Big Win For Constitutional Rights!

[akupetsky]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

I honestly am lost on this one. On the one hand, I cannot see how enemy combatants and/or terrorists can have the same habeas rights as everyday U.S. citizens. Moreover, I see an absolute nightmare with lawyers and the courts getting in the middle of how the U.S. fights its wars. I mean, as Roberts points out, do we haul soldiers off the battlefield to appear at evidentiary hearings? Do we allow the detainees' attorneys to cross-examine our soldiers, which could potentially jeopardize our national security?  

On the other hand, as the majority touched on, the indefiniteness of a detainees' incarceration, particularly if the detainee was in fact wrongly detained, is troubling.  

In any case, I am not as panicked as those on the far right, perhaps because I do not know what the long-term consequences will be. Given the 5-4 split, largely along ideological lines, my sense is this issue is not over. There will be the inevitable appeals by detainees complaining that their habeas hearings were unfair. This is where I see the impact of Roberts' dissent, which could serve as a foundation for one or two of the majority (Kennedy and maybe Souter) to back off their stance. Just my thoughts.

I don't see the trouble here, I really don't.  And I don't see any of the majority backing off.  The issue is, as the majority indicated, what if it is the wrong detainee?  The US justice system is designed to make sure that you are not wrongly detained and denied your right to show your innocence.  Someone who is detained in the US (which, as the majority rightly showed, included Guantanamo) has this right.  The other option is the case of war, which you (and the Administration) argue is the case here.  In that case, as Cantretsky points out, you are subject to the laws of war.  Neither the Administration nor the Congress can have it both ways (i.e., it is subject to neither the US nor the Geneva Convention jurisdiction); otherwise the result is to keep a prisoner in an unconscionable, Kafkaesque situation.  (As I recall, the same law also attempted to assert that US practices allowed under the law comply with the Geneva Convention, but I have to go back and read the law again to see what options are left for the Administration and their Congressional allies.)

Now, let's look at the worst case scenario.  You capture (rather than kill) Khalid Sheik Muhammad (a non-Afghan, I believe) in Afghanistan\ and you hold him.  You can hold him abroad and be subject to the Geneva Convention.  You can hold him in the US or Guantanamo and be subject to US laws.  (The Court said that you cannot choose a middle way.)  You choose to hold him in the US.  It takes two years or more to go through the system, and you can't prove that he orchestrated 9/11.  So you have to release him.  Isn't it possible to make sure he doesn't strike again?  Does he really continue to be a threat?  Will he ever be able to move freely again?  I don't know the answer to this, but I suspect the real issue is that the scared, pathetic supporters of the law just don't want to be the ones that didn't try every conceivable way to keep this monster locked up even if it meant unlawfully detaining hundreds or more innocent people and undermining the US sense of liberty and reputation for fairness.    At some point we have to have confidence in ourselves and our representatives to protect us without undermining our core values.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

Of course non-citizens have rights.  Could you imagine if the United States said that non-citizens couldn't practice religion?  The Bill of Rights refers to the "People", not "citizens."

The problem is that Bush wants to have his cake and eat it too.  I heard a very stupid Laura Ingram show yesterday, where the host kept going on about how we could shoot the detainees on the battle field, so why did we need to afford them any protection after they were captured?  The point is, if they are on the battle field, then we are in a war.  If we are in a war, then capturing these guys means they are prisoners of war.  If they are POWs, neither the Constitution nor Habeus Corpus applies, but the Geneva Convention does.  Bush wants to put the detainees is some sort of legal no-man's-land, where neither our laws nor international laws apply.

I am tired of the constant right wing claims that "this is a different type of war."  Not really.  Throughout history, the US has had to deal with people who mean harm.  Al Capone, the Mafia, drug gangs--all of these people have killed hundreds, and much of the time, we knew they were killing.  But our laws come first, and so we had to wait until we had evidence.  Then we had trials, with juries, and lawyers to represent the bad guys.  It's not a great system, but it is better than all of the rest.  You cannot have liberty and absolute safety at the same time.  After all, the Soviet Union had very little problem with crime.

Did you even bother reading the Boumediene opinion? Do you know that Congress' passage of the Detainee Treatment Act and other statutes were at issue before the Court? Before going off on a civil libertarian rant, it might help to know all your targets rather than focusing entirely on the evil George Bush.

