I'm sure you've all heard Keith Olbermann speaking very eloquently about habeas corpus and the government's attack on it. If you're not sure exactly what habeas corpus is and how the Military Commissions Act of 2006 affects it, here's a quick primer -
The writ of habeas corpus came about in the middle 13th Century in England. Literally translated, it means "you have the body." What it meant is that anyone who was detained by the King could apply to the courts for a writ ordering his release. The Crown would then have to show good cause for the detention, or the writ would issue and the detainee would be released.
Back then, this was an absolutely revolutionary concept. Please remember that this was the Middle Ages. There was one Church in Europe, and sensible, intelligent people were absolutely convinced that the King held his powers directly from God. In England, Parliament was a brand new idea. The idea of any limitation on the King's power was less than a century old. The significance of the writ was that it stood for the idea that the law stands higher than the King. Habeas corpus is the cornerstone of the concept of "the rule of law." It established independent review of the Crown's actions.
Habeas corpus was well established by the time the United States became a separate country. So well established, in fact, that the Constitution sets out specific, very limited conditions under which habeas corpus can be suspended, but does not say what habeas corpus is. The concept had become so deeply imbedded in the law that the authors of the Constitution felt no need to explain what it was.
There are three key provisions in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that cripple habeas corpus. Forget about the military commissions themselves. Assume that the commissions guarantee perfect justice. The simple fact is that if you are detained by the government, there is no guarantee you'll ever face a miltary commission.
Here are the three key provisions -
1. Anyone, U.S. citizen or not, can be declared an "unlawful enemy combatant" by the President, the Secretary of Defense, or a tribunal established by the Secretary of Defense. Note that all of these are nothing more than employees of the President. The determination that someone is an "unlawful enemy combatant" cannot be challenged in a court of law or anywhere else. The President does not need to present the slightest shred of evidence that you are, indeed, an enemy combatant. If he says you are, it's true. That's the law.
2. Unlawful enemy combatants have no right to a speedy and public trial. The right to a speedy trial guaranteed in the Uniform Code of Military Justice is specifically denied to unlawful enemy combatants by the Military Commissions Act. This means that once you are declared an unlawful enemy combatant, the government is under no obligation to ever bring you before a military tribunal. The government can detain you for the rest of your life without ever granting you a hearing of any kind.
3. Unlawful enemy combatants do not have the right to apply for a writ of habeas corpus. This means there will be NO independent review of your detention, your status, your guilt or innocence, or the President's determination that you are an enemy combatant.
Summary - if the President signs a piece of paper that says Hillary Clinton is an unlawful enemy combatant, he does not need to give any reason, and that determination cannot be challenged anywhere. He can hold Senator Clinton in a military prison or a foreign prison for the rest of her life without any kind of hearing. And he can do the same thing to you, dear reader.
You may argue that to do something like that to a prominent politician would be political suicide. Maybe so, but what it means, at bottom, is that now politics and who is in the White House, and not the Constitution or the law, determines whether you walk free in the morning sun or spend the rest of your life in an 8 x 10 cell.
Full Version: Habeas Corpus
OLD American Century / White Rose Society message boards > Political Discussion forums > Politics In General
Thank you Jubal!
Much appreciated!
I saw it explained on PBS last night, that basicially the President is saying that he will not abuse the power that has just been given him, but that he is under no legal restraint to be good with that power. Plus, if the man simply goes Caligula on us, there is nothing to prevent him from abusing the power, and the same applies to every president that follows this supposedly stupid village idiot.
Ya know, if I were a fiction writer, I sure could think of a lot of plot lines using current political reality.
Much appreciated!
I saw it explained on PBS last night, that basicially the President is saying that he will not abuse the power that has just been given him, but that he is under no legal restraint to be good with that power. Plus, if the man simply goes Caligula on us, there is nothing to prevent him from abusing the power, and the same applies to every president that follows this supposedly stupid village idiot.
Ya know, if I were a fiction writer, I sure could think of a lot of plot lines using current political reality.
