| Habeas corpus 3 Bush Administration - 0
Posted: 6/13/2008 10:04:57 AM | I was watching Brit Hume on Fox News last night, and he had three panelists on talking about this decision. Two Bushites and one guy who fancied himself as the devil's advocate (Morton Kondracke). They all agreed that it was a bad decision in time of war and agreed with Scalia. Where was the outnumbered, largely ignored token liberal that all the Fox News faithful like to tout? I've seen things in a toilet bowl that are more "fair and balanced."
My questions:
Time of national emergency? War? How many national emergencies last 10, 20+ years?
This decision will cost lives? How is charging a suspect and granting a speedy trial going to cost American lives?
OK, the first question was rhetorical because the reasoning is so absurd, but I am truly curious how this will cost American lives. Anyone? | |
|
| Habeas corpus 3 Bush Administration - 0
Posted: 6/13/2008 12:07:14 PM | ^^^^ the "logic" if you will, is that if we can't just go and yank somebody off the street that we THINK might be a terrorist and we are unable to torture them that lives will be lost due to another sept 11 type of thing.... it is the thought process of a deviant human that probably tortured small animals as a child
Let them challenge their detention.. I would imagine most do not have the money to pay for an attorney so these cases would be pro bono so let's hope that the process will be very quick because I have a feeling the American tax payers are going to be paying for this.
... who do you think has been footing the bill to keep them locked up for the last 4 years honey? are you just starting to notice invasions, occupations, and detention of what used to be called "prisoners of war", cost money?
(of course we don't call them POW's because then they would be subject to Geneva conventions, another "quaint" document apparently) | |
|
| Habeas corpus 3 Bush Administration - 0
Posted: 6/13/2008 4:03:30 PM |
I must really be a pessimist this morning, b/c I don't see much magnitude here.
Like I said earlier, I'm no legal mind by any stretch, but, when these cases go to court there will have to be evidence presented against the custodian. Then the custodian can present evidence for his defense including his testimony and the testimony of others.
If I'm not mistaken, all these proceedings will become public record, right? If these proceedings are made public then we are going to get a big insight as to how this war has been covertly operated.
America took six terrorist to trial this week and they all admitted their guilt and requested to be martyred. Well, not all the detainees are going to be so convenient. Some will want a trial. | |
|
| Habeas corpus 3 Bush Administration - 0
Posted: 6/13/2008 4:08:02 PM | As I posted a long time ago in another thread, America has historically lead the way in taking the high ground when it comes to treatment of people in war.
Look at your Civil War, and Lincoln's Lieber Code of 1863. 
That was the inspiration for the Geneva Convention.
Ethical treatment
The document insisted upon the humane, ethical treatment of populations in occupied areas. It was the first expressly codified law that expressly forbade giving "no quarter" to the enemy (killing prisoners of war), except in such cases when the survival of the unit that held these prisoners was threatened. As such, it is widely considered to be the precursor to the Geneva Convention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieber_Code
Quite ironic, isn't it ?  | |
|
| Habeas corpus 3 Bush Administration - 0
Posted: 6/13/2008 4:12:04 PM | The Supreme Court should be shown this video of Eugene Armstrong every day while considering the rights of the poor victims of US aggression in Afghanistan.
http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/beheading-video-eugene-armstrong.html
The video shows how the habeas corpus of terrorists work for the following victims of al queda!
Daniel Pearl
Eugene Armstrong
Jack Hensley
Kenneth Bigley
All were innocent citizens that went to do civilian jobs.
Our own Troops that were captured did not survive the enemy when taken prisoner and were not afforded any rights at all. They were murdered and dragged through the streets and even hung off bridges.
The 9/11 terrorists were treated much better when they came to this country under the guise of seeking education etc.
We have never followed the lead of such monsters. they are being given their day in military court. | |
|
| Habeas corpus 3 Bush Administration - 0
Posted: 6/13/2008 4:15:25 PM | Are we supposed to follow their lead ?
Run around claiming God's on our side, and treat them as badly as they do others ?
Stop turning that white hat into a gray/black one.
We've fought far stronger enemies, including one's who beheaded and tortured people (the Japanese and Germans), and we've generally stayed "true to our school" , as it were.
There's no reason to change that now, especially when innocent people may get caught up in such a system - as they have been, undeniably. | |
|
| Habeas corpus 3 Bush Administration - 0
Posted: 6/13/2008 4:20:07 PM | MG there is such a thing as the geneva convention that has precedence over these pows. We do not need any more than that. Especially the interference of the US supreme court.If you read it,you will see it covers pows very well.
