• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Habeas Corpus Restoration Act

thinkingaboutit

Critical Thinker
thinkingaboutit
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
311
Are you for or against it? Why?

Basically this restores the right of habeas corpus to those deemed as enemy combatants. (Some may remember this right was taken away by the last congress via the Military Commissions Act)

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT][/FONT]
 
thinkingaboutit said:
Are you for or against it? Why?

Basically this restores the right of habeas corpus to those deemed as enemy combatants. (Some may remember this right was taken away by the last congress via the Military Commissions Act)

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT][/FONT]
Click to expand...
Can you provide more information? A relevant link, perhaps?
 
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040207J.shtml

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The principal issue in this latest chapter of the detainee drama is whether Congress will, on its own, vote to reconsider a key provision of legislation it passed last year at the suggestion of the Supreme Court - or whether the case will get to the court before lawmakers have a chance to vote.[/FONT][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Legal advocacy organizations such as the Center for Constitutional Rights have already petitioned the high court to review the MCA, and have asked for oral arguments before summer.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Their action has been accelerated by the recent decision of a lower federal appeals court, which ruled 2-1 that detainees in US custody at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have no right to challenge their imprisonment in federal courts.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The court's decision found that overruling the MCA would "defy the will of Congress," and asserted that habeas corpus does not apply to foreigners who are not in the US. It effectively ruled that the US Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay is a property leased by the US from Cuba, and that Cuba has sovereignty over it.[/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]...[/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In his brief, Senator Specter writes, "Congress has struggled with the important constitutional questions presented in these cases. The arguments have been aired and re-aired. The time is ripe for this court to address the constitutional infirmity of the MCA's attempt to curtail the right of habeas corpus. Habeas must be restored to ensure that the rule of law prevails at Guantánamo."[/FONT][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Wells Dixon, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights Guantánamo Global Justice Initiative, said, "We are pleased that Senator Specter has joined us in asking the court to reaffirm the right of the detainees to challenge their detention in a court of law. This will be the third time the court rules on this issue while our clients have languished for more than five years without a chance to prove their innocence or even, in some cases, have access to an attorney. It is time to return to the rule of law on which our country was founded."
Click to expand...
[/FONT][/FONT]
 
The writ of habeus corpus should be extended to everyone as a basic human right.

Don't think so? You would if you found yourself in the slammer wondering why the hell you were there.
 
I am against it. Combatant detainees have never been extended the privilege of habeas corpus and I see no reason at this point to undermine the protections afforded non-combatant populations by the Geneva Conventions by doing an end run around their combatant responsibilities.
 
Everyone should be able to know charges against them and have the right to defend themselves. even terrorists.

why? what if its a case of mistaken identity? what if they actually aren't guilty of doing anything? what if they were framed?

thats why.
 
parky76 said:
Everyone should be able to know charges against them and have the right to defend themselves. even terrorists.

why? what if its a case of mistaken identity? what if they actually aren't guilty of doing anything? what if they were framed?

thats why.
Click to expand...

Writs of habeas do not protect innocent people from detention.
 
Cylinder said:
I am against it. Combatant detainees have never been extended the privilege of habeas corpus and I see no reason at this point to undermine the protections afforded non-combatant populations by the Geneva Conventions by doing an end run around their combatant responsibilities.
Click to expand...

The reason is to prevent the denying of habeus corpus to individuals that DO have that privilege, but were placed with "enemy combatants" and denied the opportunity to demonstrate it.

If there is any group that does not have the right of habeus corpus--by the mere decree of government--then that right is not secure for anyone, because by decree anyone can be declared a member of that group, and then that decree cannot be questioned because they do not have habeus corpus.

If it takes more than a decree of government, is that truly different from offering them habeus corpus in the first place?

I can demonstrate by example if you wish.
 
Why is everyone afraid of a little due process. We brag about our freedoms but when push comes to shove, we dont trust our own system of justice???.
 
Last edited:
kalen said:
The writ of habeus corpus should be extended to everyone as a basic human right.

Don't think so? You would if you found yourself in the slammer wondering why the hell you were there.
Click to expand...

What if I started wondering why the hell I was there, and I realized I had been engaged in trying to bomb civilians?
 
Tmy said:
Why is everyone afraid of a little due process. We brag about our freedoms but when push comes to shove, we dont trust our own system of justice???.
Click to expand...

