Who cares...

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by papaspot

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Maybe the fact that the 300,000,000th citizen born in the US was an illegal alien...

Not so counselor. A citizen is not an illegal alien, now are they?

Depends on who you ask in America today.  Should have said "born TO" an illegal alien.  Equally as reprehensable...

No, it DOESN'T depend on who you ask. YOU should know that the law is the law. The fact that you don't like it doesn't change it. I challenge you to find a law that has the word "should" in it.

[iplaw]

Granted, they may not have habeas rights and can be kept in prison for all of eternity, which I don't think is correct, but to extend that to say that executions would take place without a trial is false and scaremongering.

Do I think that they should have habeas rights...yes, as long as the relief is sought in a military tribunal as is done in any war.  To ask that our overburdened judiciary bear the burden of these trials is rediculous as well.

I think there should be TWO tests:  

First, if you are a citizen of the US, even if you are found on the battlefield in another country, habeas rights should apply; BUT

Second, if you are NOT a citizen of the US and found on the battlefield either domestically or internationally you should be treated as an enemy combatant and a military tribunal would be appropriate.

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Papa, unless you are a lawyer, please do not lecture me on due process rights or the purpose of habeas relief.

How did I know that you wouldn't even try to answer the question either?

Since when do you have to be a lawyer to know what the Constitution says? Maybe you think that you do and that explains why you've never read it. Well, I'm tellin' ya right now that being a lawyer is NOT a requirement for reading the Constitution. Please feel free to just go ahead and READ it. Not only will you not go to jail for it, you might even LEARN something.

Besides, this is less about law than it is about history. Or do you also have to be a historian to know anything about history?

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Granted, they may not have habeas rights and can be kept in prison for all of eternity, which I don't think is correct, but to extend that to say that executions would take place without a trial is false and scaremongering.

Do I think that they should have habeas rights...yes, as long as the relief is sought in a military tribunal as is done in any war.  To ask that our overburdened judiciary bear the burden of these trials is rediculous as well.

I think there should be TWO tests:  

First, if you are a citizen of the US, even if you are found on the battlefield in another country, habeas rights should apply; BUT

Second, if you are NOT a citizen of the US and found on the battlefield either domestically or internationally you should be treated as an enemy combatant and a military tribunal would be appropriate.

One of the problems with your second condition is that it pretty much leaves it open to whatever the government wants to do. How is "the battlefield" defined in terms of "on the battlefield either domestically or internationally"? And what does "if you are found" mean? Are you talking about enemy combatants? What is the definition of an enemy combatant and who determines whether a person meets the definition?

[iplaw]

The problem is...the Constitution does not cover every possible scenario and certainly does not euclidate what should be done in situations such as these.

This is why it vests Congress with the right to promulgate the laws to fill in these gaps.  

Congress has acted and now it's up to the SPCT to say whether that law was constitutional or not.

Even if they find that the Constitution was violated, Congress may override the SPCT by limiting its jurisdiction.

All of what has happened up to this point has followed the Constitutionally madated procedures.  

Whether we like what conclusions have been drawn is personal opinion, but Constitutional procedure has been followed.  You and I can argue about it all day, but that is what the legal and political process is for.  We are only spectators.

[iplaw]

It's easy to say, "Well, just look at the Constitution" but that is an oversimplified answer.  There are voluminous amounts of case law that help us interpret the Constitution.  The text of the Constitiution can never be used singularly to justify any position.

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

It's easy to say, "Well, just look at the Constitution" but that is an oversimplified answer.  There are voluminous amounts of case law that help us interpret the Constitution.  The text of the Constitiution can never be used singularly to justify any position.

No, iplaw, if you look at the context of the conversation, it is NOT an oversimplification. Guido implied (when taken in the context of my comment to him) that you have to be a lawyer to understand the importance of due process. I assert that that's bullcrap.

I understand what you're saying though and I agree that constitutional law involves a lot more than just the text of the Constitution. But we weren't exactly discussing the merits of a particular case or doctrine. I just asked him a question that most neocons avoid or ignore.

He ignored it, just like I expected he would.

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

The problem is...the Constitution does not cover every possible scenario and certainly does not euclidate what should be done in situations such as these.

This is why it vests Congress with the right to promulgate the laws to fill in these gaps.  

Congress has acted and now it's up to the SPCT to say whether that law was constitutional or not.

Even if they find that the Constitution was violated, Congress may override the SPCT by limiting its jurisdiction.

All of what has happened up to this point has followed the Constitutionally madated procedures.  

Whether we like what conclusions have been drawn is personal opinion, but Constitutional procedure has been followed.  You and I can argue about it all day, but that is what the legal and political process is for.  We are only spectators.

Yes, the process is being followed by it ain't over yet. And I was impressed that SCOTUS didn't allow Bush to try to skirt the Constitution by making last minute changes to try to prevent a case from being heard by them so that no ruling would be made and his options would have still been (in his opinion) open.

