Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
The problem, like I said before, is we don't want to make it more difficult for the Executive brank to fight the war on terror. That is why I think it would be better to just have congressional review but not have judicial review. Judicial review would muck up the system to much.

What you are saying is profoundly unAmerican. We revolted from English rule to avoid living under an unchecked executive branch. There is a reason why we have checks and balances. The legislative and judicial branches are coequal parts of the government, not mere impediments to the President's wishes.

It's astonishing to me that you can say the things you say in this post and then turn around and suggest that the global war on terrorism does not implicate our rights. If the executive branch is unchecked by the judiciary or the legislature, we have no rights.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by taxwonk
They aren't prisoners of war. If they were, then they would have to have been released when Bush declared formal hostilities against Iraq over. That's required by the Geneva Convention.

If they were POWs, habeas would do them absolutely no good, since no court would overrule the government's decision to hold them. This is why my hypothetical last night specifically referred to someone who is innocent. Every time Spanky or Slave changes the subject to talk about enemy combatants or terrorists or POWs, it reflects a tacit admission.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
We're not talking about any obligation on the part of the US government when, e.g., Libya jails Libyans. We're talking about what happens when the US government jails, e.g., Libyans. You are suggesting that the US government can jail (e.g.) Libyans indefinitely, without giving them the chance to challenge this in court, just so long as it happens outside the 50 United States. (Or maybe you think that foreigners in the United States should be jailed in this way, too.)

Or release them and let them rejoin the insurgents???

In two days, you've yet to explain why any expansion of current Constitutional rights is necessary.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
The whole constitution is limited to US citizens. Or does the bill of rights extend all human being in the world? As far as I know the Constitution does not say that the Bill of Rights only extends to US citizens.

This is false, and what is annoying is that we have had this discussion before -- and I have told you that you're wrong -- but it seems you prefer your own conception of the Constitution to reality.

Some constitutional rights apply equally to aliens. Some apply equally only to some aliens. Some apply only to citizens. I am happy to provide case cites off-line.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
We're not talking about any obligation on the part of the US government when, e.g., Libya jails Libyans. We're talking about what happens when the US government jails, e.g., Libyans. You are suggesting that the US government can jail (e.g.) Libyans indefinitely, without giving them the chance to challenge this in court, just so long as it happens outside the 50 United States. (Or maybe you think that foreigners in the United States should be jailed in this way, too.)

Yes. Unless of course Congress restricts them.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
If they were POWs, habeas would do them absolutely no good, since no court would overrule the government's decision to hold them. This is why my hypothetical last night specifically referred to someone who is innocent. Every time Spanky or Slave changes the subject to talk about enemy combatants or terrorists or POWs, it reflects a tacit admission.

And every time you talk about this "innocent" non-enemy combatant, its makes the hypotetical ludicrous.

Is the US Military sweeping through the streets of Casablanca "rounding up the usual suspects" for the theft of some letters of transit?


PS - I had to come back to the office for a bit

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
I think you are wrong here. I don't think the writ of habeas corpus laid out in the constitution applies to how the officers of the federal government can treat foreign citizens.

This, speaking more broadly, is a rather cramped view of the constitution. The idea that the bill of rights solely vindicates individual liberties is not right.

For example, the 3d amendment, which prohibits/limits the quartering of soldiers in private houses. Is that solely a protection of private property interests? I don't think so--it's designed to place limits on the military, much as the limits of appropriations for the military are limited to two years.

More strongly, first amendment. It's not just for the protection of an individual to speak freely, but rather for a limit on government regulation.

Why is habeas corpus different? It's a check on unfettered exercises of government power. The check is vindicated through individual applications for the writ. But that doesn't mean it's solely for their benefit.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
It's astonishing to me that you can say the things you say in this post and then turn around and suggest that the global war on terrorism does not implicate our rights. If the executive branch is unchecked by the judiciary or the legislature, we have no rights.

Go back and re-read my post about needless Fear Mongering.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore


Is the US Military sweeping through the streets of Casablanca "rounding up the usual suspects" for the theft of some letters of transit?

You have 100% absolute certainty that every detainee in Gitmo has been involved in an active plot to commit war against the United States?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I think you are wrong here. I don't think the writ of habeas corpus laid out in the constitution applies to how the officers of the federal government can treat foreign citizens.

You keep suggesting that habeas is some sort of right to be free, a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card. It doesn't change your right to be released at all. Think of habeas as the mail slot in the courthouse door that lets you tell someone inside that you have a claim. It doesn't change the law which decides whether you have a claim.

If you take habeas away, there may well be no effective way for someone to have a claim heard, even if it is a meritorious claim under the law -- e.g., even if the claimant is completely innocent.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Or release them and let them rejoin the insurgents???

In two days, you've yet to explain why any expansion of current Constitutional rights is necessary.

I've already told you -- more than once -- that I'm not talking about expanding constitutional rights. The Bush Administration is proposing to restrict habeas. And see my post immediately above about the substantive law governing habeas claims.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes. Unless of course Congress restricts them.

That's just ducking the question of what law Congress should adopt. The Bush Administration is proposing a law, not changing the Constitution.

[SlaveNoMore]

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You have 100% absolute certainty that every detainee in Gitmo has been involved in an active plot to commit war against the United States?

How many detainees have we released over the last 4 years?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Go back and re-read my post about needless Fear Mongering.

Go back and re-read my response, fear-mongerer.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
I've already told you -- more than once -- that I'm not talking about expanding constitutional rights. The Bush Administration is proposing to restrict habeas. And see my post immediately above about the substantive law governing habeas claims.

You've already stated that - as it stands right now - they have no right to the writ.

Given the ridiculous activism from the bench in recent years, who's to say that some sympathetic judge who thinks like Wonk won't just find one?

Why wouldn't the administration want to clarify the actual rule with legislation?