I think it is interesting that the same people who defend surveillance authorized by the Patriot Act on the grounds that "if you don't have anythign to hide, then why are you worried" are afraid to give habeas corpus to all detainees.

Hey, if there is actually a reason they should be detained, then why are you afraid of allowing them to ask why?
 
The Constitution allows for the removal of habeus corpus. But it should only be removed when the situation does not allow us to perform a proper investigation or an extreme emergency exists.

Those in Gitmo may or may not be guilty. As a skeptic, wouldn't you want to see evidence of guilt BEFORE locking someone away?
 
KingMerv00 said:
The Constitution allows for the removal of habeus corpus. But it should only be removed when the situation does not allow us to perform a proper investigation or an extreme emergency exists.

Those in Gitmo may or may not be guilty. As a skeptic, wouldn't you want to see evidence of guilt BEFORE locking someone away?
Click to expand...

Hell, I'm prepared to make the concession that people captured as combatants can be locked away for our protection... just not that they should remain so without a fair examination of their legal status within a reasonable amount of time.
 
Ok... here's a bin of people incarcerated or detained for whatever reason.

Everyone in the bin has the right to question whether they ought to be there.

Except let's have a hole in the middle, and if we drop someone in that hole, they're not allowed to question their status legally. BUT we PROMISE we'll only put "enemy combatants" in that hole.
 
Cylinder said:
I am against it. Combatant detainees have never been extended the privilege of habeas corpus and I see no reason at this point to undermine the protections afforded non-combatant populations by the Geneva Conventions by doing an end run around their combatant responsibilities.
Click to expand...
Not entirely true, though I am speaking as a military man and not a lawyer.

Combatant detainees not suspected of a crime (i.e., who are detainees solely by virtue of having been captured as an enemy combatant) must be treated humanely until release.

Combatant detainees suspected of a crime (either prior to capture or after capture) are, under Geneva-Hague, supposed to be afforded a legitimate trial including the provision of evidence.
 
Garrette said:
Combatant detainees suspected of a crime (either prior to capture or after capture) are, under Geneva-Hague, supposed to be afforded a legitimate trial including the provision of evidence.
Click to expand...

..which is provided for by the MCA - including civilian review of tribunal convictions - same as it ever was. In 1942 (?), when the Quirin petitioners sought relief by way of writs in federal court, they were refused for lack of jurisdiction until the tribunal system had rendered judgment. At that point, the courts granted their writ of certiorari but found that the defendants did in fact fall under the class of persons for whom writs of habeas had been suspended by Congress and that Congress did have the power under the US Constitution to suspend writs.

Speaking as a military person, do you believe that combatants whose main tactic is acts of perfidy against civilian population should be subject to the same rules of treatment as uniform combatants that as a whole obey the laws and customs of war?

Let's put you in charge of a platoon tasked with clearing a stretch of highway for an upcoming logistics sortie. After reaching the first village, you follow your ROEs issued by HHQ and ask the local imam for a visit to the mosque. You are invited for the tour the following morning. That night, your platoon is engaged from the mosque with heavy losses. After you re-form and lick your wounds, you resume the clearing op in the next village. You pull out your trusty ROEs and pay a visit to that local imam to ask for a tour...

Combatant responsibilities aren't little technicalities should be overlooked in order to give a sense of warm-n-fuzzies - they are a promise to the opposing force that if they agree to work to ameliorate the affects of armed conflict on the surrounding non-combatant population that this agreement will not be used as a tactical advantage to the extent possible. The reward, as set by the Hague and latter the Geneva Conventions is a special set of protections for captured combatants among others.
 
Cylinder said:
Speaking as a military person, do you believe that combatants whose main tactic is acts of perfidy against civilian population should be subject to the same rules of treatment as uniform combatants that as a whole obey the laws and customs of war?
Click to expand...

This presumes that everyone detained is a non-uniformed war criminal that attacks civilians. Would that it were so simple. We wouldn't need courts at all.
 
gnome said:
This presumes that everyone detained is a non-uniformed war criminal that attacks civilians. Would that it were so simple. We wouldn't need courts at all.
Click to expand...

Detainees are sorted by the Combatant Status Review Tribunal - which goes well beyond the Article 5 requirement of a finding by a "competent tribunal." Putting aside the separation of powers issues for a moment, do you really think that a jurisdiction-shopped federal judge is equipped to set rules of engagement for combatant commanders serving in a war zone thousands of miles away?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom