RIP Habeus Corpus for American Citizens [Archive]

Boogyman

10-17-2006, 19:49

"President Bush this morning proudly signed into law a bill that critics consider one of the most un-American in the nation's long history.

The new law vaguely bans torture -- but makes the administration the arbiter of what is torture and what isn't. It allows the president to imprison indefinitely anyone he decides falls under a wide-ranging new definition of unlawful combatant. It suspends the Great Writ of habeas corpus for detainees. It allows coerced testimony at trial. It immunizes retroactively interrogators who may have engaged in torture."

Boogyman

10-17-2006, 19:56

Not too sure American Citizens are included in this Bill
" It allows the president to imprison indefinitely anyone he decides falls under a wide-ranging new definition of unlawful combatant."

"Anyone" means anyone... including American citizens. Once you are imprisoned, you become a "detainee".

"It suspends the Great Writ of habeas corpus for detainees."

ShootinDave

10-17-2006, 20:29

Yes BUT, On June 28th, 2004 the supreme court ruled in the Yaser Esam Hamdi case that US citizens CANNOT be lumped into the group called unlawful combatants.

From O'Conner's winning opinion: "We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."

So, no this DOES NOT affect US citizens.

- Dave

Boogyman

10-17-2006, 22:49

Yes BUT, On June 28th, 2004
That was in 2004.

This was signed into law today.

New law makes old law obsolete. You don't need a law degree to know that.
So, no this DOES NOT affect US citizens.
You seem to be so sure of yourself, Dave.

Is it because you really know that, or you just don't want to believe otherwise?

ShootinDave

10-17-2006, 23:49

The US Supreme Court made this decision.... you look it up if you are so sure. That means the year ISNT important. TRUST ME.... I am as much against ALL of this action against the Constitution as you are, it makes me sick.... I am just trying to convey what is going on. The US Surpeme Court ruled that illegal cambatants cannot be US citizens..... i don't know what else to say untill you look for yourself and see.<_<

I am not saying that the Constitution isn't being SH1T on.... i'm just saying that this bill cannot touch US citizens.... it's plain and simple.

NOBODY can make law that over rules the Suprme Court. And they have said that this law on terror and its special judicial rules CANNOT affect US citizens. Read up on it.
- Dave

Boogyman

10-18-2006, 00:58

TRUST ME

this bill cannot touch US citizens.... it's plain and simple.

this law on terror and its special judicial rules CANNOT affect US citizens.
I sure hope you are right, Dave.

freesw

10-18-2006, 22:10

I would not be so sure. The Supreme Court has asked for legislation to "clarify" a number of issues, and it is not at all clear that now that such legislation has passed into law, the Supreme Court will rule on it again.
This law was designed to be deliberately vague, and all the assurances that it is intended to be applied to one class of people will soon be forgotten, leaving only the law itself. A very broad, vague, and sweeping law.

Again, Keith Olbermann cuts through the administration's rhetoric to get to the bottom line of the matter:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15321167/

If this far reaching legislation does not apply to US citizens, can not apply to US citizens, then why does the law not make definite provisions to that effect?

And by the way, habeas corpus is a foundation stone of liberty and freedom that goes all the way back to the Magna Carta, long before there was such a thing as a US citizen. I hope the fact - FACT - that the Bush administration and their lackeys in congress have demolished that fundamental self-evident right, a right integral to humanity, not only US citizens, gives all Americans pause and leads to a rethinking of the benefits of having such dangerous radicals in office.

Dutch Nick

10-19-2006, 08:30

The Military Commissions Act lists specific acts that constitute grave breaches of Common Article 3, and thus constitute war crimes. The list includes torture and "cruel or inhuman treatment," but these come with a crucial limitation.

The MCA makes applicable to U.S. personnel accused of violating Common Article 3 between September 11, 2001 and December 30, 2005, a defense established by the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA), which was enacted on the latter date. Such personnel may escape criminal conviction for waterboarding and like practices if they believed in good faith that what they were doing was lawful. The relevant provision of the DTA in turn makes reliance on memos of the sort produced by the Justice Department "an important factor" in determining knowledge and good faith.

Indeed, the Administration and many of its allies in Congress refuse even to say whether they think that the MCA prohibits future waterboarding. They argue that stating what specific practices are forbidden would give our enemies an advantage, because these enemies could then focus their training on methods of resisting only those harsh interrogation methods that are permitted; yet the Administration and its allies simultaneously argue that the MCA is needed to tell our own interrogators exactly what they can and cannot do. They do not explain how the same language of the law can somehow provide guidance to our troops and civilian interrogators, but not to the enemy.

