Senate Pubs block bill to restore habeas corpus rights to "terrorist" detainees

The BBQ Pit
41

[QUOTE=Bricker]
No world-wide “inalienable rights” exist in any meaningful way. What right to “liberty” does a North Korean political prisoner have, and just how do you propose he exercise that right?
[/QUOTE]
Don’t be a deliberate prick if you can help it. No, people are not born equipped with inalienable rights like a liver or a spleen. But Jefferson recognized the value and the power of the concept when he paraphrased Locke, and others before him, declaring inalienable rights for the people of his emerging country. Is Jefferson a fool? No. Do you have a better grasp of moral philosophy than Jefferson? Not likely. Jefferson endowed people with inalienable rights to the best of his ability because they do not exist until they are established.

The OP is about the fact there can be no true peace without justice. There can be no true peace while the US provides rights for its citizens while concurrently depriving others of those same rights. It is hypocrisy and it is tragic.

Now get your fucking head out of your fucking ass.

42

[QUOTE=Waverly]
Don’t be a deliberate prick if you can help it. No, people are not born equipped with inalienable rights like a liver or a spleen. But Jefferson recognized the value and the power of the concept when he paraphrased Locke, and others before him, declaring inalienable rights for the people of his emerging country. Is Jefferson a fool? No. Do you have a better grasp of moral philosophy than Jefferson? Not likely. Jefferson endowed people with inalienable rights to the best of his ability because they do not exist until they are established.

The OP is about the fact there can be no true peace without justice. There can be no true peace while the US provides rights for its citizens while concurrently depriving others of those same rights. It is hypocrisy and it is tragic.

Now get your fucking head out of your fucking ass.
[/QUOTE]

Well, I’m certainly cowed by your brilliant repartee, especially the last line. But even though you have me wriggling in the crushing grip of reason, let me point out that Jefferson’s rhetoric was just that: flowering language intended to justify what amounted to an illegal revolution against the Crown. And let me further point out that George III didn’t read Jefferson’s words and say to Parliament, “Hey, Jefferson’s got us dead to rights, boyos. Someone told him about inalienable rights! Curse that John Locke, and damn his heirs and assigns! Now we HAVE to recognize the legitimacy of the new country!”

No. In fact, the flowery language was only made real after Cornwallis realized he was surrounded and surrendered, and Jefferson and his buds had the chance to enact into law what they claimed as rights. If Cornwallis had had a few extra divisions, then we wouldn’t be quoting the “inalienable rights” with such reverence.

My head’s in my ass, is it? Yours is in the clouds, utterly unconnected to any real, practical issue. Suuure, we all have all sorts of inalienable rights, hanging from the lowest tree branch, and we must merely reach up a languid hand and pluck them, right? I have an inalienable right to a pony, and a backrub from Helen Hunt, I think. While riding. On my pony. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

So get crackin’ on that, would ya? Because right now, bereft of both pony and Helen, I am truly oppressed and denied my most basic inalienable rights.

43

The terrorists hate us because of our flowery rhetoric.

44

Well, of course its flowery rhetoric, Bricker, hard headed realists, such as yourself, disdain flowery rhetoric. Nor would they be so foolish as to attempt a revolution against the world’s foremost power. The chains that bind men’s will are seldom, if ever, broken by hard-headed realists, they tend to be rather conservative, and not given to wildly exaggerated claims that are based on faith and conscience.

We are lucky to have such as you, to stay our hands from foolish endeavors.

45

[QUOTE=Waverly]
Don’t be a deliberate prick if you can help it. No, people are not born equipped with inalienable rights like a liver or a spleen. But Jefferson recognized the value and the power of the concept when he paraphrased Locke, and others before him, declaring inalienable rights for the people of his emerging country. Is Jefferson a fool? No. Do you have a better grasp of moral philosophy than Jefferson? Not likely. Jefferson endowed people with inalienable rights to the best of his ability because they do not exist until they are established.

The OP is about the fact there can be no true peace without justice. There can be no true peace while the US provides rights for its citizens while concurrently depriving others of those same rights. It is hypocrisy and it is tragic.

Now get your fucking head out of your fucking ass.
[/QUOTE]

Just to be clear here, Bricker was responding to specific question about inalienable rights, about which there is a legitimate debate. He wasn’t specifically addressing the OP in that point.