I accept the ruling but I do not agree with the neccessity of it.
By the way, My great grandfather died of poor treatment from a union prison camp.in the civil war. He fought for the south. many pows on both sides were very badly treated. A lot of them died during and soon after they were released. The occupation of a land that is inside this country is one thing[civil war]. a war in another country is another. geneva convention rules apply. at least for the US. | |
|
| Habeas corpus 3 Bush Administration - 0
Posted: 6/13/2008 4:33:17 PM | | No, the Geneva convention doesn't apply here because our enemy does not comprise uniformed nationals. Before this ruling, Geneva didn't apply; habeus corpus didn't apply; I'm left wondering what rules did apply to detainees. | |
|
| Habeas corpus 3 Bush Administration - 0
Posted: 6/13/2008 5:46:23 PM | [No, the Geneva convention doesn't apply here because our enemy does not comprise uniformed nationals. Before this ruling, Geneva didn't apply; habeus corpus didn't apply; I'm left wondering what rules did apply to detainees. ]
I refer you sir to the geneva convention articles 4 and beyond for your reading pleasure:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm
According to these articles, those that accompany enemy forces and take up arms against us and are captured are considered prisoners of war. | |
|
| Habeas corpus 3 Bush Administration - 0
Posted: 6/13/2008 6:10:18 PM | Ah, yes... I see that you are correct. It seems that the Supreme Court had to require that protection as well. Under the Geneva rules, then, what criteria are required to capture and then release an individual, and were these criteria followed? I can imagine just being in the wrong place at the wrong time, being captured and detained for the rest of my natural or unnatural life, innocence bedamned.
The key to the "American Way" is not treating people as if you know they are guilty but as if you don't know if they are guilty. Otherwise our troops are reduced to being government sanctioned vigilantes-- with potential life imprisonment in lieu of hangings. | |
|
| Habeas corpus 3 Bush Administration - 0
Posted: 6/13/2008 6:31:31 PM | Dubya has long proven he has no respect for legality or the Constitution.
Signing statements. . . (Article 2 of the Constitution)
Gitmo. . . (Habeas Corpus)
Iraq. . .(War Crime)
Plame (TREASON)
Executive Privilige (Avoiding testimony before Congressional hearings Article 1 of the USC)
When does it end? 1-20-09
Please, for the LOVE OF ALL THAT IS GOOD AND HOLY, let Edwards be Atty General for a couple of years to go after these criminals, then appoint him to the SCOTUS! Let's swing the pendulum back from Insanity to reality. | |
|
| Habeas corpus 3 Bush Administration - 0
Posted: 6/13/2008 6:37:42 PM | A little late but.......
Powell: Close Guantanamo Now, Restore Habeas»
This morning on NBC’s Meet the Press, Gen. Colin Powell strongly condemned the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, calling it “a major problem for America’s perception” and charging, “if it was up to me, I would close Guantanamo — not tomorrow, this afternoon.”
He also called for an end to the military commission system the Bush administration has created to try Guantanamo detainees. “I would simply move them to the United States and put them into our federal legal system,” Powell said. He scoffed at criticism that the detainees would have access to lawyers and the writ of habeas corpus: “So what? Let them. Isn’t that what our system’s all about?”
“[E]very morning I pick up a paper and some authoritarian figure, some person somewhere, is using Guantanamo to hide their own misdeeds,” Powell said. “[W]e have shaken the belief that the world had in America’s justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open… We don’t need it, and it’s causing us far more damage than any good we get for it.”
Watch it:
Powell also sounded off on conservatives, including Vice President Cheney, who oppose diplomacy with Syria and Iran, calling their view “short-sighted.” Powell endorsed direct talks “not to solve a particular problem or crisis of the moment or the day, but just to have dialogue with people who are involved in this region in so many ways.”
Transcript:
POWELL: But in this arc, which is centered now in Iraq, we have serious difficulties. Serious difficulties that have to be resolved, one, by getting this civil war resolved, and it’s going to take the Iraqis to do that. Two, I believe we should be talking to all of Iraq’s neighbors. I think we should be talking to Iran, we should be talking to Syria, not to solve a particular problem or crisis of the moment or the day, but just to have dialogue with people who are involved in this region in so many ways. And so I think it is short-sighted not to talk to Syria and Iran and everybody else in the region, and not just for the purpose of making a demand on them, and “I’ll only talk to you if you meet the demand I want to talk to you about.” That’s not the way to have a dialogue in my judgment.
