Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
"Privilege" that can be suspended. And has been, historically.

Sound to me like an inalienable right? Not so much.

I don't want to argue about the Constitution requires for a couple of reasons. One of them is that because the Administration is proposing to restrict the "privilege" for people outside the country, I assume for these purposes that reasonable people can differ about whether this is constitutional. Also, I'm more interested in arguing about what the law should be than about what it is.

Whether habeas is inalienable or not, the basic proposition -- that you should be able to go to court to challenge the government's confinement of you -- is absolutely bedrock. Are we a nation of laws or men? Do you trust HRC to confine people only for the right reasons? Once the privilege is "suspended," who do you see restoring it?

[SlaveNoMore]

taxwonk
I'm sorry, which of the instances under which the right may be suspended are you referring to, Rebellion or Invasion?

"Privilege", not right.

And since - once again - we're talking about foreigners on foreign soil, we don't YET have to worry about it, do we?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Yes. Their level. We bomb buildings. We encourage our children to murder innocent civilians to "martyr" themselves. We kill journalists who film documentaries. We threaten newspapers that print cartoons.

It's this American self-loathing that makes me ill.

Self-loathing? I think we are above torture and emprisonment, and that's what I'm arguing for. I say these principles are important, and make us a better place than most countries around the world. You're the one who wants us to be able to torture and emprison people without judicial review, like the Zimbabwes and Syrias of the world.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Self-loathing? I think we are above torture and emprisonment, and that's what I'm arguing for. I say these principles are important, and make us a better place than most countries around the world. You're the one who wants us to be able to torture and emprison people without judicial review, like the Zimbabwes and Syrias of the world.

Read the above article about Gitmo.

I was wrong when I said the US Military is not a Holiday Inn. It's more like a Park Hyatt.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Read the above article about Gitmo.

I was wrong when I said the US Military is not a Holiday Inn. It's more like a Park Hyatt.

If conditions there are so delightful, there's no reason not to permit people to seek habeas. Whether or not the military commanders currently running Gitmo are good people, they should not be above the law.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
They took offence to Benedict's quote of historical Muslim violence, and then claimed (threatened?) it might lead to lots of Muslim violence.

While you guys twist in a knot about the habeas corpus rights of some hypothetical "innocent" Syrian pining anyway in some unnamed CIA cell in Turkey, you might want to take a peek through the curtains of your Ivory Tower and take a look at what's going on in the real world.

Why are the two mutually exclusive? Why does supporting access to courts mean that you ignore real world threats? Why does believing in a constitutional principle that this country was founded on and has lasted for over 200 years mean you are living in an Ivory Tower?

This administration has demonstrated a willingness to cast a ridiculously broad net. Of the thousands of people arrested and detained after 9/11, how many had any link to terrorism? How many had any link to serious criminal activity?

Do you really think that, if I believe in the US Constitution, I must also agree with the ridiculous attacks on the Pope?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
"Privilege" that can be suspended. And has been, historically.

Sound to me like an inalienable right? Not so much.

Are we under invasion or rebellion?

Oh, wait -- I forgot. Criticizing Bush = rebellion -- right?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
If conditions there are so delightful, there's no reason not to permit people to seek habeas. Whether or not the military commanders currently running Gitmo are good people, they should not be above the law.

Au contraire. It shows your concerns are unfounded and unnecessary.

BTW - let's talk about practicality for a second. You propose broadening Constitutional protections and unfettered access to the US courts system to foreign nationals (held on foreign soil), presumably arrested during a conflict abroad.

Practically speaking, if given such access, wouldn't there be an unending flood of writ petitions from every last person in custody?

And who is going to hear these claims? We're already on the verge of a Constitutional crisis due to unavailability of Judges - any of you litigators cannot deny this in good faith. Are the judicial filibusters going to end? Is Congress going to authorize 100 new judgeships just to hear these claims?

You and Wonk are always arguing a pragmatic view of the world. Well, here it is.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
Do you really think that, if I believe in the US Constitution, I must also agree with the ridiculous attacks on the Pope?

No, I don't.

But I think that it's disingenuous in times like these to handwring about worst-case Constitutional scenarios that arguably will never happen (like Ty's hypo) outside of a Boalt Hall or Stanford law classroom.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
Are we under invasion or rebellion?