QUOTE(sky of mind @ Thursday, 19 October 2006, 7:33 pm) [snapback]76388[/snapback]
Thank you Jubal!
Much appreciated!
I saw it explained on PBS last night, that basically the President is saying that he will not abuse the power that has just been given him, but that he is under no legal restraint to be good with that power. Plus, if the man simply goes Caligula on us, there is nothing to prevent him from abusing the power, and the same applies to every president that follows this supposedly stupid village idiot.
Ya know, if I were a fiction writer, I sure could think of a lot of plot lines using current political reality.
Yes, we are at his mercy. The question is, is he sane enough or will he remain sane enough? And what of his predecessor? No matter the political party, hill they exorcise restraint? Shame that America sees it fit to step back 230 years and yield individual rights in favor of dictatorial rights. SHAME. Much appreciated!
I saw it explained on PBS last night, that basically the President is saying that he will not abuse the power that has just been given him, but that he is under no legal restraint to be good with that power. Plus, if the man simply goes Caligula on us, there is nothing to prevent him from abusing the power, and the same applies to every president that follows this supposedly stupid village idiot.
Ya know, if I were a fiction writer, I sure could think of a lot of plot lines using current political reality.
Were the Colonies safer then? The colonists safer from forces outside the colony? When it was a king that provided their security? And when it was that same king that threatened their security?
Who knew that our Nostradamus would be Orwell?
Question for Jubal,
What are the specific reasons under which Habeas Corpus can legally be suspended, and is there any sort of time limit built in, such as say, the conclusion of hostilities?
What I am after with the main part of the question is, did Bush suspend Habeas Corpus legally?
If it is indeed legal, it will never be heard by the Supremes, and the only way to get it back will be through legislation.
What are the specific reasons under which Habeas Corpus can legally be suspended, and is there any sort of time limit built in, such as say, the conclusion of hostilities?
What I am after with the main part of the question is, did Bush suspend Habeas Corpus legally?
If it is indeed legal, it will never be heard by the Supremes, and the only way to get it back will be through legislation.
QUOTE
What are the specific reasons under which Habeas Corpus can legally be suspended, and is there any sort of time limit built in, such as say, the conclusion of hostilities?
What I am after with the main part of the question is, did Bush suspend Habeas Corpus legally?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus
This procedure, part of English common law, was considered important enough to be specifically mentioned in the United States Constitution, which says, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." (Article One, section nine).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus...ar_on_Terrorism
QUOTE(Max-1 @ Thursday, 19 October 2006, 11:14 pm) [snapback]76445[/snapback]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus
This procedure, part of English common law, was considered important enough to be specifically mentioned in the United States Constitution, which says, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." (Article One, section nine).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus...ar_on_Terrorism
I have read and understood that Max. That's why I asked the question of a Constitutional Attorney, arguably an expert in constitutional law.
Doh 
Sky, you said "..if the man simply goes Caligula on us.."
Dude, he's already done gone !
Hello, Thought Police !
Dude, he's already done gone !
Hello, Thought Police !
QUOTE
Question for Jubal,
What are the specific reasons under which Habeas Corpus can legally be suspended, and is there any sort of time limit built in, such as say, the conclusion of hostilities?
What I am after with the main part of the question is, did Bush suspend Habeas Corpus legally?
If it is indeed legal, it will never be heard by the Supremes, and the only way to get it back will be through legislation.
What are the specific reasons under which Habeas Corpus can legally be suspended, and is there any sort of time limit built in, such as say, the conclusion of hostilities?
What I am after with the main part of the question is, did Bush suspend Habeas Corpus legally?
If it is indeed legal, it will never be heard by the Supremes, and the only way to get it back will be through legislation.
As usual, the Constitution is vague. Here's the entire relevant text -
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." U.S. Constitution, Art. I, sec. 9.
Whether or not it's legal depends on two things -
1. Whether the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon constituted an invasion.
2. Whether it is reasonable to believe that the public safety requires the suspension of habeas corpus to continue more than five years after the attacks.
I can't believe any sane, honest judge would answer yes to either question. And I don't think we have many insane judges. I do worry about the dishonest ones, though.
