Time to Kiss Habeas Corpus Goodbye

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Your question is irrelevant.
[/quote]
Because you are a right wing toady of the Republicans, who doesn’t believe for one moment any of this will ever apply to you, and has zero ethics.

[QUOTE=Bricker]
I am not an alien unlawful enemy combatant engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States.
[/quote]
You are if the Administration says you are; they won’t because you are a toady. “Unlawful enemy combatant” is a meaningless phrase, designed solely as an excuse for denying our prisoners all rights; not those of a POW, nor those of a criminal, nor any others.

[QUOTE=Bricker]
If I were, and if I were still somehow fair-minded about resolving questions like this, then I wouldn’t have a problem with being subject to trial by military tribunal.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t believe you, and you are assuming a fair trial instead of a kangaroo court, and you are assuming there will ever be a trial.

[Darwins_Finch]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
The proposed legislation says:

Any alien unlawful enemy combatant engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States is subject to trial by military tribunal.

Unless you can show me a flaw, I’m fine with that.
[/QUOTE]

What is the distinction between an unlawful enemy combatant, and a lawful one? Since the distinction was spelled out, I’m a) presuming there is one, and b) the definition of such is also spelled out somewhere.

[Hamlet]

[QUOTE=Darwin’s Finch]
What is the distinction between an unlawful enemy combatant, and a lawful one? Since the distinction was spelled out, I’m a) presuming there is one, and b) the definition of such is also spelled out somewhere.
[/QUOTE]
From In Re Quirin:

"By universal agreement and practice the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.

Such was the practice of our own military authorities before the adoption of the Constitution, and during the Mexican and Civil Wars…

By a long course of practical administrative construction by its military authorities, our Government has recognized that those who during time of war pass surreptitiously from enemy territory into our own, discarding their uniforms upon entry, for the commission of hostile acts involving destruction of life or property, have the status of unlawful combatants punishable as such by military commission. This precept of the law of war has been so recognized in practice both here and abroad, and has so generally been accepted as valid by authorities on international law that we think it must be regarded as a rule or principle of the law of war recognized by this Government by its enactment of the Fifteenth Article of War."

[Ludovic]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Yes.

Strawmanning is the response to an argument that your opponent never made.

Let’s review the ENTIRE sequence, shall we?

If you suggest that my response is a strawman, it’s pretty clear that it isn’t. Der Trihs SPECIFICALLY advanced the argument that my personal reaction to having these laws applied to me was relevant.

Right?
[/QUOTE]
It wasn’t the best phrase for me, but your argument still is a bit of a strawman, more of a circular argument, really.

Are you trying to make the argument that we are okay with “an alien unlawful enemy combatant engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States” being accorded the same rights as your average American citizen? If you are, then that’s a strawman. Our argument is that you can’t tell if someone is “an alien unlawful enemy combatant engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States.”

But I should have more precisely called it a circular argument, because it definitely assumes its conclusions.

[John_Mace]

[QUOTE=Darwin’s Finch]
What is the distinction between an unlawful enemy combatant, and a lawful one? Since the distinction was spelled out, I’m a) presuming there is one, and b) the definition of such is also spelled out somewhere.
[/QUOTE]

It’s basically an “enemy combatant” who does not fit the description of someone who should be treated as a POW per Article 4 of the GC.

[Sal_Ammoniac]

Bricker, I’ve got to ask – why shouldn’t enemy combatants, whatever they are, be entitled to habeas corpus? Because it’s inconvenient? To me the rights of the accused are one of those things you either believe in or you don’t. The idea of dividing humanity into those deserving of rights, and those not, is incredibly bizarre to me.

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=John Mace]
It’s basically an “enemy combatant” who does not fit the description of someone who should be treated as a POW per Article 4 of the GC.
[/QUOTE]
And who’s an “enemy combatant” ? Anyone we want to be one.

[John_Mace]

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
And who’s an “enemy combatant” ? Anyone we want to be one.
[/QUOTE]

No. Got any more questions?

[kaylasdad99]

Umm, Der Trihs? Could you let the grown-ups talk for a little bit?
That’s my little man.

[Robot_Arm]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Yes.

Strawmanning is the response to an argument that your opponent never made.

Let’s review the ENTIRE sequence, shall we?
[/QUOTE]
Der Trihs asked if you would have a problem with being held under the provisions of this new law for detaining Unlawful Enemy Combatants.

You replied that you would have a problem being tried and executed under a completely different law and judicial process, even if you were guilty.

That reads like a strawman to me.

[elucidator]

A hypothetical. Suppose the President were a scoundrel? Suppose said President knows or suspects that any number of the detainees currently under our protection are, in fact, essentially innocent. Suppose said President would prefer that this fact not become common knowledge.

What protection, if any, does the innocent detainee have? If the President quietly lets it become known that any military tribunal member who thwarts his will had best find another career track, what’s to stop him? Presumably, a confession might be offered as evidence. What provision is made for the victim…excuse, detainee…to challenge the means by which such a confession was obtained?

I would specificly inquire of friend Bricker: do you believe that all the detainees are guilty? If you were invested with the responsibility to defend a detainee that you believed were innocent, by what legal means under these provisions, could you sustain that? Do you believe that these provisions provide an adequate and fair means for such representation?

And finally, do you really believe, in your heart of hearts, that The Leader is above chicanery and connivance, and injustice, in order to obtain his goals?