Back when we had a moral government in Washington......in 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.

Isn't it amazing, what "We, The People" are now willing to be done in our names.

Shame on You, America... Shame On Us All.

chrisb

10-19-2006, 09:04

God forbid they water board a terrorist that would love to slice my kids throat from ear to ear. They apparently did it to KSM and he talked. I have zero problem with this at all. Do it in my name all day long.

Damn dude. If you are going to plagiarize the WP at least change some words up.

the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of water boarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.

Asano did a lot more than a little water boarding. Check your facts before you plagiarize someone else that obviously left out some important pieces.

Charge: Violation of the Laws and Customs of War: 1. Did willfully and unlawfully mistreat and torture PWs. 2. Did unlawfully take and convert to his own use Red Cross packages and supplies intended for PWs.

Specifications:beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; water torture; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~warcrime/Japan/Yokohama/Reviews/Yokohama_Review_Asano.htm

The argument is a fallacy anyway. People like KSM are not prisoners of war.

ShootinDave

10-19-2006, 09:19

I'm suprised at how much info some people take to heart, that is provided by one little group. How do you know all of these people are terrorists, you don't, and for four years the Bush Adim. didn't want anyone to know either by not providing these people with judicial rights. If they are all terrorists they should be givin hearings immediately after capture and get the ball rolling on trials. You can't just hold people, torture them and let them go!

After all WE are the America that demanded trials for Nazi's post WWII when the Brits and USSR wanted hangings in the streat! I thought we were behind all of this state of mind that others don't get the same rights we have.

After all, how many wars has America fought in order to spread the "American" way, seems kinda silly to sh1t all over the American way here.

- Dave

chrisb

10-19-2006, 09:23

Maybe you should study our history of warfare a little more before assuming we are somehow gravely crapping on our history here.:)

Checking out the yearly review and other judicial procedures in use at Gitmo probably would not be a bad idea either.

Boogyman

10-19-2006, 10:34

God forbid they water board a terrorist that would love to slice my kids throat from ear to ear.
You don't get it, do you?

What if the people who are tortured aren't "throat-slicing terrorists"? What if they turn out to be completely innocent?

And what happens to our troops when they are captured? If we do it, there's not much we can say if they do, is there?
I have zero problem with this at all. Do it in my name all day long.
Maybe you have no problem sinking down to the worst level of human cruelty and depravity possible, but I do.

Not in MY name. :angry:

chrisb

10-19-2006, 11:32

Cry me a river. They chop off our soldiers heads and burn their bodies. A little water boarding and tough questions is fair if you ask me. Maybe you should watch the Nick Berg video, read what water boarding is, and get back to me.:rolleyes:

Additionally I don't see the water boarding method as torture. Scary sure. Torture no. I am glad you got to get your 'Not in my name' line in though. Very impressive. Comparing yelling at a guy, keeping him awake, and pouring some water on his face to 'the worst level of human cruelty' is about as stupid as it gets. Put down the kool-aid man.

The prisoners in America's prisons have it worse than these terrorists at Gitmo.

Boogyman

10-19-2006, 12:48

I don't see the water boarding method as torture. Scary sure. Torture no.
Then you won't mind if someone does it to you. Hell, you might even like it.
I am glad you got to get your 'Not in my name' line in though.
You don't speak for me. You don't speak for America either. Have you watched any news lately?
Comparing yelling at a guy, keeping him awake, and pouring some water on his face to 'the worst level of human cruelty' is about as stupid as it gets.
Stupid? Fine. If having a strong sense of morality, integrity, and resistance against sinking down to the level of thugs and criminals is stupid, then I'm that.

It's so predictable how mentalities like yours always resort to name-calling eventually. :rolleyes:

chrisb

10-19-2006, 12:53

Hold on. I never said you were stupid. I think you are obviously an intelligent person.

Your comparing water boarding to the worst the human mind can come up with is stupid. It is a joke really.

Yeah I would mind if someone did it to me. What a horrible argument. I wouldn't like being in prison either.:rolleyes:

What news? The polls that say people are against the war in Iraq? I assume that is what you are talking about. What does that have to do with the treatment of terrorist prisoners?