I would, however, ask **Bricker **what he thinks is the best policy for the US to take in this instance-- the one being proposed by the Democrats, or the one being proposed by the Republicans? I’m a little torn on the issue, and can see an argument on both sides. (I don’t equate the Senate Republican’s policy with Bush’s policy, which as far as I can tell is “we we will hold them as long as we want, and do the barest minimum required by law”.) Frankly, I don’t see how keeping hundreds of possibly innocent, and if not innocent then low level flacks, locked up for all the world to see.

I think we need to do more than Bush wants to do, but it’s unclear to me we need to do as much as the Dems are asking for.

46

I will admit, I have no issue at all with Guantanamo, and I think others would have little issue either were its workings more transparent.

I admit to some self interest on this score - if detainees were to be imprisoned in the United States, some of them likely would be detained a mere six miles from my house. I don’t like that much.

47

So, Bricker, you accuse Jefferson of purple prose, and point out the startling fact that the D of I includes ideals that wouldn’t mean anything unless the war for independence was won. I just checked CNN, and guess what? The US actually did win independence (I think it might have been in 1982, and an entire episode of the A-Team was devoted to it). So now the US has its big chance to provide as close an approximation to inalienable rights as it can… problem is, Jefferson claims “all men” are created equal, the fucker didn’t leave us any out to apprehend swarthy little bastards from another country, pen them up in a 3rd country, and provide them with a lesser set of rights. Fucking Jefferson and his flowery purple prose; he didn’t have the foresight to proclaim that god only imbues ‘mericans with inalienable rights.

48

[QUOTE=Waverly]
So, Bricker, you accuse Jefferson of purple prose, and point out the startling fact that the D of I includes ideals that wouldn’t mean anything unless the war for independence was won. I just checked CNN, and guess what? The US actually did win independence (I think it might have been in 1982, and an entire episode of the A-Team was devoted to it). So now the US has its big chance to provide as close an approximation to inalienable rights as it can… problem is, Jefferson claims “all men” are created equal, the fucker didn’t leave us any out to apprehend swarthy little bastards from another country, pen them up in a 3rd country, and provide them with a lesser set of rights. Fucking Jefferson and his flowery purple prose; he didn’t have the foresight to proclaim that god only imbues ‘mericans with inalienable rights.
[/QUOTE]

You are asserting that it is true because Jefferson said it. Sorry, but TJ doesn’t have the final word on that, or anything. You may take the position that certain inalienable rights exist, but that is simply your opinion. I’m with **Bricker **on this. I right without a remedy is a wet dream.

As someone who doesn’t believe in God, can you tell me where these rights originated from? Jefferson said “the Creator”. Bunk.

49

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Well, of course its flowery rhetoric, Bricker, hard headed realists, such as yourself, disdain flowery rhetoric. Nor would they be so foolish as to attempt a revolution against the world’s foremost power. The chains that bind men’s will are seldom, if ever, broken by hard-headed realists, they tend to be rather conservative, and not given to wildly exaggerated claims that are based on faith and conscience.

We are lucky to have such as you, to stay our hands from foolish endeavors.
[/QUOTE]

Sure, sure. It always works out.

Send me a postcard from Biafra, would ya?

50

[QUOTE=Waverly]
So, Bricker, you accuse Jefferson of purple prose, and point out the startling fact that the D of I includes ideals that wouldn’t mean anything unless the war for independence was won. I just checked CNN, and guess what? The US actually did win independence (I think it might have been in 1982, and an entire episode of the A-Team was devoted to it). So now the US has its big chance to provide as close an approximation to inalienable rights as it can… problem is, Jefferson claims “all men” are created equal, the fucker didn’t leave us any out to apprehend swarthy little bastards from another country, pen them up in a 3rd country, and provide them with a lesser set of rights. Fucking Jefferson and his flowery purple prose; he didn’t have the foresight to proclaim that god only imbues ‘mericans with inalienable rights.
[/QUOTE]

Jefferson himself didn’t mean “all men” in the sense you mean it – he was, after all, part of founding a country that permitted slavery. So you would have me take Jefferson’s words to mean what YOU wish them to mean, not what Jefferson himself meant. Is that about it?

Listen, chum: the Declaration of Independence is not a source to discover substantive legal rights. We have another document for that purpose, a nifty little thing thrown together in 1789. Maybe you’ve heard of it?

51

A really, REALLY good This American Life episode called Habeas Schmabeas 2007. It won a Peabody, if anyone cares about that sort of thing. Definitely worth the hour’s listen. Or here’s a PDF Transcript.