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=John Mace]
No. Got any more questions?
[/QUOTE]
Lie. We haven’t given these people trials; many were just grabbed because we paid bounties for accusations. There is no reason to believe that most of them are anything but random people we grabbed.

Many say they were caught up in U.S. military sweeps, often interrogated around the clock, then released months or years later without apology, compensation or any word on why they were taken. Seventy to 90 percent of the Iraq detentions in 2003 were “mistakes,” U.S. officers once told the international Red Cross.

Link.

[El_Cid_Viscoso]

H.R.6166
Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)
[…]
AN ACT To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes.

Unlawful Enemy Combatant
Persons subject to military commissions
Habeas Corpus Matters

Read it all. It’s transparent.

[Bricker]

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Because you are a right wing toady of the Republicans, who doesn’t believe for one moment any of this will ever apply to you, and has zero ethics.
[/quote]

That’s argument ad hominem. It’s of course permitted, this being The Pit, but it is still a logical fallacy.

You are if the Administration says you are; they won’t because you are a toady. “Unlawful enemy combatant” is a meaningless phrase, designed solely as an excuse for denying our prisoners all rights; not those of a POW, nor those of a criminal, nor any others.

No. It is a phrase that is defined and has a specific meaning.

I don’t believe you, and you are assuming a fair trial instead of a kangaroo court, and you are assuming there will ever be a trial.

I don’t lose sleep worrying about whether you believe me or not, and the legislation we are discussing mandates a trial. If you are arguing agianst the legislation because you believe there will be no trials, your position is untenable.

[Bricker]

[QUOTE=Darwin’s Finch]
What is the distinction between an unlawful enemy combatant, and a lawful one? Since the distinction was spelled out, I’m a) presuming there is one, and b) the definition of such is also spelled out somewhere.
[/QUOTE]

A lawful combatant is one who is entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions, including:

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

[Bricker]

[QUOTE=Ludovic]
It wasn’t the best phrase for me, but your argument still is a bit of a strawman, more of a circular argument, really.

Are you trying to make the argument that we are okay with “an alien unlawful enemy combatant engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States” being accorded the same rights as your average American citizen? If you are, then that’s a strawman. Our argument is that you can’t tell if someone is “an alien unlawful enemy combatant engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States.”

But I should have more precisely called it a circular argument, because it definitely assumes its conclusions.
[/QUOTE]

No. My argument was more precisely drawn: that your side in this debate is attempting to use the processes of internal criminal law and apply them to warfare situations. Specifically, this thread bemoans the rejection of the habeas corpus process to detainees captured in armed conflict. I argue that this is wise.

[mhendo]

[QUOTE=elucidator]
A hypothetical. Suppose the President were a scoundrel? Suppose said President knows or suspects that any number of the detainees currently under our protection are, in fact, essentially innocent. Suppose said President would prefer that this fact not become common knowledge.

What protection, if any, does the innocent detainee have? If the President quietly lets it become known that any military tribunal member who thwarts his will had best find another career track, what’s to stop him? Presumably, a confession might be offered as evidence. What provision is made for the victim…excuse, detainee…to challenge the means by which such a confession was obtained?

I would specificly inquire of friend Bricker: do you believe that all the detainees are guilty? If you were invested with the responsibility to defend a detainee that you believed were innocent, by what legal means under these provisions, could you sustain that? Do you believe that these provisions provide an adequate and fair means for such representation?

And finally, do you really believe, in your heart of hearts, that The Leader is above chicanery and connivance, and injustice, in order to obtain his goals?
[/QUOTE]

You just don’t get it, do you?

If Bricker can demonstrate that the OP was incorrect on a narrow legal issue related to the applicability of habeas corpus, and that the legislation in question was passed pursuant to the internal logic and mechanism of the American legal process, then that is all the answer we need on this issue.

Messy moral questions, such as whether this system (legal or not) is actually fair and just, become mere irrelevancies, trivia to be debated by Chomsky-reading chardonnay swillers in their Upper West Side co-ops. Principles such as “innocent until proven guilty,” and “having the right to confront one’s accuser” are not, as some naifs believe, to be universally applied in the spirit of true justice and compassion. They are there for those lucky enough to be residing in God’s Country. And when The Leader says that our aim is to spread American principles to all peoples, he doesn’t mean all of those principles, and you can be sure that he’s the only one qualified to determine exactly which people.

[Bricker]

[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]
Bricker, I’ve got to ask – why shouldn’t enemy combatants, whatever they are, be entitled to habeas corpus? Because it’s inconvenient? To me the rights of the accused are one of those things you either believe in or you don’t. The idea of dividing humanity into those deserving of rights, and those not, is incredibly bizarre to me.
[/QUOTE]

Because “the rights of accused” is a phrase that applies to people arrested in the ordinary criminal context, not people captured on a battlefield. Just as soldiers don’t have to read Miranda rights to captured prisoners before they are interrogated, so, too, do those prisoners not have the right to demand a court review their captivity. The writ of habeas corpus has a long history, and it has never been applied to captured wartime combatants.

In short – these are not “accused” in the sense of criminal wrongdoing. They are enemies. They are not deserving of criminal justice protections, because they are not part of the criminal justice system.

[El_Cid_Viscoso]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
A lawful combatant is one who is entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions, including:
[/QUOTE]
My links above are all busted, but the term is defined within HR 6166. Go here and type “H.R.6166” in the Bill Number query.

Sec. 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.

[jjimm]

mhendo has said in far more complex and witty a way what I was about to post more succinctly:

Do you realise what you look like?