Boogyman

10-19-2006, 13:25

Hold on. I never said you were stupid. I think you are obviously an intelligent person.

Your comparing water boarding to the worst the human mind can come up with is stupid. It is a joke really.
You're not calling me stupid, yet you call what I say stupid?

That's a joke alright. :blink:
Yeah I would mind if someone did it to me. What a horrible argument.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." What a horrible argument. :rolleyes:

chrisb

10-19-2006, 13:28

Boogyman

10-19-2006, 13:37

I am calling your argument stupid. If I thought you were a moron I wouldn't waste my time arguing with you. The fact that it is fun has nothing to do with it.;)

The golden rule is kind of foolish when it comes to war don't you think? I mean hell, why don't we just quit fighting them completely?
Im talking about things like honor, integrity, fair treatment of prisoners, upholding the morality of America. You call that "foolish"?

You want to throw all that out in the name of war? I've seen that happen, and I still have trouble sleeping.

My Dad used to say "You can lose your money, your house, even your family. But if you lose your honor, then you have truly lost everything."

chrisb

10-19-2006, 13:43

I think it is fair treatment. I am not advocating torturing of anyone. These people are not soldiers. They aren't in an foreign military. They are evil killers. They want to cause as much destruction as possible. If scaring the hell out of them without actually torturing them will get them talking I don't see the problem. We still have the moral high ground. We aren't talking about questioning a private in the German army to figure out where his unit was going next to attack our military forces. We are talking about getting the information from the people that are planning the next 9/11. Several plots have already been foiled.

Do you really think water boarding someone is the same thing as cutting off their nuts, or raping their daughter in front of them? That is torture. Using electricity, mutilating their body, using their families lives against them, burning them. All those things are torture. Creating the artificial sensation of drowning with no risk of death, or permanent injury simply isn't.

I myself have never served. My family has sacrificed for this country substantially though. I appreciate your service more than you can know. I really do mean that.

Boogyman

10-19-2006, 14:06

I think it is fair treatment.
Do you really think water boarding someone is the same thing as cutting off their nuts, or raping their daughter in front of them? That is torture. Using electricity, mutilating their body, using their families lives against them, burning them. All those things are torture. Creating the artificial sensation of drowning with no risk of death, or permanent injury simply isn't.
It's obviously not the same thing, but just because you "think it is fair treatment" doesn't mean it doesn't fall under the definition of "torture" THAT is what this thread is about.

Who gets to decide what is torture and what isn't? The "Decider"?

Where do you draw the line?
I myself have never served. My family has sacrificed for this country substantially though. I appreciate your service more than you can know. I really do mean that.
Thank you. I mean that also.

chrisb

10-19-2006, 14:19

So your solution is name, rank, and serial number?

Boogyman

10-19-2006, 15:17

So your solution is name, rank, and serial number?
Solution to what? I'm not the one who is abolishing Habeus Corpus, or re-defining the definitions of torture under the Geneva Convention. I'm not the one that wants to put anyone I please in prison and do whatever I want to them. I'm not the "Decider".

I've already stated where I stand on this issue. The problem is the eroding of our constitution by the current administration. The solution is to stop them.

I'll do my part this November 7th.

chrisb

10-19-2006, 15:19

Solution to what? I'm not the one who is abolishing Habeus Corpus, or re-defining the definitions of torture under the Geneva Convention. I'm not the one that wants to put anyone I please in prison and do whatever I want to them. I'm not the "Decider".

I've already stated where I stand on this issue. The problem is the eroding of our constitution by the current administration. The solution is to stop them.

I'll do my part this November 7th.

Did POW's during WW2 have habeus corpus rights?

I will be canceling your vote. :D

Honestly the title of this thread and your presumption that it is true is a complete farce. It says specifically 'ALIENS'.

Boogyman

10-19-2006, 15:38

Did POW's during WW2 have habeus corpus rights?They were protected under the Geneva Convention. Those that did not follow the GC were punished at war's end. The ones that weren't should have been.
I will be canceling your vote. :D
Not unless you live in my district in my state.
Honestly the title of this thread and your presumption that it is true is a complete farce. It says specifically 'ALIENS'.
That's your interpretation. It does NOT "specifically" exclude American citizens. It is deliberately vague. Why? Why not just include the phrase "This does not apply to American citizens"? Sure would have put this argument to rest, wouldn't it? Yet they did not.