No I haven't not read the opinion.  I have a life.  But I know very well what it was about.  I wasn't talking about the opinion specifically but the rights of non citizens, and the Geneva convention.  Have you even bothered to read the Geneva convention?  Before you go off on your right wing tirade, maybe you should learn something about international law.  See, I too can be obnoxious, act superior, all the while not responding to a thing you say.

I seem to recall taking a course on international law in law school, how about you?

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

Of course non-citizens have rights.  Could you imagine if the United States said that non-citizens couldn't practice religion?  The Bill of Rights refers to the "People", not "citizens."

The problem is that Bush wants to have his cake and eat it too.  I heard a very stupid Laura Ingram show yesterday, where the host kept going on about how we could shoot the detainees on the battle field, so why did we need to afford them any protection after they were captured?  The point is, if they are on the battle field, then we are in a war.  If we are in a war, then capturing these guys means they are prisoners of war.  If they are POWs, neither the Constitution nor Habeus Corpus applies, but the Geneva Convention does.  Bush wants to put the detainees is some sort of legal no-man's-land, where neither our laws nor international laws apply.

I am tired of the constant right wing claims that "this is a different type of war."  Not really.  Throughout history, the US has had to deal with people who mean harm.  Al Capone, the Mafia, drug gangs--all of these people have killed hundreds, and much of the time, we knew they were killing.  But our laws come first, and so we had to wait until we had evidence.  Then we had trials, with juries, and lawyers to represent the bad guys.  It's not a great system, but it is better than all of the rest.  You cannot have liberty and absolute safety at the same time.  After all, the Soviet Union had very little problem with crime.

Did you even bother reading the Boumediene opinion? Do you know that Congress' passage of the Detainee Treatment Act and other statutes were at issue before the Court? Before going off on a civil libertarian rant, it might help to know all your targets rather than focusing entirely on the evil George Bush.

No I haven't not read the opinion.  I have a life.  But I know very well what it was about.  I wasn't talking about the opinion specifically but the rights of non citizens, and the Geneva convention.  Have you even bothered to read the Geneva convention?  Before you go off on your right wing tirade, maybe you should learn something about international law.  See, I too can be obnoxious, act superior, all the while not responding to a thing you say.

I seem to recall taking a course on international law in law school, how about you?

Yes.  And Journal of International Law and Politics, editor and senior editor. You?

[CoffeeBean]

The opinion merely gives habeas rights to detainees.  Period.  This is beyond logical.  If you disagree, here's a glimpse of what you stand for:

--an innocent person, perhaps someone attempting to infiltrate the taliban for subversive reasons, an actual (but unknown) friend of the U.S., is picked up on the battlefield in Afganistan.  

Based upon his association on the battlefield, (and for no other reason, not ideology, or threat), he is transported to GITMO.  Once there, he is labeled an enemy combatant and denied access to all legal resources and denied any right to challenge the basis of his confinement.  

It does not matter that this man is innocent.  It does not matter that he has proof of his innocence.  It does not matter.  It does not matter if he is the wrong person.  It does not matter if he knows where to find the right person.  It does not matter.  

All that matters is that someone, or group of people, have made a unilateral decision that he is an enemy combatant.  Period.

This decision - which so many on the right decry as being sympathetic towards terrorists - is designed to provide credibility and accountability.  It gives the innocent man, the man picked up by mistake, an opportunity to make that argument before a judge.  That's it.  It does not mean the judge will set him free.  

If you are against this decision - then you are for the indeterminate and unreviewable detention of innocent people.  It's that simple.        

[akupetsky]

quote:Originally posted by CoffeeBean

The opinion merely gives habeas rights to detainees.  Period.  This is beyond logical.  If you disagree, here's a glimpse of what you stand for:

--an innocent person, perhaps someone attempting to infiltrate the taliban for subversive reasons, an actual (but unknown) friend of the U.S., is picked up on the battlefield in Afganistan.  

Based upon his association on the battlefield, (and for no other reason, not ideology, or threat), he is transported to GITMO.  Once there, he is labeled an enemy combatant and denied access to all legal resources and denied any right to challenge the basis of his confinement.  

It does not matter that this man is innocent.  It does not matter that he has proof of his innocence.  It does not matter.  It does not matter if he is the wrong person.  It does not matter if he knows where to find the right person.  It does not matter.  

All that matters is that someone, or group of people, have made a unilateral decision that he is an enemy combatant.  Period.

This decision - which so many on the right decry as being sympathetic towards terrorists - is designed to provide credibility and accountability.  It gives the innocent man, the man picked up by mistake, an opportunity to make that argument before a judge.  That's it.  It does not mean the judge will set him free.  

