their action out of the country and they have never been inside the country.

I have about 2 hours to write a statement of work that has to be out today so I will read this on the bus tonight on the way home, ok man? Don't think I'm discounting it, I seriously just don't have time

ttyl

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by ArdentFrost

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.

We can both play the quote games..

James Madison, framer of the constitution and author of the Bill of Rights opening statement when he presented the Bill of Rights for legislation before the vote:

...I will state my reasons why I think it proper to propose amendments, and state the amendments themselves, so far as I think they ought to be proposed. If I thought I could fulfil the duty which I owe to myself and my constituents, to let the subject pass over in silence, I most certainly should not trespass upon the indulgence of this House. But I cannot do this, and am therefore compelled to beg a patient hearing to what I have to lay before you.
...

It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is honorable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism, if they were satisfied on this one point. We ought not to disregard their inclination, but, on principles of amity and moderation, conform to their wishes and expressly declare the great rights of mankind secured under this constitution.

If you read his long introduction (which I'm sure you have) he explains the reason for the Bill of Rights is to secure our rights. Saying it doesn't grant rights is a semantics argument. It most definitely expresses the "rights" the federal government can not restrict, thus protecting these rights from legislation. The reason you have the right to free speech is because it is in the constitution. Without it, the states could have limited it.

[Smull]

I think that weather the Bill of Rights grants or protects rights is a matter of semantics that is distracting from the issue at hand.

I understand the argument that the constitution should only apply to U.S. citizens, but does the supreme court decision grant Habeas Corpus to the prisoners because its constitutional or because its moral? Also, is there any kind of international law that should be/has been taken into account?

I feel that holding people for extended periods of time without trial is wrong, so I'm overall pretty happy with the SC decision. But I think a good point has been raised over WHY they have been granted this right, because I don't believe that all rights should be granted to these prisoners (but I still feel HC should). I am somewhat troubled by the standard this sets (continues really) by the SC.

*Edit*
btw, would just like to point out that this sort of discussion is exactly why i love these boards, even on important and emotionally charged issues the people here manage to have actual discussions rather than just yell at each other.

[Smull]

Just read a piece by Glen Greenwald which I thought was an excellent discussion of the issue and conservatism in general. He starts by describing the outrage of the British conservatives over their government wanted to extend the 24 day period which they can now legally detain suspected terrorist without charging them with a crime to a whopping 48 days.

Conservatism vs. authoritarianism: The British vs. the U.S. right - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

Hence, while British conservatives largely oppose a policy merely to allow the Government to detain terrorist suspects for 42 days with no charges, our "conservatives" react with fury over the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of the President's claimed authority to hold such suspects in Guantanamo for 6 years -- really indefinitely -- without providing them any meaningful process at all. In fact, the Bush administration asserted the right to detain even U.S. citizens, arrested on U.S. soil, indefinitely, with no charges or any contact with the outside world, for years, and they proceeded to do so, with virtually no opposition of any kind from our self-proclaimed right-wing defenders of individual liberty or limited government.

[thewise1]

It's not a semantic issue at all, guys.

If the constitution grants rights to a group of people then there is a target group there, which would certainly include citizens, resident aliens, and I know even illegal aliens get these protections. This would support your argument that the constitution grants rights only to citizens or some subset of human beings.

However, if the constitution limits the federal government from ever abridging a set of inalienable rights, as I'm arguing, then there is no target group. The government is simply forbidden to violate a set of inalienable, innate rights. Of course this only applies where the US government has jurisdiction, and there are a set of rules for war that I won't argue with if we can just hold prisoners as POWs and release them after the war. Unfortunately in this situation, there can be no end to this war, and thus we would be holding these people indefinitely without trial, hope of justice, etc.

The waters can definitely be muddied here because we suspend certain civil rights for felons or people in prison, but even felons and prisoners have certain rights. For instance they still get the right against self incrimination and due process if they are found to have committed another crime.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by thewise1

The government is simply forbidden to violate a set of inalienable, innate rights. Of course this only applies where the US government has jurisdiction....

I was just going to post something along these lines.


This isn't about granting constitutional rights to foreign citizens. This is about keeping the government from ignoring inalienable rights even if the person is not a citizen.

[Darlin]

Originally Posted by thewise1

These rights are also given to resident aliens and illegal immigrants

Yes, they are. Something I accept (grudgingly), because this Country is a great Country. If you are here, you get treated fairly - justly.

Justice. What a great word.

And innocence. Another good word.

It is a good thing to seek relief for the innocent. There is no greater cause than to right wrongs, to bring balance where the scales have been tipped by injustice.

How many prisoners are we holding at Gitmo? 3? 13? 30? 300? 3000? I don't know.

And how many of those are innocent?

On September 11, 2001, 3000 innocent people were killed by acts of terrorism.

Some died in crowded, dark, smoke filled stairwells. Trampled, burned alive, gasping for that final breath. Those that had the chance, telephoned loved ones with final messages - messages of hope that would never be realized.