What is truly a "complete farce" is the trust that you and others seem to put into this administration.

ice-nine

10-19-2006, 15:38

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/bills/s_3930/

see: "more information on this bill" -> "Text of Legislation"

SEC. 7. HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS.
(a) In General- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking both the subsection (e) added by section 1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2742) and the subsection (e) added by added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law 109-163 (119 Stat. 3477) and inserting the following new subsection (e):
`(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.
`(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.'.
(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001.

chrisb

10-19-2006, 15:41

Maybe you need to adjust those readers a bit.:lol:

Boogyman

10-19-2006, 15:47

To repeat myself:
Why not just include the phrase "This does not apply to American citizens"? Sure would have put this argument to rest, wouldn't it? Yet they did not.

ice-nine

10-19-2006, 16:00

Main Entry: 1 alien
Pronunciation: 'A-lE-&n, 'Al-y&n
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin alienus, from alius
1 a : belonging or relating to another person, place, or thing : STRANGE
1 b : relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or government : FOREIGN c : EXOTIC 1
2 : differing in nature or character typically to the point of incompatibility
synonym see EXTRINSIC
- alien·ly adverb
- alien·ness /-lE-&n-n&s, -y&n-n&s/ noun

chrisb

10-19-2006, 16:01

WTF? Alien means not an American citizen.

freesw

10-19-2006, 16:01

I considered changing the title of the thread, after realizing that the information that I thought was correct is, in fact, dubious at best and probably incorrect. The reason I did not change it was that already there had been enough replies responding to the original title that I thought it would be confusing to readers and perhaps even seen as an attempt on my part to deny what I had originally written, which of course I would not want to do.

Having said that, I still believe that the legislation is an outrage, for at least two reasons. One is the pre-emptive pardoning of the entire Bush administration for any wrongdoing - crimes - they may commit in the name of the "war on terror." Outrageous. Two is the total abdication of habeas corpus for non-US citizens. chrisb, you talk about "them" as cutthroats and murderers, which no doubt some of "them" are. What you fail to admit is that there is no protection at all for anyone mistakenly or maliciously (deliberately even though in error) rounded up under a false accusation. This could easily end up including American citizens, because once detained, who in the world can come to the person's defence? That's just the point - no one can. The person has been effectively "disappeared."

Again, recall that Habeas Corpus is a bedrock foundation of our American liberties. As a defense against tyrannical and arbitrary abuse of power, it came into being as a point of law in the year 1215, as a key right set forth in the Magna Carta. Look it up if you don't appreciate its crucial role in the origins of American law and liberty. Our founding fathers didn't write in the Declaration of Independence that "these truths are self-evident" based on the fact that they were Americans, No! They are based on the fact that they were men - human beings!

I join those that say that the Bush administration and their rubber stamp congress has besmirched the basis of what America stands for, and worse: they threaten our "way of life" far more than Al Qaeda ever could on their own.

Boogyman

10-19-2006, 16:13

WTF? Alien means not an American citizen.
Then why not make it crystal clear and put in one little phrase like "this will NOT apply to American citizens? Why don't you answer the question?

A law this important needs to be absolutely clear, and not subject to twisting by some fancy lawyer.

And why are you defending this anyway? Do you actually want Bush & Cronies to have absolute power? :wacko:

chrisb

10-20-2006, 07:06

Boogyman

10-20-2006, 08:54

Yes I want the administration to be able to handle these people however they need to in order to protect the American people. They have already been successful in foiling many plots. Additionally I don't want these scumbags making a mockery of our court systems. I don't want to see them on TV and I don't want a public forum for them to spew their hate. The military is more than capable of handling them, and I for one am glad they are.
Safety at the expense of Liberty is not acceptable.

The big difference between you and I is that you trust the Bushies and I don't. And quite frankly, I feel that anyone who still trusts this administration is either very gullible or very stubborn.

You say they've "been succesful foiling many plots", and I say they've lied and manipulated the truth many times to make themselves look like they "foiled" plots.

It's like saying my "Anti-Comet Machine" has been very successful preventing any comets from hitting the earth... :rolleyes:

You still haven't answered my question.

chrisb

10-20-2006, 08:56

I don't see us citizens losing liberty. I keep hearing you people say that, but my liberty has not been affected in the least.

Your paranoia over the plots that have been foiled is not reasonable. It is an emotional argument. If you have evidence that they have done this please bring it up, otherwise it just isn't credible.