RUSSERT: Guantanamo. Torture. When John McCain was seeking ways to deal with the issue of torture, you wrote him a letter and said this: “The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.”
POWELL: Right.
RUSSERT: What do you mean?
POWELL: They are. Guantanamo has become a major, a major problem for America’s perception — as it’s seen, the way the world perceives America. And if it was up to me, I would close Guantanamo — not tomorrow, this afternoon. I’d close it. And I’d not let any of those people go. I would simply move them to the United States and put them into our federal legal system. The concern was, well, then they’ll have access to lawyers, then they’ll have access to writs of habeas corpus. So what? Let them. Isn’t that what our system’s all about? And by the way, America, unfortunately, has too many people in jail, all of whom had lawyers and access to writs of habeas corpus. And so we can handle bad people in our system. And so I would get rid of Guantanamo and I’d get rid of the military commissions system, and use established procedures in federal law or in the manual for courts martial. I would do that because it’s more equatable and it’s more understandable in constitutional terms. But I’d also do it because every morning I pick up a paper and some authoritarian figure, some person somewhere, is using Guantanamo to hide their own misdeeds. So essentially we have shaken the belief that the world had in America’s justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open and creating things like the military commission. We don’t need it, and it’s causing us far more damage than any good we get for it. But remember what I started this discussion saying, don’t let any of them go. Put them in a different system, a system that is experienced, that knows how to handle people like this.
| |
|
| |
| Habeas corpus 3 Bush Administration - 0
Posted: 6/13/2008 7:34:01 PM | Well, I just saw the film clip of McCain's reaction.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2008/06/
mccain_blasts_guantanamo_rulin.html
An American running for president arguing against the right of Habeas corpus ?
Interesting, to say the least. | |
|
| Habeas corpus 3 Bush Administration - 0
Posted: 6/13/2008 7:36:59 PM | thinkprogress.org/2007/06/10/powell-gitmo/ -
And here is the link watch the video and before I get the that's a bias site just Google Colin Powell close git mo,
Have fun. | |
|
| |
| Habeas corpus 3 Bush Administration - 0
Posted: 6/13/2008 7:44:36 PM | [ I can imagine just being in the wrong place at the wrong time, being captured and detained for the rest of my natural or unnatural life, innocence bedamned.]
Those that were found to be innocent,have returned already to their country of nationality. that is in accordance with geneva. Some are believed to be too dangerous and believed to have been involved in terror attacks,are commited to military tribunal. Of course upon evidence. I always assume innocent until proven guilty.
I remember reading about one case where the detainee has written a book about his experience at guantanamo. Another dosen't want to go back to his country for fear of reprisal. It will take time but I have confidence it will all be straightened out. | |
|
| Habeas corpus 3 Bush Administration - 0
Posted: 6/13/2008 8:04:32 PM |
Well, I just saw the film clip of McCain's reaction.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2008/06/
mccain_blasts_guantanamo_rulin.html
An American running for president arguing against the right of Habeas corpus ?
Interesting, to say the least.
I find it rather scary to say the least.Just one more reason and a IMO very important reason McCain will not get my vote. | |
|
| Habeas corpus 3 Bush Administration - 0
Posted: 6/14/2008 7:44:37 AM |
Please, for the LOVE OF ALL THAT IS GOOD AND HOLY, let Edwards be Atty General for a couple of years to go after these criminals, then appoint him to the SCOTUS! Let's swing the pendulum back from Insanity to reality I just can't fathom why the Democrats are so passive about impeachment hearings and giving Pres. Bush a free pass.. with all the accusations thrown about you'd think that Democrats would want to "prove" the accusations are true instead of just repeating accusations over and over because most of us know that accusations are not "truth".. just accusations until someone is "proven" guilty of said accusations. | |
|
| Habeas corpus 3 Bush Administration - 0
Posted: 6/14/2008 8:28:32 AM |
I just can't fathom why the Democrats are so passive about impeachment hearings and giving Pres. Bush a free pass.. with all the accusations thrown about you'd think that Democrats would want to "prove" the accusations are true instead of just repeating accusations over and over because most of us know that accusations are not "truth".. just accusations until someone is "proven" guilty of said accusations.
It takes just a bit more depth to understand that there is a Geneva Convention and a Constitution that doesn't have the term enemy combatant in it.