[guido911]

It's not what due process means you simpleton, it's who is entitled to it. Since you have read the constitution, show me where it says that persons captured on the battlefields in Afghanistan or Iraq are entitled to habeas relief? The Congress and President responded to the Supreme Court's issues raised in Hamdi. What more do you want?
And also, by due process, are you referring to substantive due process or procedural? Should we give these terrorists attorneys and speedy public trials at the expense of the taxpayer? Should we give terrorists the rights to sue our soldiers in federal court for damages under § 1983? I can just see it now, G.I. Joe shot me too many times when I was trying to plant a roadside bomb. He violated my rights. Come on wise guy, give me answer not a tired, repeated sound bite.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by papaspot

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

The problem is...the Constitution does not cover every possible scenario and certainly does not euclidate what should be done in situations such as these.

This is why it vests Congress with the right to promulgate the laws to fill in these gaps.  

Congress has acted and now it's up to the SPCT to say whether that law was constitutional or not.

Even if they find that the Constitution was violated, Congress may override the SPCT by limiting its jurisdiction.

All of what has happened up to this point has followed the Constitutionally madated procedures.  

Whether we like what conclusions have been drawn is personal opinion, but Constitutional procedure has been followed.  You and I can argue about it all day, but that is what the legal and political process is for.  We are only spectators.

Yes, the process is being followed by it ain't over yet. And I was impressed that SCOTUS didn't allow Bush to try to skirt the Constitution by making last minute changes to try to prevent a case from being heard by them so that no ruling would be made and his options would have still been (in his opinion) open.

None of what was stated in the Hamdan case matters now that we have the Detainee Bill and it allows military tribunals for these individuals.

Until the Detainee Bill is challenged and/or ruled unconstitutional by the high court, which it WILL NOT be, we will have tribunals for Hamdan and any other enemy combatant found prancing around on theater of operations.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

It's not what due process means you simpleton, it's who is entitled to it. Since you have read the constitution, show me where it says that persons captured on the battlefields in Afghanistan or Iraq are entitled to habeas relief? The Congress and President responded to the Supreme Court's issues raised in Hamdi. What more do you want?
And also, by due process, are you referring to substantive due process or procedural? Should we give these terrorists attorneys and speedy public trials at the expense of the taxpayer? Should we give terrorists the rights to sue our soldiers in federal court for damages under § 1983? I can just see it now, G.I. Joe shot me too many times when I was trying to plant a roadside bomb. He violated my rights. Come on wise guy, give me answer not a tired, repeated sound bite.

Be nice guido, we don't want them shutting down this thread do we?

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

It's not what due process means you simpleton

Typical of someone of your mentality to resort so quickly to name calling. I guess it means you've run out of intelligent things to say. THAT sure didn't take very long.

quote:
it's who is entitled to it. Since you have read the constitution, show me where it says that persons captured on the battlefields in Afghanistan or Iraq are entitled to habeas relief?

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I don't know if it's possible to make this simple enough for you to understand but "any person" includes all living human beings.

quote:
The Congress and President responded to the Supreme Court's issues raised in Hamdi. What more do you want?
And also, by due process, are you referring to substantive due process or procedural? Should we give these terrorists attorneys and speedy public trials at the expense of the taxpayer? Should we give terrorists the rights to sue our soldiers in federal court for damages under § 1983? I can just see it now, G.I. Joe shot me too many times when I was trying to plant a roadside bomb. He violated my rights. Come on wise guy, give me answer not a tired, repeated sound bite.

For someone who can't answer a simple question, you're pretty quick to demand answers yourself. Maybe you didn't understand the question. To tell ya the truth, I don't know how to simplify it any more. Without due process, how do you know who is and isn't a terrorist? Is it by the color of their skin? Is it by their nationality? Is it by their religious belief? Is the question confusing to you? Maybe someone else can explain it in terms you can understand. I'm at a loss as to how to make it any simpler.

[iplaw]

quote:
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;

You ignore the entire phrase that comes before "any person."  Anyways, the term "any person" has been adjudicated NOT to include war criminals which is why we have military tribunals.  If everyone were entitled to indictment by a grand jury then military tribunals wouldn't exist.

Also, to be a stickler, what you highlighted says that every person has the right to be protected from double jeopardy.  You should have emboldened the term persons in the first sentence...

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;

You ignore the entire phrase that comes before "any person."  Anyways, the term "any person" has been adjudicated NOT to include war criminals which is why we have military tribunals.  If everyone were entitled to indictment by a grand jury then military tribunals wouldn't exist.

No, I didn't ignore it. There is more than one thing addressed in that amendment.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger..."

The first part addresses being held for capital or infamous crimes and exempts certain people. The second and subsequent parts address other matters and don't state any exemptions.

quote:
Also, to be a stickler, what you highlighted says that every person has the right to be protected from double jeopardy.  You should have emboldened the term persons in the first sentence...

Sorry, iplaw but I have no idea what you're trying to say there.

[aoxamaxoa]

Keith Olbermann will be giving a special commentary tonight on President Bush's destruction of habeas corpus. It should be a doozy.  

Let's drive O'Reilly nuts!  Watch Keith.