52

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
I will admit, I have no issue at all with Guantanamo, and I think others would have little issue either were its workings more transparent.

I admit to some self interest on this score - if detainees were to be imprisoned in the United States, some of them likely would be detained a mere six miles from my house. I don’t like that much.
[/QUOTE]

Moto, if you live in D.C., there are already people living near you much, much more dangerous than anyone in Guantanamo. Some are in city jail, and some in federal jail, and some are walking the streets free for the moment, and some work in ovoid government offices (but under heavy guard, rest assured). Doesn’t mean they’re gonna get at you.

53

On a totally related note, does anyone remember when the threat of a filibuster was a heinous threat to democracy, so sinister and underhanded that it warranted discussion of re-writing Senate rules to prevent it? You know, in that dark dusty era before 2006?

54

[QUOTE=Waverly]
Don’t be a deliberate prick if you can help it. No, people are not born equipped with inalienable rights like a liver or a spleen. But Jefferson recognized the value and the power of the concept when he paraphrased Locke, and others before him, declaring inalienable rights for the people of his emerging country.
[/QUOTE]

Uh…thanks for the support…but this statement and all statements in this thread claiming that Jefferson, et. al.'s inalienable (or unalienable) rights inhere only to Americans seems to be too narrow a reading to me.

Let us consult the sacred text:

[QUOTE=The Declaration of Independence, baby!]
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
[/QUOTE]

That’s all men.

Yeah, I know about Sally Hemings. We sorted the details out somewhat painfully a bit later.

Bricker, this document seems to indicate that the rights exist and that government is founded to secure them, not to create them.

Sailboat

55

[QUOTE=John Mace]
You are asserting that it is true because Jefferson said it. Sorry, but TJ doesn’t have the final word on that, or anything. You may take the position that certain inalienable rights exist, but that is simply your opinion. I’m with **Bricker **on this. I right without a remedy is a wet dream.
[/QUOTE]
Please. Let’s not put words in mouth. Inalienable rights don’t literally exist, because, alas they need a frame of reference and the potential for enforcement. Those requirements don’t always exist. The good news should be that the US does have a relevant frame of reference (they believe in these rights) and the means to enforce them (they just have to stop taking them away!)

Bricker notes the lack of literal existence, and then disingenuously stops right there. He’s an obfuscator. The fact is that we can agree that these rights are conceptual in nature, but it is a concept that the US makes a reality for its citizens, and yet seems intent on taking these same rights away from a select group of non-citizens.

If we can assume that the US founding fathers didn’t think there was some literal seat of inalienable rights, then we are left to conclude that they intended to provide a set of rights that they wanted all men to have and to protect them. I think this is clear; can we agree on it?

What doesn’t appear to be clear, much to my dismay, is that these rights cease to be a noble concept, and loose much of their luster, if the US seeks out a group of non-citizens and takes away rights that it normally holds in such high regard.

Sailboat, your interpretation of what I said is about 170 degrees off from what I actually said. Maybe I’ve been a bit clearer above or it is worth a re-read of my earlier post.

56

I think I see a problem with the argument that we ought not provide a remedy for an inalienable right because an inalienable right without a remedy doesn’t exist. Does anyone else see this problem?

57

[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
Does anyone else see this problem?
[/QUOTE]
Yup, the idea that rights only exist under the law:
[QUOTE=Bricker]
There is no such thing as a “right” without a legal remedy.
[/QUOTE]
seems backwards. Was not law created to protect preexisting rights?

58

I’m not entirely sure, but I believe that Habeus Corpus rights may predate the constitution by a week or two.

59

[QUOTE=Squink]
Yup, the idea that rights only exist under the law:seems backwards. Was not law created to protect preexisting rights?
[/QUOTE]

Even conceding that rights don’t exist without a legal remedy, why the fuck are the Republicans actively preventing this from being a right? Is this compassionate conservatism in action? I’m trying really hard to understand. Why are we treating other human beings (even if they aren’t americans) like shit? Is this what Jesus would do?

60

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Moto, if you live in D.C., there are already people living near you much, much more dangerous than anyone in Guantanamo. Some are in city jail, and some in federal jail, and some are walking the streets free for the moment, and some work in ovoid government offices (but under heavy guard, rest assured). Doesn’t mean they’re gonna get at you.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not overly paranoid - if need be I’m sure our Marines can keep these guys confined quite well. Doesn’t change the fact that given the choice between having them behind walls and fences, or having them behind those and across water as well, I’d choose the latter.