I think this is an important point, and perhaps **Bricker **can explain what is the maximum amount of time that someone can be detained under this law w/o receiving a hearing. If some were to tell me the answer is 6 months, that might not be so bad. If It’s 5 years or something like that, then I have a big problem with it.
Well, I grant that you have a certain unique insight into the OP’s motivations, at any rate.
But let me ask you the question I posed above to someone else:
What is a reasonable time period between capture and the bringing of charges, and between the bringing of charges and trial?
6 months under Bush approved “interrogation” would be bad indeed.
Yes, we all know that Bush is teh suxx0r. Can we move on from that? Let’s not taylor our legislation for one particular president, 'Mkay?
That explains why we’re no longer going to be detaining people in the U.S.??
Pardon me if I find this explanation insufficient.
But here, who requires it of the detainers?
What I said, “correct me if I’m wrong” about was the meaning of “inherent” in “inherent Constitutional authority.”
So, now that I’m wrong, what does it mean? The “damn law” that you ask me to read doesn’t say shit about it.
You know, right next to that, it says:
*§948a. Definitions
``In this chapter:
``(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.--(A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--
``(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
``(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense. *
Notice a missing word? (Hint: it begins with ‘a’.)
Well, YOU might read the “damn relevant laws” instead of C&Ping, because you apparently aren’t reading the parts right next to the ones you’re C&Ping, even after they’ve been quoted multiple times in this thread - initially in post #10.
Perhaps, but we must keep in mind that the next President might not be as much a paragon of straightforward candor and civic virtue as this one.
Bricker, for the umpteeth goddamn time, I’m male, you dipshit.
So you admit that the law will prohibit the filing of a habeas petition, but say if the law is not followed, then the accused can have habeas rights and therefore everything is OK. And then you accuse us of arguing dishonestly.
With respect to my own motives, I’m practically psychic. 
That’s a good question. Can you discuss the connection?
Then consider this debate at an end.
Because David Simmons’ objection gets to the heart of the reasoning behind our Constitutional system. Men are not angels, but rather good and evil is mixed in varying quantities in all of us. The Founders of this country knew that, and created a system with checks and balances so that good practices wouldn’t depend on good rulers.
Here, as David points out, we seem to have a situation where the same entity is charged with both obeying and enforcing the law - which is great if you trust that entity, I suppose, but “trust me” is not, in fact, an underpinning of our system. “Don’t trust in anyone’s goodness” is. The system shouldn’t rely on Bush - or anyone else - to not be a poopy-head.
But you do have to admit that the “your argument is so worthless that I’m not even going to bother with it” argument is unanswerable.
The military commission hearing the case, or the tribunal first evaluating the detainee, requires it of the detainers.
Yes, that’s the definition of unlawful enemy combatant.
But this law only applies to ALIEN unlawful enemy combatants. They are the only ones that may be tried. As section 948c says.
You’re quoting a definition from a list of definitions, and I guess you’re assuming … what? Not even sure. The definition section defines “alien,” and “unlawful enemy combatant,” and 948c says this law applies only to alien unlawful enemy combatants. Where do you get the idea that it can apply to citizens?
Yet that system is already in place for UCMJ trials. Where was your outrage when the UCMJ was created?
This is nothing new - why is it suddenyl so outrageous?
I want to hear what you believe reasonable time frames are. Surely you see the relevance of that question.
Bricker: Per your understanding of this law, how long can the administration detain an unlawful combatant before he must be given a hearing? What’s the maximum amount of time that someone can be held without having a hearing?
I ahve avoided answering that question, because I believe that once that answer is given, people will believe it’s an outrageous crime against basic human rights.
What I’d like is to get an idea of what people believe reasonable times should be FIRST, and then discuss the time frames under the law.
Dark suspicions coalesce into dark conspiracy…
I think its a stall. The Bushistas know that some of the detainees are very likely guilty, as well as some who are almost certainly innocent, that is, only guilty of despising and loathing America as much as his neighbor. But how could one prove such a thing?
