Abolition of habeas corpus (long)

Great Debates
1

I started this Pit thread to rant about the US abolishing habeas corpus worldwide (registration needed but available at bugmenot.com), bestowing itself with the right to detain anybody indefinitely, anywhere in the world, for any reason or without a reason altogether, without allowing access to a lawyer or allowing the detainees any rights whatsoever. Of all the people who responded, I believe only two were positive. One was Ryan_Liam, a self-confessed troll to whom I find it pointless to respond, and the other was Brutus, who seems to be steadfastly ignoring any and all difficult questions put to him. He has also complained that the Pit is the wrong place to conduct such a discussion, which is obviously correct, so I’m starting this thread instead. Call it a reverse Pitting of Brutus if you will.

One would think that the value of habeas corpus, the right to a fair trial and so forth is self-evident, but apparently it isn’t. Therefore, I will now list my main reasons for opposing the policy described in the link above.

1. Giving government and military this ability makes everybody less safe. Even if everybody in the government and the military is a good, honest, well-meaning person (which is a pretty big fucking IF both in the US and in the rest of the world), there is still the capacity for mistakes. A mistake can now lead to absolutely anybody being whisked away to some prison in an undisclosed location, granted no rights and no ability to protest the detention. This is obviously unsafe and a reason for fear.

Furthermore, even if no mistakes are made, and everybody in the government and the military is a good, honest, well-meaning person (two big ifs), it can still happen to innocents, including the hypothetical lady in Switzerland mentioned in the article. She donated money to an Afghan orphanage and without her knowledge some of it ended up in al-Qaida hands. Wham, she’s a candidate for indefinite incarceration without even knowing why she’s there. No-one’s required to tell her or show her any evidence. We’re in Kafka territory here, folks.

2. The justification for this move is the so-called War on Terror. I’ll support nothing that has no justification besides that war, as it doesn’t exist. The US got hit once, and that was a terrible fucking thing, but that doesn’t make it a war. It’s not an excuse to make the world less safe, curtail civil liberties and abolish legal rights. If you’re going to “solve” the problem of terrorism in that way, why bother? Why fight them, when we are them?

It is also naïve in the extreme to believe that you can destroy terrorism by hunting down and killing individual terrorists. It’s the same kind of logic that led to the creation of those “paramilitary” units in South America, trying to solve the problem of homeless orphans by killing homeless orphans. There are problems behind it that need to be solved. AK47s just aren’t going to do it.

3. You never know who’ll end up in the seat of power. Even if I were an absolutely rock-hard Bush supporter, believing with all my heart and soul that he could do no wrong, nor could anybody in his administration, I’d still be worried about this, because some day Bush isn’t going to be in the White House but someone else will be, and the powers to detain anybody will remain. No matter how much you like the current administration, some day someone you don’t like will be in power. Do you want them to be able to pick you up and label you a terrorist because you don’t agree with their political views? Now, it can happen.

This is why I and World Eater asked Brutus in the aforementioned Pit thread if he would support this policy in the hands of countries like China, the Soviet Union or North Korea, provided they were the sole superpower in the world like the US is know, and thus had the ability to enforce it. He has refused to answer, and I believe it’s because he’d be forced to answer no, which would in turn force him to realise that the policy is a bad idea.

Finally, and this isn’t really a reason to oppose this policy as a source of amazement for me, how come a certain subsection of Americans can be so attached to their freedoms when it comes to issues like gun control (freedom to carry guns) and taxes (freedom to decide what to do with my own money) and use the word “freedom” as a political argument in itself, and then be so ready to give up their most basic freedoms, as well as those of the rest of the world?

2

I remember I asked in that thread for the text of all the international treaties between the USA and all the countries of the world, confirming their permission for the USA to enter their sovereign territory and abduct their civilians.

Salaam. A

3

You did, and you’re still missing the point. The US wasn’t allowed to go into Iraq either, but did. They can do these things, they are doing them, and the absence of such treaties is completely irrelevant. That’s the significance of the “sole superpower” qualifier in my third point.

4

Forgot to say:
For the rest I agree with all the objections you make in your OP.

Yet I am waiting for the texts by which all the sovereign nations in the world give the USA permission to act as if the USA governs all the world’s nations and all the world’s citizens. Implicating that the sovereignty, governments, laws, citizenship of all these nations are of no account for the USA.

Salaam. A

5

I have already provided the answer. They can do it and are doing it. At this point, whether it’s legal in the country they’re doing it is a moot point, as the US is the biggest kid on the block by far.

