Posting Towards Gomorrah

[SlaveNoMore]

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

Your response is as ironic as the quote from the Pakistani foreign minister today, as you immediately began squawking about what the Executive might do if left unchecked.

Boo!!!!

[SlaveNoMore]

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
How many detainees have we released over the last 4 years?

So you're saying we did have some innocent ones, and detained them, but figured it all out, and released only the innocent ones and all of the innocent ones?

No bureaucracy has ever had such a perfect record. I doubt this is the first.

[SlaveNoMore]

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So you're saying we did have some innocent ones, and detained them, but figured it all out, and released only the innocent ones and all of the innocent ones?

No bureaucracy has ever had such a perfect record. I doubt this is the first.

But guilt or innocence aside, they are being charged as war combatants. Tyrone has repeatedly claimed that these folks are not at issue.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
But guilt or innocence aside, they are being charged as war combatants. Tyrone has repeatedly claimed that these folks are not at issue.

Then what's to argue about? Habeas reform was 10 years ago, and that's not getting reopened.

If we're not talking about detainees in gitmo and any of these secret CIA camps, what's the issue?

[SlaveNoMore]

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Then what's to argue about? Habeas reform was 10 years ago, and that's not getting reopened.

If we're not talking about detainees in gitmo and any of these secret CIA camps, what's the issue?

Ty's law school hypo about some innocent foreigner that is not a foreign combatant that is being detained overseas.

I appreciate Ty stirring up the chatter with a hypothetical, but the conversation really began to remind me of this.

“All right, settle down, people. We've got a lot to cover, and time is short.”

“There are two kinds of people in business today the quick and the dead. So, rather than waste your time this semester.with a lot of useless theories.we're going to jump right in with both feet and create a fictional company from the ground up. We'll construct our physical plant, we'll set up an efficient administrative and executive structure, then we'll manufacture our product and market it. I think you'll find it very interesting and a lot of fun. So, let's start by looking at construction costs.of our new factory.”

“What's the product?”

“That is immaterial.for the purposes of our discussion here.but if it makes you happy.let's say we're making tape recorders.”

“Tape recorders? Are you kiddin'? The Japs will kill us on the labor costs.”

“OK, fine. Then let's just say they're widgets.”

“What's a widget?”

“It's a fictional product. It doesn't matter.”

“Doesn't matter? Tell that to the bank.”

“Take it easy. It's the first day.”

“On the board, you will see a cost analysis for construction of a building which will encompass both factory and office space and is fully serviced by all utilities, a railroad spur line and a four-bay shipping dock.”

“Hold it, hold it. Why build? You're better off leasing at a buck and a quarter, a buck and a half a square foot. Take your down payment and put it into CDs or something else you can roll over every couple of months.”

“Thank you, Mr. Melon, but we'll be concentrating on finance a little later in the term. For the time being, let's just concentrate on the construction figures, shall we? You'll see the final bottom line requires the factoring in not just the material and construction costs but also the architects' fees and the cost of land servicing.”

“Oh, you left out a bunch of stuff.”

“Oh, really? Like what, for instance?”

“First of all, you have to grease the local politicians.for the sudden zoning problems that always come up. Then there's the kickbacks to the carpenters. And if you plan on using any cement in this building, I'm sure the Teamsters would like to have a little chat with you, and that'll cost you. Don't forget a little something for the building inspectors. There's the long-term costs, such as waste disposal. I don't know if you're familiar with who runs that business, but I assure you, it's not the Boy Scouts.”

“That will be quite enough, Mr. Melon. Maybe bribes and kickbacks and Mafia payoffs are how you do business but they are not part of the legitimate business world and they're certainly not part of anything I'm teaching in this class. Do I make myself clear?”

“Sorry. Just trying to help. That's all.”

“Now, notwithstanding Mr. Melon's input, the next question for us is where to build our factory.”

“How about Fantasyland?”

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

I understand exactly what it means. But giving these guys a right to appeal to our court system and to get a hearing would not only clog the courts but hamper our ability to wage the war on terror. I would prefer that Congress implement some oversight to make sure things are not getting out of hand.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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

I don't think I said, and it's inconsistent with my understanding that the Bush Administration has proposed legislation that would restrict 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?

Bad judges are not a reason to make bad law.

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

"Clarify" in the sense of "limit"?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Your response is as ironic as the quote from the Pakistani foreign minister today, as you immediately began squawking about what the Executive might do if left unchecked.

I'm worried about what the Executive Branch is already doing -- but as a matter of principle.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I understand exactly what it means. But giving these guys a right to appeal to our court system and to get a hearing would not only clog the courts but hamper our ability to wage the war on terror. I would prefer that Congress implement some oversight to make sure things are not getting out of hand.

Same thing if people are being tortured? They get no ability to go to court, and just have to hope that Congress "implements some oversight"?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What you are saying is profoundly unAmerican.

Really.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

You are talking about domestic issues. We fought the revolution so our own government could not discard our rights. Not so our government had to respect someone in Russia's rights. The executive has unchecked power when it comes to foreign policy or military matters. The only check on this power is the Congress not the courts. That is the way it has always been.

Originally posted by 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.

Man. You just don't get it. This is a blanket statement that is so general it is meaningless. You say "if the executive branch is unchecked by the judisiary or the legislature we have no rights." That is true but that is not what we are talking about. We are not saying the the executive branch is unchecked - it is check domestically just no internationally. That is a huge distinction you are ignoring, and the fact that you won't acknowledge that makes all your comments ridiculous.

So if the courts don't control our military's conduct overseas then we have no rights. Give me a break. The courts don't and we still have our rights.

If the Executive runs unchecked internationally that has nothing to do with me. As long as the Executive does not run unchecked domestically we are fine.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by 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?

No - there may be some innocent people in there. But to root out those people, or to insure we don't have innocent people do I want to give all those prisoners access to our court system - no. If we are afraid something is going wrong we can have congress look into it. These people, as far as I know, do not have constitutional rights and we should not give it to them.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore

"Hey, Abu Ali? Do you hear something?

Holy crap! What happened to the sun?

S_A_M

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

No I explained why your wrong. You never explained why my conception of the Constitution is wrong.

But maybe I am wrong. Why don't you lay out which constitutional rights apply equal to aliens. In other words, which constitutional rights apply to all people all over the world.

(And not offline - my experience is people try to go off line when they realize their argument is lame and just don't want it subject to the general public. If it is not worth posting, it is not worth my reading).

[Spanky]

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

Ok. So then we agree these people have no rights under the US constitution.

I think Congress should pass laws restriciting the Executive branch from doing whatever the hell it wants with prisoners. I also think that Congress should make sure the Executive branch is following its directives. But I don't think Congress should give these people acess to the domestic court system. The military court system, maybe, but not the domestic court system.