Oh, wait -- I forgot. Criticizing Bush = rebellion -- right?

Sidd - we're overseas and we discussed this.

I haven't read anything about the President suspending anything here in the States, have you?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
No, I don't.

But I think that it's disingenuous in times like these to handwring about worst-case Constitutional scenarios that arguably will never happen (like Ty's hypo) outside of a Boalt Hall or Stanford law classroom.

Ty's absurd suggestion being that the Admin might be holding some people who are not guilty?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Au contraire. It shows your concerns are unfounded and unnecessary.

I don't get this at all. Any whether Gitmo is a Motel 6 or a Ritz Carlton, we're still emprisoning people there, right?

BTW - let's talk about practicality for a second. You propose broadening Constitutional protections and unfettered access to the US courts system to foreign nationals (held on foreign soil), presumably arrested during a conflict abroad.

Practically speaking, if given such access, wouldn't there be an unending flood of writ petitions from every last person in custody?

Why? That makes about as much sense as saying that every prisoner in a state prison is going to file a habeas petition. (Some do, and some of those are meritorious.) If someone is a POW or an enemy combatant, a habeas petition isn't going anywhere. And you know that courts will defer to (e.g.) military tribunals in those circumstances, just as they do now to (e.g.) state courts.

And who is going to hear these claims? We're already on the verge of a Constitutional crisis due to unavailability of Judges - any of you litigators cannot deny this in good faith. Are the judicial filibusters going to end? Is Congress going to authorize 100 new judgeships just to hear these claims?

It should. If we don't have courts to hear the claims of people who are (allegedly) unjustly behind bars, why do we have courts? Just for commercial disputes?

I don't see a crush of habeas petitions now, so I'm unclear why the Bush folks see a crying need to change the law, pragmatically speaking.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
No, I don't.

But I think that it's disingenuous in times like these to handwring about worst-case Constitutional scenarios that arguably will never happen (like Ty's hypo) outside of a Boalt Hall or Stanford law classroom.

Worst-case? It's a worst-case scenario to consider that someone might be behind bars for the wrong reasons? It happens all the time. For whatever reasons, prosecutors make mistakes. And so on. The notion that government institutions don't work perfectly has always been pretty central to conservatism -- why is it so unimaginable here?

[SlaveNoMore]

One of the major talking points of the Democratic party is that its opposition peddles in nothing less than fear-mongering in order to win elections.

Fear of terrorism. Fear of the mulitculturism. Fear of Nancy Pelosi. Whatever.

But ask yourselves this? Who is here is peddling fear?

Fear of our own elected government, that is. Fear of the Executive Branch. Fear of the freest country in the World; a country that offers protections unimagined elsewhere.

And yet the inference from many of your posts that we're nothing more than a moment away from becoming a fascist state. That we need to expand the power of the judiciary - and ways not conceived in 240 years - in order to protect the other citizens of the World from being swept away and locked away forever by the evil #43. When the truth is, we already offer more protections to foreign citizens than any other country on the planet.

Think about it.

PS - I'm out for the rest of the day. If any of you want to continue this offline or later on, you know how to get me.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
One of the major talking points of the Democratic party is that its opposition peddles in nothing less than fear-mongering in order to win elections.

Fear of terrorism. Fear of the mulitculturism. Fear of Nancy Pelosi. Whatever.

But ask yourselves this? Who is here is peddling fear?

Fear of our own elected government, that is. Fear of the Executive Branch. Fear of the freest country in the World; a country that offers protections unimagined elsewhere.

And yet the inference from many of your posts that we're nothing more than a moment away from becoming a fascist state. That we need to expand the power of the judiciary - and ways not conceived in 240 years - in order to protect the other citizens of the World from being swept away and locked away forever by the evil #43. When the truth is, we already offer more protections to foreign citizens than any other country on the planet.

Think about it.

This is wrong. I'm not afraid at all that my government is going to slap me in a prison outside the country. Nor do I think the vast majority of Americans have anything to worry about in this regard. But I don't think we should limit habeas, and I'm willing to stand for that principle even if it means that I experience some notional, tiny increased risk from a terorrist attack. If any one is resting on fear here, it is the conservatives who say that we need to confer unbridled powers on the executive branch to protect us from foreigners who want to kill us.