If you are against this decision - then you are for the indeterminate and unreviewable detention of innocent people.  It's that simple.        

Great point.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

Of course non-citizens have rights.  Could you imagine if the United States said that non-citizens couldn't practice religion?  The Bill of Rights refers to the "People", not "citizens."

The problem is that Bush wants to have his cake and eat it too.  I heard a very stupid Laura Ingram show yesterday, where the host kept going on about how we could shoot the detainees on the battle field, so why did we need to afford them any protection after they were captured?  The point is, if they are on the battle field, then we are in a war.  If we are in a war, then capturing these guys means they are prisoners of war.  If they are POWs, neither the Constitution nor Habeus Corpus applies, but the Geneva Convention does.  Bush wants to put the detainees is some sort of legal no-man's-land, where neither our laws nor international laws apply.

I am tired of the constant right wing claims that "this is a different type of war."  Not really.  Throughout history, the US has had to deal with people who mean harm.  Al Capone, the Mafia, drug gangs--all of these people have killed hundreds, and much of the time, we knew they were killing.  But our laws come first, and so we had to wait until we had evidence.  Then we had trials, with juries, and lawyers to represent the bad guys.  It's not a great system, but it is better than all of the rest.  You cannot have liberty and absolute safety at the same time.  After all, the Soviet Union had very little problem with crime.

Did you even bother reading the Boumediene opinion? Do you know that Congress' passage of the Detainee Treatment Act and other statutes were at issue before the Court? Before going off on a civil libertarian rant, it might help to know all your targets rather than focusing entirely on the evil George Bush.

No I haven't not read the opinion.  I have a life.  But I know very well what it was about.  I wasn't talking about the opinion specifically but the rights of non citizens, and the Geneva convention.  Have you even bothered to read the Geneva convention?  Before you go off on your right wing tirade, maybe you should learn something about international law.  See, I too can be obnoxious, act superior, all the while not responding to a thing you say.

I seem to recall taking a course on international law in law school, how about you?

Yes.  And Journal of International Law and Politics, editor and senior editor. You?

What do you say to a friendly debate sometime on the issue? No politics, no ideology, just whether international law was violated by depriving detainees at Gitmo habeas rights.

[pmcalk]

^^Sure, but I think the issue is broader than that.  Habeas Corpus is US law, and not applying it doesn't necessarily violate international law (though I think you can make a case that it does).  The debate should be what international standards should apply to the detainees, and has Bush followed those standards.  Feel free to go first.

[cannon_fodder]

I look forward to your debate... I'll have to sit on the sidelines.  I went to KC to get my gamble on and/or drink too much instead of reading the case.  So I'd just have opinion on the matter.

[RecycleMichael]

I don't have one of them fancy law degrees, but I am prepared to say some insults in latin.

Itum puga! (you are a @#$-Hole)

[Hometown]

Have you ever noticed how the Supreme Court usually follows the parade?  It seems like they wait until a consensus forms and then they endorse the consensus.

The best thing about this decision is that now some light will be shed on what really went on at Gitmo.  Good for Democracy, bad for Baby Bush.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

^^Sure, but I think the issue is broader than that.  Habeas Corpus is US law, and not applying it doesn't necessarily violate international law (though I think you can make a case that it does).  The debate should be what international standards should apply to the detainees, and has Bush followed those standards.  Feel free to go first.

I will be out of town for a bit, I'll lead when I get back.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I don't have one of them fancy law degrees, but I am prepared to say some insults in latin.

Itum puga! (you are a @#$-Hole)

lol. Thank you.

[pmcalk]

Of all people to disagree with McCain, and agree with the Supreme Court, here is a quote from George Will:

quote:The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to cause a government to release a prisoner or show through due process why the prisoner should be held. Of Guantanamo's approximately 270 detainees, many certainly are dangerous "enemy combatants." Some probably are not. None will be released by the court's decision, which does not even guarantee a right to a hearing. Rather, it guarantees only a right to request a hearing. Courts retain considerable discretion regarding such requests.

As such, the Supreme Court's ruling only begins marking a boundary against government's otherwise boundless power to detain people indefinitely, treating Guantanamo as (in Barack Obama's characterization) "a legal black hole." And public habeas hearings might benefit the Bush administration by reminding Americans how bad its worst enemies are.

One of the few times in my lifetime that I agree with George Will.