Which leads to the suspension of habeas. Habeas serves as a preliminary, especially in case where there is good and sufficient reason to believe the defendent is not guilty, the prosecution must show reasonable cause, lest the defendent be freed.
Outside of actual battlefield detention, where the Taliban fighter has surrendered while armed, how could any of this be proven? Surely we are not going to accept the testimony of paid bounty hunters, whose motives are clearly suspect.
So, to sum up my dark maunderings…I think the reason eliding habeas from the proceedings is to prevent the guilty from pointing out the paucity of evidence and gaining their release. After all, what evidence are we likely to have? Outside of confessions gained by “alternative” means? It also avoids placing the Bushiviks in the uncomfortable position of admitting the obvious: that they couldn’t convict most of these people in a normal court of law to save their sorry souls.
So they will stall. Procedures will be protracted as long as necessary (lawyers, in my limited and unfortunate experience, are masters of protraction…). The guilty are safely incarcerated for the duration, without access to liberal activist terror-loving judges.
Of course, so are the innocent. Fewer of those than there were, since some of the more ridiculous charges have been dropped against…how many?..detainees. But at least they have the satisfaction of knowing they are sacrificing themselves for the greater security of America, the Shining Citadel on the Hill.
It’s worth noting that, at least now, everyone who places himself or herself under the provisions of the UCMJ, is doing so voluntarily.
I’m not sure how old Rufus is, but I have a feeling that when the UCMJ was created he was reserving most of his outrage for situations in which he came out worse in a bubblegum card trade with Shorty Pfinster, down the block. Or something similar.
Just FYI, here’s what the Red Cross has to say:
"Legal issues
The detention of persons captured or arrested within the context of the “global war on terror” must take place within a clear and appropriate legal framework and the relevant procedural safeguards. Any person deprived of liberty cannot be detained and interrogated outside of an appropriate legal framework.
People held in connection with armed conflicts such as in Afghanistan fall under the regime of international humanitarian law (IHL) and should be treated accordingly. (See the relevance of IHL in the context of terrorism.)
Those persons detained outside of a situation of armed conflict have rights enshrined in a number of other bodies of law, such as international human rights law and relevant provisions of domestic law. The ICRC has adopted a case-by-case approach to qualifying situations arising from the “global war on terror” as an armed conflict or not and believes that the status of detainees should be determined based on the relevant rules. There are currently two broad strands of legal thinking: according to one, detainees in the “global war on terror” are all criminal suspects and should be treated as such. According to the other, they are all prisoners of war and should be treated as such. The ICRC does not share either of these views. It is clear that States may also detain persons for imperative reasons of security.
While the ICRC welcomes any development that leads to a clarification of the future of the detainees at Guantanamo, it does not believe that there is presently a legal regime that appropriately addresses either the detainees’ status or the future of their detention.
Due to changed factual and legal circumstances since the launching of the “global war on terror”, persons currently in US hands who are not released or tried must be put in another legal framework: i.e. provided an independent and impartial review of whether their continued detention for security reasons is justified.
People suspected of having committed war crimes or any other criminal offence can and should be prosecuted. But these individuals must be afforded essential judicial guarantees such as the presumption of innocence, the right to be tried by an impartial and independent tribunal, the right to qualified legal counsel and the exclusion of any evidence obtained as a result of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
The ICRC believes that uncertainty about the prisoners’ fate has added to the mental and emotional strain experienced by many detainees and their families. "
OK, fair enough. As I said before: I think 5 yrears is outrageous, but I don’t think 6 months is unreasonable. If you said it was 2 years, I don’t know how I’d react-- I’d have to see how that compares with other detention times.
Look. If you are arrested by a cop today, the cop has to go before a judge and lay out probable cause to hold you. That’s it. While criminal defendents have access to bail, indigent defendents do not.
So it seems to me that you can claim either:
- That we should treat detainees better then we treat our internal indigent accused
or
- That the time frames that an indigent accused faces for being held without trial are a good guideline to what detainees should face
True?