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

The BBQ Pit
81

[QUOTE=Sitnam]
I wonder about this. If a citizens rights are due him it is because we’ve recongnized it as our governments duty to uphold the fundamental rights of man…not the fundamental rights of an ‘American’ man. We hold our legal documents as the light of truth illuminated upon the world, isn’t it fair to say that ignoring those truths, no matter where he comes from, is hypocrisy?
[/QUOTE]

No, because the rights enumerated to US citizens within the borders of the US are understood to be part of a larger legal framework that simply doesn’t exist outside the borders. Aside from the obvious notion that we don’t allow non-citizens to vote (a right accorded to all adult citizens, with a few exceptions), would you have us grant Miranda rights to enemy combatants in Afghanistan? What constitutes “unreasonable searches and seizurees” on the battlefield-- is it the same as in your home? Must we get a subpoena to enter a building as we fight in a war?

82

It’s disgusting to me that someone who practices law in America can argue against the right of habeas corpus. I mean, seriously, how un-American can you get?

83

Well, it’s kind of conservatism in action.

We are the currently on the right side of the fence, and the ball is in our yard. The rest of these kids can just go home without their ball, geopolitically.

84

I’ve always thought that our belief in the inherent worth of human beings was part of what makes us the good guys.

I mean, even the most evil of the evil will do the right thing when it’s in their interest. It’s what you do when it isn’t necessarily in your interest that makes the difference.

85

[QUOTE=Bricker]
So we’re agreed, then, that “What would Jesus do?” is not what you wish to use for formulation of government policy.

And I’m willing to use that Golden Rule here: if I’m ever captured in a hostile territory having taken up arms against the United States, I’m OK with being locked up without recourse to habeas writs.
[/QUOTE]

Let’s forget about what’s morally right or wrong here for minute. Do you think it is good policy for the US to do this? Do you think it makes us safer in the fight against Islamic terrorists or less safe? I can’t see that the net effect of this policy is good for the US.

86

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Let’s forget about what’s morally right or wrong here for minute. Do you think it is good policy for the US to do this? Do you think it makes us safer in the fight against Islamic terrorists or less safe? I can’t see that the net effect of this policy is good for the US.
[/QUOTE]

Specifically granting habeas review, or generally proving meaningful oversight and review?

Yes. No.

Habeas review is inappropriate. Providing meaningful oversight and review is wise.

87

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Let’s forget about what’s morally right or wrong here for minute…
[/QUOTE]

No.

88

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Specifically granting habeas review, or generally proving meaningful oversight and review?

Yes. No.

Habeas review is inappropriate. Providing meaningful oversight and review is wise.
[/QUOTE]

That is an important distinction to make, if I’m correct in assuming that “habeas review” = “unlimited access to the US court system, just like any US citizen”. In that case, I agree with you.

The current system, however, seems intolerably slow and ineffective. Perhaps some sort of panel of judges, unconnected to the military, could provide some sort of oversight to the military tribunals. Bottom line, though, we need to process these guys and move on. Bush seems interested only in delaying things as long as possible so he doesn’t have to deal with what is a tough problem, and a source of almost universal scorn from the rest of the world. When you’re trying to prevent terrorists from recruiting new members to the cause, that simply can’t be ignored.

89

[QUOTE=elucidator]
No.
[/QUOTE]

Way to distort the entire point of that post through creative editing. :rolleyes:

Sometimes you want to do things even if you aren’t morally compelled to because it’s simply good public policy. And since we each have a different view of what is moral and what is not moral, sometimes we can agree on what is good public policy without forcing us first to agree on what we are morally compelled to do.

90

[QUOTE=elucidator]
No.
[/QUOTE]

Might be a good idea to do so. A big proportion of the public would have no moral problem doing any number of horrible things to these guys.

What would stop that apart from the law?

That being the case, the law ought to be the framework of our arguments.

91

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Way to distort the entire point of that post through creative editing.
[/QUOTE]

Crapola. You said it, Bub, not me. You want to backpedal, feel free, I think its a pretty good idea.

92

[QUOTE=elucidator]
You want to backpedal, feel free, I think its a pretty good idea.
[/QUOTE]

No. But thanks for your suggestion. I’ll give it all the consideration it merits.

93

A monastic retreat for repentance and meditation? Splendid, send us a postcard.

94

Elucidator, you’re being an asshole. “Forget about X for a minute” is a figure of speech meaning to put aside this one aspect while we examine another aspect. John Mace isn’t saying that considerations of morality ought to be literally forgotten about.

95

Thank you for sharing that. I will give it the consideration it deserves.

96

[QUOTE=stolichnaya]
I think you mean- “having taken up arms against the United States, or having been identified for a bounty as a person who may have or may yet take up arms against the United States, or having been in the wrong hut at the wrong time, or actually genuinely being a terrorist asshole, but we’re not sure which”. Other than that, I agree with you.
[/QUOTE]

Exactly! You would think that Bricker would know that it should be about due process – finding out facts in a timely fashion and acting accordingly. I still don’t understand who wins when it’s done otherwise.

Garrison Keillor wrote a furious op-ed a year ago – he mentioned how “it’s a good thing Barry Goldwater is dead, because this [the placing of limits on habeas corpus] would have killed him”. It seems that quite a few Republicans are still intent on crapping yet again on their party’s ideals.

97

[QUOTE=John Mace]
The current system, however, seems intolerably slow and ineffective. Perhaps some sort of panel of judges, unconnected to the military, could provide some sort of oversight to the military tribunals. Bottom line, though, we need to process these guys and move on.
[/QUOTE]

Agreed completely.

98

[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
Elucidator, you’re being an asshole. “Forget about X for a minute” is a figure of speech meaning to put aside this one aspect while we examine another aspect. John Mace isn’t saying that considerations of morality ought to be literally forgotten about.
[/QUOTE]

Richard, I’m going to pretend for a moment that you didn’t begin your post with an insult, and treat is as something deserving of polite consideration. You may still, of course, kiss my ass till I bark like a fox.

I am well aware, thank you, of the use of the term, and the context. But if you are not contemplating actions outside of a moral framework, what is to be gained? Is it an entirely empty intellectual excercise? Well, then, no real problem. I suppose, we might as well contemptlate the advantages of a time machine to go back and kill Osama’s great-grandfather. If such is to your taste.

But expediency is precisely what got us into this godawful mess in the first case! Our “kick ass and take names” approach, so manly, so assertive, so utterly stupid. If we had strictly applied our own moral principles, we would not have accepted prisoners turned in for bounty without some definitive corroborating evidence, no?

Downside: we would have permitted some actual enemies to go free. No question about it, there would be a cost. But how much did we lose by slamming up the innocent (which we did, you’ll grant that, no?..)? By failing to adhere to our own principles, we surrendered any moral high ground, we are no better than they, save that the are in our power and we are not in theirs.

And now? Now we don’t know who is guilty and who is innocent, we probably can’t reasonably and fairly convict the worst of the worst. Where do we get witnesses, where do we get physical evidence? So we seek to loosen the conditions a bit, a little slack here, a bit of fudging there, otherwise, we might have to let them all go, because we can’t prove shit!

When we wear the white hat, do we mean it, or is it merely a convenient costume? Because wearing it for real ain’t easy, if it were, probably more of us would do it.

Innocent people are suffering for our inability to seperate the sheep from the goats. This is a disgrace. We have engendered more enmity than we abated, and this is stupid as well as wrong.

99

[QUOTE=vibrotronica]
It’s disgusting to me that someone who practices law in America can argue against the right of habeas corpus. I mean, seriously, how un-American can you get?
[/QUOTE]

My assumption is you don’t understand the right of habeas corpus.

Or you’re an idiot, which given previous posts from you is about a neck-and-neck frontrunner possibility.

There is nothing “un-American” about denying the full protections of the “Great Writ” to captured combatants. You cannot point to a single war in the history of the country in which POWs, for example, have been given habeas rights. Why, then (if not idiocy) do you now froth at the mouth and declare that not granting these individuals full habeas access is un-American?

What record has America developed, specifically, of granting habeas rights to people in similar situations? Name some instances.

100

I just heard the “This American Life” episode linked to in a previous post. It is great.

It seems that there are various levels of legal protection. You could think of it this way:

Level one: Almost none. Indefinite detention.
Level two: “Habeas lite”. A basic hearing, but WITHOUT a few basic rights such as the right to see the evidence against one.
Level three: “Full habeas”. A hearing, but WITH those few basic rights.
Level four: Full trial or equivalent.

The various practices in Guantanamo (not to mention the even shadowier CIA detainees) have moved between one, two, and (?) three, depending on the mix at any one time of administration directives, Supreme Court decisions, and legislative statutes.

Forgive my naivete, but what does Bricker mean when he writes:

“Habeas review is inappropriate. Providing meaningful oversight and review is wise.”.

I can only see this as meaning that, to Bricker, the appropriate level for the Guantanamo prisoners is Level Two (plus an added dose of “speediness”). Did I miss something? Is Bricker really okay with these prisoners not being informed of the evidence against them?