His defenses are not giving him a 'free pass' they actually cost quite a bit. His lawyers need to get paid a lot to come up for reasons dubya is allowed to act outside the laws of his own country and I'm perfectly happy to see republicans needing to pay high cost lawyers.
With the republican money getting siphoned off our economy in Iraq and more being filtered off by slick, expensive lawyers, they won't have it to spend on inundating those with limited mental capacity with propaganda about us being safer without personal rights.
I'm so happy McCain has now declared we should redefine what rights humans should have as it will outrage everyone that thinks there should be laws against torture and unfair incarcerations. | |
|
| Habeas corpus 3 Bush Administration - 0
Posted: 6/14/2008 9:24:28 AM | ronjo is missing a key point in the detentions in that these fellers don't fall under the geneva convention because George came up with some double speak and called them "enemy combatants" which isn't covered under the geneva conventions... in his mind.
thats what makes this ruling that much more special.... it is one more peice of the junga tower of lies and corruption that make up this administration....and we will get them glam... | |
|
| Habeas corpus 3 Bush Administration - 0
Posted: 6/14/2008 11:22:14 AM | [George came up with some double speak and called them "enemy combatants" which isn't covered under the geneva conventions... in his mind.]
My statement missed no points at all. Enemy Combatants are covered in article 4 of the geneva convention. They are considered pows when captured and are covered by the geneva convention. Maybe if people would read what the geneva convention articles say, then they wouldn't need to miss points themselves. Althought the words"Enemy Combatants" is not used,the articles covers those that fight against us. Someone should write a book called "Research for Dummies" | |
|
| Habeas corpus 3 Bush Administration - 0
Posted: 6/14/2008 1:46:57 PM | ^^^^ was that a total contradiction in one paragraph?
they use the words expressly to circumnavigate the Geneva Conventions.... that is how they are getting away with all of this.....
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/0/0/4/2/p100425_index.html
Al Qaeda fighters and operatives, in contrast, did not warrant and would not be receive POW status. Presumably, Iraqi fighters warrant that status. (Or has the Bush Administration now decided Iraqi ?insurgents? are also ?illegal combatants?/?terrorists? whose numbers are now swelled by an influx of Al Qaeda affiliates?)If Al Qaeda fighters and operatives and Iraqi insurgents are not POWs and not civilians in the custody of an occupying or invading power, then into what category are they consigned? If the US considers these detainees ?criminal suspects,? then the US must afford them access to counsel and to court, along with the rights to know the charges against them, confront their accusers, enjoy due process of law and a speedy trial? There is no evidence the US is treating these detainees as ?suspected criminals.? And the pattern of abuse of detainees is identical from Bagram, to Guantanamo, to Abu Ghraib. . . . POW status is intended as a trump card?the way soldiers protect ?the soldier? and honor the soldier?s service, even when that soldier happens to serve on the other, or ?enemy? side. It is increasingly clear detainees in Bagram, Guantanamo, and Abu Ghraib are treated neither as POWs nor as suspected criminals?and certainly not as civilians in need of protection from the invading or occupying power.In this paper, I intend to pursue the issue of whether by designating so many detainees as ?enemy combatant,? the Bush Administration invented a category of detainee not covered by Geneva and then consigned those so designated to the abyss of no rights whatsoever, all in the name fighting a ?new kind of war? in defense of "freedom." | |
|
| Habeas corpus 3 Bush Administration - 0
Posted: 6/14/2008 1:55:23 PM | ... and why would we want to treat these PEOPLE in accords to the conventions?
http://www.cfr.org/publication/5842/findings_report.html
While no discussant challenged the right of the United States to detain enemy combatants, some questioned the administration’s decision to deprive them of POW status. The discussants argued that granting POW status would not restrain the government’s ability to gather intelligence and that depriving detainees of that status comes at a great cost to the government and international law in terms of reciprocity, public opinion and international norms.
In terms of reciprocity, some discussants argued that the administration would be unhappy if denying POW status to enemy combatants set a precedent used to justify the detention and denial of Geneva Conventions protection to U.S. citizens. While most discussants remain confident that the United States is treating current detainees humanely, several expressed concern that the administration’s approach erodes an international norm. Some discussants maintained that the United States should fully satisfy the requirements of the Geneva Conventions not because to do so constrains its own bad behavior, but because to do so upholds a norm that protects others. | |
|
| |
Home
login 