6

What they eventually can (and I think you look at these things a bit simplified) does not mean that other nations will allow the USA to abduct their citizens.
Crimes remain crimes. Abducting people is a crime everywhere, as far as I know.
What they can do is ask governments to cooperate = exchange information on certain citizens and eventually bring them under arrest.
I can detect quite a few who will not be ready to even think about letting the USA interfere with their internal affairs in such an arrogant,open, direct way.
Bush and crew can dream all they wants. Dreams are far from the reality, as they should know by now. Unfortunately this bunch of arrogant lunatics are not of the type that never learns or wants to know.

Salaam. A

7

Priceguy - I agree with you in the broad strokes, but would take a few exceptions with some of your comments:

Yes and no. Giving the military and the government this power with no oversight makes everybody less safe. Whilst it is a slipper slope, it is also a means of capturing and detaining those who you wouldn’t normally be able to get your hands on who are intent on doing harm to US citizens and interests. I don’t have a problem with people being captured outside the US being brought to the US and tried under our justice system if they have commited crimes against the US (think of Manuel Noriega). I just have a problem with those captured not being tried and not being allowed to avail themselves of the legal system at all.

IF the little old lady from Switzerland could avail herself of the legal system, she would be shortly released with a massive apology, as her case would never stand up in court. Again, it is the lack of oversight and the denial of legal rights that is worrying.

Sure it does - this is one thing Brutus has right. They declared war on us and attacked us, not just once but several times. We are absolutely right to respond. What we are doing wrong is responding badly.

Sure you can; you just have to kill all of them. And that we are unwilling to do.

yep, which is why you need built-in oversight, and why these types of actions are utterly flawed.

But, to play the devil’s advocate for a bit, there really is no right for non-US citizens to avail themselves of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. SCOTUS proved this repeatedly, in regards to the US Citizens detained, telling the military to effectively put up or shut up. But they remained mum on any foreign citizens held in the same conditions.

Of course, I believe that if we truly support freedom we must support it everywhere and lead first and foremost by example, but that apparently is a foreign concept to those currently in power.

8

Aldebaran, it has already happened. Even if the US cannot secure the cooperation of the government in the country in question, they can just do a covert operation. Probably better for them in the long run anyway.

And besides, it doesn’t matter for this thread nor the other thread. What we’re discussing is Bush and company giving themselves these powers and the implications of that, not whether they’ll be able to enforce them.

Then I don’t see what our disagreement is. I haven’t said that the government/military shouldn’t be allowed to detain anybody at all, just that the detainees should be given a fair trial, access to a lawyer and so forth.

No. It’s not a war. That’s just propaganda.

And the ones who are pissed off because you killed the first ones? Kill them too? What about the ones that pisses off? How do you deal with them? What about the ones who are pissed off because you accidentally killed innocents? What do you do when they start killing?

OK. So? Who said anything about the Constitution?

9

Priceguy, it is not because they succeed now and then to commit now and then such a crime involving citizens of other nations, they can commit these crimes unseen and under cover everywhere at any given time.
What I find amazing is that the US citizens always seem so convinced that the USA “can do it all” and “on its own”.

The CIA is a joke. 90 + % of the time they have no clue what they are dealing with, especially in this region.
The only ones I see doing such “operations” succesfully here is the Mossad, and they don’t/would not even do it “undercover”. Only now and then blame it on the other side when politically convenient.
The CIA on the other hand has a constant tendency to believe they are “undercover” when they only put the blame on some “other side”. Especially when they once again killed a whole lot of people missing for miles and miles the “target”. Next hours you see the birth of once again an unheard of, suddenly popping up, “terrorist cell” (nowadays mostly with “direct link” to Al Qaeda". It is quite a fashion).

As for example in Europe:
In the country of my mother the distinct police forces and secret service departments can’t even cooperate efficiently inside their own nation. I know they have contacts with CIA agents (who for 99% of the time don’t speak one single other language but English. Which is just a little bit of a handicap to start with. Not the whole world and not every potential terrorist has a habit of making all his conversations in US English).
I know what Belgians involved in this type of work think of them (cowboys is not the right word but it comes close).

Salaam. A

10

And yet they’re doing it, as shown in my link. Also, of course, this is beside the point, as I’ve pointed out before.

11

I didn’t read that in your OP; if it was there and I didn’t see it, I apologise. But it seemed to me in your OP you are incensed by the US detaining anyone at all.