Some, in the the firestorm, felt their skin peel and burn, felt their lungs cry for air - and jumped - jumped through a window into an unfeeling void of clean air. . .to the bloody pavement below.

3000 innocent people.

Some Citizens of the USA, some of them welcome visitors from other countries.

All dead. All innocent.

Dead. Horrible deaths. Death by the hands of terrorists who gave not a shit about their "rights".

I wonder, if those 3000 innocent people, if given the choice, would have suffered as they did, or spent maybe 10 years innocently imprisoned. (3 squares a day, Holy book beside them), but habeas corpus suspended.

What would THEY choose? To have the hope of freedom..to still be breathing?

Yes, I'm sure there are some innocents at Gitmo..unjustly imprisoned.

Yet, they are NOT unjustly DEAD!

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Darlin

Yes, they are. Something I accept (grudgingly), because this Country is a great Country. If you are here, you get treated fairly - justly.

Justice. What a great word.

And innocence. Another good word.

It is a good thing to seek relief for the innocent. There is no greater cause than to right wrongs, to bring balance where the scales have been tipped by injustice.

How many prisoners are we holding at Gitmo? 3? 13? 30? 300? 3000? I don't know.

And how many of those are innocent?

On September 11, 2001, 3000 innocent people were killed by acts of terrorism.

Some died in crowded, dark, smoke filled stairwells. Trampled, burned alive, gasping for that final breath. Those that had the chance, telephoned loved ones with final messages - messages of hope that would never be realized.

Some, in the the firestorm, felt their skin peel and burn, felt their lungs cry for air - and jumped - jumped through a window into an unfeeling void of clean air. . .to the bloody pavement below.

3000 innocent people.

Some Citizens of the USA, some of them welcome visitors from other countries.

All dead. All innocent.

Dead. Horrible deaths. Death by the hands of terrorists who gave not a shit about their "rights".

I wonder, if those 3000 innocent people, if given the choice, would have suffered as they did, or spent maybe 10 years innocently imprisoned. (3 squares a day, Holy book beside them), but habeas corpus suspended.

What would THEY choose? To have the hope of freedom..to still be breathing?

Yes, I'm sure there are some innocents at Gitmo..unjustly imprisoned.

Yet, they are NOT unjustly DEAD!

Most of what you posted is irrelevant. I am not willing to accept an emotional argument for why one wrong justifies another.

We are the USA. The good guys. We don't do what they do. Terrorists may not care about their rights, but I am not a terrorist, and I care about everyone's rights, because if I don't, mine are diminished.

By the way, the number, as far as I know, is 274 prisoners. I have little doubt most of them are probably guilty - I'm not accusing our government of intentionally hurting the innocent. But I don't know they are guilty and neither do you or anyone else except them and the eye witnesses to their crimes. Give them their trial and if they are found guilty, let them rot. At that point due process will be satisfied and I will complain about them no more.

[Darlin]

Originally Posted by thewise1

Most of what you posted is irrelevant. I am not willing to accept an emotional argument for why one wrong justifies another.

We are the USA. The good guys. We don't do what they do. Terrorists may not care about their rights, but I am not a terrorist, and I care about everyone's rights, because if I don't, mine are diminished.

By the way, the number, as far as I know, is 274 prisoners. I have little doubt most of them are probably guilty - I'm not accusing our government of intentionally hurting the innocent. But I don't know they are guilty and neither do you or anyone else except them and the eye witnesses to their crimes. Give them their trial and if they are found guilty, let them rot. At that point due process will be satisfied and I will complain about them no more.

Yes, we are the good guys.

Good enough to forget what has been done to us. Good enough that a civillian, apologetic, civillian jury, a jury who has forgotten..or who never cared, will condemn the US troops that imprisoned terrorists and set those who hate us free. They know no justice for their own country. Only justice for terrorists.

We can't go lettin' other countries think badly of us, now can we?

/tirade, hopefully off.

Except for one thing. Sometimes, innocent people suffer. So there are innocents at Gitmo. They are getting more rights than our dead ever had.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Darlin

Yes, we are the good guys.

Good enough to forget what has been done to us. Good enough that a civillian, apologetic, civillian jury, a jury who has forgotten..or who never cared, will condemn the US troops that imprisoned terrorists and set those who hate us free. They know no justice for their own country. Only justice for terrorists.

We can't go lettin' other countries think badly of us, now can we?

I don't care what other countries think of us. Stop making strawmen arguments that have nothing to do with the subject.

What has to be done is justice. Sometimes, justice hurts. It isn't fun. Good people are always affected by what those who are evil do, even when justice is brought on them. A child loses her parent to the justice system because the parent chose to break the law. A free people lives with the risk of more deaths because they choose to remain free instead of submitting to slavery.

/tirade, hopefully off.

Except for one thing. Sometimes, innocent people suffer. So there are innocents at Gitmo. They are getting more rights than our dead ever had.

Our dead have nothing to do with them. The people who caused those deaths are dead, maybe some of the planners are there but you don't even know anything about that. Again you are reverting to an emotional straw man argument.

Let's try and keep this focused on justice and the law instead of hyperbole, fallacies, and emotion.

[Darlin]

Originally Posted by thewise1

I don't care what other countries think of us. Stop making strawmen arguments that have nothing to do with the subject.

What has to be done is justice. Sometimes, justice hurts. It isn't fun. Good people are always affected by what those who are evil do, even when justice is brought on them. A child loses her parent to the justice system because the parent chose to break the law. A free people lives with the risk of more deaths because they choose to remain free instead of submitting to slavery.



Our dead have nothing to do with them. The people who caused those deaths are dead, maybe some of the planners are there but you don't even know anything about that. Again you are reverting to an emotional straw man argument.

Let's try and keep this focused on justice and the law instead of hyperbole, fallacies, and emotion.

In my favor, this is the first emotional outburst. But, it is legitimate.

Perhaps those who killed the 3000 are dead, or are they? Do we really know that without a trial?? Are there others who want more of us dead?

It is not entirely emotion, you know. Those who forget why the fight began are just as wrong as an "emotional person" ever was.

It is not about Bush and how "he got us into it". It is about an attack on pthese shores. Nothing wrong with a bit of emotion when 3000 perish at the hands of terrorism.

But, it's late, and I'm sleepy. So, I'll have to think about it.

[Rhianann]

Originally Posted by Darlin

I, for one, trust our Military. I hold them in high regard. If prisoners were taken, I can do nothing but trust the judgement of those who detained them because I am an American, a United States Citizen who is being protected by those who go in harms way. Besides, we do not know the facts sitting here in our comfortable freedoms.

That sounds like blind faith, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Questioning authority is the one right we have in this country that we should never forget. Why tuck your tail between your legs and let the powers that be make decisions for you? Nothing changes in this country unless someone steps up to the plate and challenges it. I'd like to recommend a book to you called "Killing Hope". You might not have so much trust after reading that one. The military only follows orders....nothing they do based on their own individual decision-making.

I thought the idea was for America to be above the terrorists. Sinking down to their level only makes us one of them.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Darlin

In my favor, this is the first emotional outburst. But, it is legitimate.

Perhaps those who killed the 3000 are dead, or are they? Do we really know that without a trial?? Are there others who want more of us dead?

Exactly!!!! Give them a trial. That's ALL I WANT. Prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and you can shoot them dead if you want. I'm ok with that. I'm not cheering for terrorists to get out, although I do believe I'd rather let 99 guilty men free than punish one innocent man for crimes he did not commit.

I am not cheering for the death of our nation. I love my nation, which is why I don't want to see us ignoring what makes us great - our laws and constitution.

It is not entirely emotion, you know. Those who forget why the fight began are just as wrong as an "emotional person" ever was.

It is not about Bush and how "he got us into it". It is about an attack on pthese shores. Nothing wrong with a bit of emotion when 3000 perish at the hands of terrorism.

But, it's late, and I'm sleepy. So, I'll have to think about it.

Emotion is fine, but it has no place in this argument at all. You have no proof that any of these individuals were involved in the 9/11 attacks - and while some may, all I ask is that it be proved before they are held indefinitely. Until you can cite proof that they were involved in the 9/11 attacks then you have no business linking them to it for the emotional response.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by JaJae

If you read his long introduction (which I'm sure you have) he explains the reason for the Bill of Rights is to secure our rights. Saying it doesn't grant rights is a semantics argument. It most definitely expresses the "rights" the federal government can not restrict, thus protecting these rights from legislation. The reason you have the right to free speech is because it is in the constitution. Without it, the states could have limited it.

Man, you got it all wrong. The Anti-Federalists agreed that the Constitution was not in place to limit the rights of the people, but those of the government. All they said is that there are certain rights that we have to make sure are not infringed upon because they figured that eventually governments would find ways around the wording of the constitution to limit rights.

So you're not even arguing a historically valid side... no one wanted what you're saying. What YOU seem to think is that our rights should be enumerated and neither the Anti-Federalists or the Federalists wanted that at all.

Hell, your quote doesn't even say what you think it does. It's saying that the Constitution should be ratified because of the great number of liberties it allows us. Madison knew the Constitution was a document putting limits on the government, not the people.

Originally Posted by Wiki

Madison had three main objections to a specific bill of rights: (a) it was unnecessary, since it purported to protect against powers that the federal government had not been granted; (b) it was dangerous, since enumeration of some rights might be taken to imply the absence of other rights; and (c) at the state level, bills of rights had proven to be useless paper barriers against government powers.

The ONLY reason Madison wrote and supported the ratification of the Bill of Rights is because he knew it was the only way to get all 13 colonies to join the US. As thewise pointed out, the wording in those 10 are very careful to only limit the government, NOT to allow anything for the people. It is NOT enumeration.