Your question was flawed anyway. This bill doesn't grant them absolute power. Just because you say it does, and ask me to defend that position does not mean it is so.

Boogyman

10-20-2006, 09:24

I don't see us citizens losing liberty.
Good grief, you really are in denial! Read the Patriot Act, fer Chrissakes! :lol:
Your paranoia over the plots that have been foiled is not reasonable. It is an emotional argument. If you have evidence that they have done this please bring it up, otherwise it just isn't credible.
You asked for it:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060820&articleId=3009
Your question was flawed anyway. This bill doesn't grant them absolute power. Just because you say it does, and ask me to defend that position does not mean it is so.
Wrong question:
Then why not make it crystal clear and put in one little phrase like "this will NOT apply to American citizens?"

freesw

10-20-2006, 16:39

It is telling, chrisb, that you persist in referring to "these people," ignoring the fact that the entire planet is now subject to arbitary detainment of unlimited duration with absolutely zero recourse to any judge or lawyer or anybody whatsoever for the detained. You have an awful lot of unreasonable faith that it is only terrorists that get caught up in the sweeps. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 will not only harm "scumbags," it will also harm innocent persons as well, and that they may not be American citizens should not be cause for indifference. When the United States of America passes legislation that puts everyone in the world on notice that they have absolutely no recourse whatsoever under the laws of the United States, that sends a clear message - that the leadership of the most powerful nation in the world - and by extension the entire nation - is abandoning the high road, abdicating our role as the world's beacon of liberty, and now exists first and foremost merely to perpetuate our status as the world's sole remaining superpower.

Some see clearly the tragedy and serious danger in this, obviously many others do not. Something went terribly wrong during the last few decades in the civic education of the American people, that so many are silent at this time, not only about this latest outrage, but the incremental steps leading to it..and beyond.

Hoodoo

10-22-2006, 09:27

Yes, Bush has gutted the Fourth Amendment and done little to protect the others. The Dems have eviscerated the Second Amendment and are working on the first. evidently some are willing to accept loss of the Second only to become excited over the loss of any of the others. Once one of them was lost it was a foregone conclusion that the others would follow. stay tuned for the total collapse of freedom in America.

chrisb

10-23-2006, 15:54

It is crystal clear dude. Alien = not a US citizen. Sorry they didn't consult you on the language. You obviously want to stir up some sort of conspiracy where there isn't one.:rolleyes:

markw76

10-23-2006, 18:43

The biggest weak point in this whole exchange is the initial source of the information. The WP has long had a thing for going after conservatives in general and Bush specifically. It colors everything they report regarding politics.
American citizens engaging in acts like those specified should be dealt with as traitors. I think only one actually has to date however. Illegal combatants are simply those not in a standing military force. Civilians/spies/no uniforms, etc.
At the risk of rehashing old arguments, I thought the Geneva Convention only covered uniformed, legal, combatants. There is as much misinformation concerning the GC as there is the separation of Church and State/Freedom of Religion, not Freedom from Religion issue. I'll admit to being distracted by all the misinformation, and I don't have hardcopy text of it at my side, so I can't quote specifics. <_< I don't like the way Bush and many Republicrats are behaving either. I hope an alternative comes to the for before too much time goes by, but I'm not counting on anything but bad news.

freesw

10-24-2006, 16:04

Habeus Corpus predates the Geneva Convention by seven centuries, and the US Bill of Rights by five and a half. It is a fundamental right guaranteed by all civilized societies, and for obvious reasons. At least in some reasonable form. By explicitly doing away with it for anyone deemed an "enemy combatant," Bush & Co. have essentially legalized "disappearing" people, anyone really, for who can come to their defense? This is a practice unworthy of a military dictatorship, even, how much more so a constitutional republic such as ours.

Killer@nz

10-24-2006, 18:06

chrisb

10-25-2006, 07:15

Interestingly Habeas Corpus was used in modern law in my country just recently.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10407529

It is ironic that more press has not been given to this internationally because, and feel free to correct me if I am wrong, your President has basically made it OK to torture and abuse foreign nationals who in turn have no recourse.

That makes me a little nervous as you may well understand....being a foreign national and all......

You are totally wrong. He has not made it OK to torture anyone.:rolleyes:

Those opposed to this ignore the fact that those held already are reviewed yearly by a military panel, and will be tried by military judicial proceedings.