Since it’s moved from the Pit to GD - cite? The US fought a pretty major war against German based on their declaration of war against the US whilst we never declared war on them (at least in part). How is this any different?

It does work, exactly as you describe, which is where it turns into a lack of the will to do so and the investigation of other means to accomplish your mission. I’m not saying it’s a good idea, but I am saying it works.

Habeas Corpus, a right detailed in the Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution, does not pertain to non-US citizens as no codes or articles of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights specifically pertain to non-US citizens. Summary of the Writ of Habeas Corpus is here.

Quick quote:

Even Lincoln’s suspension of Habeus Corpus was later overturned by the SCOTUS, so I don’t imagine Bush’s will hold up (and in fact has already been overturned partially in this ruling by SCOTUS.) Basically, it says that contrary to statements by the DoD, it is not beyond the power of Federal courts to tell them what to do, even if they are in Cuba.

12

Princhester, you article is only reporting a case where 3 countries (Sweden, Egypt, USA) were involved in bringing back to Egypt 2 men who obviously were sought after by the Egyptian government.

Egypt asking assistance and the forces involved in this case acting like in a Hollywood movie is a whole other thing then for example the US going to play Hollywood Hero in Egypt for abducting Egyptians to lock them up in Guantanamo. Completely with private plane for transport landing on Egyptian soil, unnoticed, the US heros looking all-Egyptian and talking fluently Egyptian Arabic while searching for their target unnoticed, getting hold of him unnoticed, way back to the waiting unnoticed plane and taking off again unnoticed.

Now we all know the Middle East is not the prime example of efficiency and insh’allah is often to be taken as meaning : if not today, maybe tomorrow or maybe… who know when, insh’allah.
But a private plane landing, deliver a few US heros to the Egyption Arabic speaking environment, waiting for the heros to come back with their lute and then taking off again is however something that risks to be noticed.
Or maybe they think about flying in under the radar, land it on top of a pyramide hoping that during the day the blinding sun prevents it to be noticed. And then sabotage some flashy lights directed at the pyramide so that it stays in the dark in the evening. You never know how that works.

Salaam. A

13

If you think the US is bad, try the UK’s Civil Contingencies Act 2004. Suspension of all rights - including habeas corpus - except those granted under the Human Rights Act simply on the sayso of a Minister.

14

Can I be the first to ask for a cite of any of the above ever happening? If it is common knowledge in the Arab world, perhaps Al-Jazeera might have gotten the story?

Or perhaps this was posted to the wrong forum as it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion of the suspension of Habeas Corpus?

15

For starters the enemy isn’t a country and, as far as I know, hasn’t declared war on you.

The concept of habeas corpus existed before the US Constitution and still exists independently of it.

16

The above whas of course not for poor innocent “Princhester” who even has no idea about this thread so far :).

17

Does attacking a city, destroying some of its buildings and killing over 3000 people not constitue an act of war?

18

I just re-read and you do say exactly that. I apologize and retract.

Further -

This matters? The War Powers Act has been voted on by Congress and passed; the Supreme Court has allowed in no less than two rulings that a State of War currently exists. Face it - whether you and I support it or not, the US is at war. It is a new kind of war, against a ‘stateless’ enemy, and the legal language has yet to catch up to that, but catch up it will.

Of course it does; nothing in the Constitution was new when it was written. It was just the first time it was ever written down all together, and in that precise way.

If you are not speaking of the Writ of Habeas Corpus as described in the Federal code and the US Constitution, then there is no framework to your OP and absolutely nothing can be done about defending a vague and tenuous principle of legal philosophy. We can, however, defend the Constitution and the interpretive findings of the Supreme Court on how it applies.

19

I know that the US, including the Supreme Court, is calling it a war. I just don’t agree that it is, any more than the “war on drugs” is really a war. For a war to exist, I at least think there must be two sides fighting each other. I don’t see that here. I see one unusually successful act of terrorism and the vastly overrated reaction.

If you find it impossible or pointless to discuss anything but the US Federal Code or the US Constitution, then so be it. I think it’s highly interesting to discuss the right to not be detained without due process no matter what the Constitution or Supreme Court say.

20

How utterly irrelevant. But no, if one of those three countries had such a policy, I wouldn’t ‘support’ it. If it were, say for example, Great Britain, France, and Germany we were talking about, though, I would. Not all nations are alike, you know.

Damnit, leave your stupid drama-queen bitching in the Pit, would you? It’s bad enough that you pollute the hell out of that Pit thread, but to do the same to your own GD thread?