Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm just talking about access to the courts. Should people who are detained or tortured by our government have any ability to go to our courts to try to seek relief?

I don't think they have any constitutional right to access to our courts. In other words, unless congress acts they don't have this right. Whether or not Congress should set up such a right, I don't think so. But I haven't put that much thought into it. But I do think Congress should pass laws that such activities by the executive should be reviewed by the congress and that certain activities need to be justified to certain committees.

So there should be congressional oversight but not court oversight.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
And they couldn't do this before the Bush administration?

nevermind, I forgot I swore off this FUBAR place.

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
It is kind of ironic that you quote Alexander Hamilton because he was against the current constitution. In addition, it is absurd to quote a man who would have never considered that enemy combatants should have any rights. Do you really believe that Alexander Hamilton thought British soliders caught during the Revolutionary War (which was really a civil war so many of the prisoners of war were residents of the colonies) should have a right to the writ of Habeus Corpus?

Hamilton did (unsuccesfully) plead against the summary execution of Major John Andre.

Maybe that's what he meant.

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
What liberties have I traded away? What can the government do to me now that it couldn't do to me before?

Stop it, Spanky. This changes the hypo.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
I'm not asking you whether you think it's wise to emprison or torture people, innocent or not. My question is solely about whether you think the judicial branch of the federal government has any role to play if the executive branch decides to do these things.

Now you're moving the chains. Before he was "innocent", remember?

If we're holding a Taliban fighter indefinitely so he doesn't go back to his tribe and start trying to shoot American soldiers again, so be it.

Tell me why an unelected judiciary should have any say in this situation?

[SlaveNoMore]

ltl/fb
Like the uranium thing.

Duh.

"British intelligence has learned that..."

[SlaveNoMore]

Quote of the day:

former PM of Malaysia, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad:

"There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim," he said. "We are fundamentalists in Malaysia. We follow the true teachings of the religion and the true teachings do not teach us to bomb and kill people without reason."

Without reason. Thanks for clearing that up, Doc.

[SlaveNoMore]

EOM

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'll just take one example. FISA makes it criminal for the government to engage in wiretapping without a warrant. President Bush asserts the constitutional authority to ignore the plain terms of that law. We thought we had the statutory right to be free of such wiretapping -- turns out no.

Are you saying that the Executive branch of the federal government can consistently listen in on a land line calls, that I make, that originate and end in the United States, without a warrant or without exigent circumstances?

And the courts have said it is OK for them to do this? And if so, the Executive branch wasn't doing this before?

This is the best you can do for rights that I have sacrificed because of my fear of terrorism?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
EOM

Yahtzee? EOM? What am I missing here?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Now you're moving the chains. Before he was "innocent", remember?

Spanky said we'd stopped talking about that, and something about Alzheimer's, so I was just trying to stick with him.

The questions I'm asking about are about access to the courts, not "constitutional rights," etc. Assume someone is innocent, etc., because if they're an enemy combatant or a terrorist they're just not going to win a habeas claim.

If you don't get a habeas claim in these circumstances, then presumably you don't get to go to court to try to stop the government from torturing you, but Spanky seems to be shying away from the implications of that one.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
1) I don't see anyone holding up ALL Senate business and reading from a phone book.

2) You know as well as I that filibusters were never intended to hold up floor votes on nominees. Yet you apparently have no problem with this usurpation of the nomination process, in contravention of the Constitution, by a Senate minority.

3) When (and if) the Dems win back the Senate in 2022, let's see if your view in #2 changes a bit.

I agree with you on what a filibuster *should* be, and the fact that it changed at some point to something less than Richard Russell reading children's books while trying to stop the Civil Righta Act is an outrage.

But that's the way it has been for some time, and that's how tactics like the filibuster and the hold were used in the 1990s against judicial and other nominees of Clinton. Wasn't there an assistant attorney general nominee of his held up in precisely the same way as Bolton by Jesse Helms? Even after a recess appointment, if memory serves. (Bill Lann Lee, maybe? I'll google and edit if need be.)

Where was your constitional outrage then?

eta: I was wrong. Lann never made it out of committee (though, interestingly, a Federalist Society call to arms about him after the recess appointment notes that it was the *Democrats* on the committee that filibustered when it was apparent that he would lose the vote. Kinda funny, no?).

[Hank Chinaski]

Query: now that several, largely Islamic Countries have official condemmed the Pope, do you believe Catholics will start burning the Embassies of these countries?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
Then why didn't they place such rights in the constitution or the bill of rights? Can you imagine if we gave the writ of habeas corpus during WWII to all enemy combatants? We would still be hearing the cases. We sure as hell didn't give it to enemy combatants during the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812.

Prior to Gerald Ford the executive branch could order the CIA to kill people. Let alone hold them indefinitely.

As long as these groups are at "war" with the US we can hold on to their people indefinitely.

Actually, it is in the Constitution:

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." (Article One, section nine).

The only other time in history the writ has formally been suspended was during the Civil War. Incidentally, another presedent from the Civil War era seems apporpriate today. In Ex Parte Milligan, 71 US 2 (1866), the Court held that the only lawful circumstances in which civilians may be tried by miliitary tribunals is when civilian courts have been suspended by war or insurrection.

So, with all due respect, you are wrong.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
I want all foreigners to have rights. But unfortunately the ones to give it to them are the country in which they are a citizen, not the United States. If their country of origin gives them such rights then we most likely have a treaty with that country and that country can protect its citizens rights through diplomatic channels. But it would be impracticable at the current time for the United States to enforce humans rights for any human any where in the world.

The maker would like all humans to have these rights but not every country gives them. Right now that is beyond our immediate control. We can only be responsible for the people in our own country.

If you believe every person should get a writ of Habeus Corpus anywhere in the world then why don't we just enforce that rule all over the world? If someone is detained in another country and not given that right we should make sure they do. Why should it matter if it is the United States infringing on that right or someon else?

You don't seem to think it is that important that the people that lived under Saddam Hussein should get any rights - you have said over and over again that bringing basic human rights to the people of Iraq was not of enough justification to invade. Why the concern for the universal rights of man, but only when the United States is infringing on those rights? Every country can ignore these rights but the United States?

That is just absurd.



I don't want to limit it, I just don't want to expand it. You are the one messing with it. The writ of Habeus Corpus has always been limited to the citizens (or at least resident and legal guests) of the particular jurisdiction applying it. But courts, as far as I know, have never had the right to apply it out of their jurisdiction under common law.

That sounds a bit like waffling. If there is a universal moral code, then we should be following it everywhere, irrespective of what other nations do with their nationals.