Jubal,
What say you on the writ of attainder as it pertains to Article 1, secion 9? And how it pertains to the Military Commissions Act? Enemy Combatant status?
What say you on the writ of attainder as it pertains to Article 1, secion 9? And how it pertains to the Military Commissions Act? Enemy Combatant status?
QUOTE(Max-1 @ Friday, 20 October 2006, 5:32 am) [snapback]76479[/snapback]
Jubal,
What say you on the writ of attainder as it pertains to Article 1, secion 9? And how it pertains to the Military Commissions Act? Enemy Combatant status?
It doesn't really. You're getting into highly technical areas. A bill of attainder (not a writ, the difference is crucial) is punishing someone by legislation. For example, if the Repulsivecan Congress, as it's last act of defiance on its way down the toilet drain, was to pass a law saying that Bill Clinton was guilty of fornication and was to be imprisoned, that would be a bill of attainder. It usurps the power of the judiciary.
I like it when someone offers information that actually teaches me.
I may not always agree with Jubals politics or his personal tactics, but god damn he's teaching me stuff!
I may not always agree with Jubals politics or his personal tactics, but god damn he's teaching me stuff!
QUOTE(sky of mind @ Friday, 20 October 2006, 8:45 am) [snapback]76492[/snapback]
I like it when someone offers information that actually teaches me.
I may not always agree with Jubals politics or his personal tactics, but god damn he's teaching me stuff!
That's my real goal here. I'm happy to wrangle and fight and swap insults, but my real goal is to help (make) people think, and incidentally to give information that I happen to have because of my training and profession. I regard critical, thoughtful analysis and reasoning as the best basis for political action. I will be perfectly happy if someone starts out opposed to me, and partly because of my efforts, ends up still opposed to me, but with higher quality arguments on the subject.
QUOTE(Jubal @ Friday, 20 October 2006, 4:43 am) [snapback]76482[/snapback]
It doesn't really. You're getting into highly technical areas. A bill of attainder (not a writ, the difference is crucial) is punishing someone by legislation. For example, if the Repulsivecan Congress, as it's last act of defiance on its way down the toilet drain, was to pass a law saying that Bill Clinton was guilty of fornication and was to be imprisoned, that would be a bill of attainder. It usurps the power of the judiciary.
But Congress can authorize "executive orders of attainder" that also usurp the power of the judiciary?
QUOTE(happymisanthropy @ Friday, 20 October 2006, 1:06 pm) [snapback]76535[/snapback]
But Congress can authorize "executive orders of attainder" that also usurp the power of the judiciary?
I guess we'll see. I'm actually kind of hopeful. Even justices whose appointments were highly politically biased often surprise the people who appointed them. And probably the best way to get a justice to bite the hand that appointed him is to try to usurp the power of the judiciary.
I have some hopes for Alito because he was endorsed by the most "liberal" member of the Third Circuit. That would indicate that he's more than a political hack. Remember Souter.
Weird. Double post.
QUOTE(Jubal @ Friday, 20 October 2006, 4:43 am) [snapback]76482[/snapback]
It doesn't really. You're getting into highly technical areas. A bill of attainder (not a writ, the difference is crucial) is punishing someone by legislation. For example, if the Repulsivecan Congress, as it's last act of defiance on its way down the toilet drain, was to pass a law saying that Bill Clinton was guilty of fornication and was to be imprisoned, that would be a bill of attainder. It usurps the power of the judiciary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder
A bill of attainder (also known as an act or writ of attainder) is an act of legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime, and punishing them, without benefit of a trial. The United States Constitution forbids both the federal and state governments from enacting bills of attainder, in Article 1, Sections 9 and 10, respectively. It was considered an excess or abuse of the British monarchy and Parliament. They were abolished in the United Kingdom in 1870, but they had in any case been rarely used.How about a desperate Despot that seeks to retain control, muscles his political party into writing legislation that spells out that anyone who, by association, can be defined an enemy of the State and therefore denied Rights granted by the US Constitution. ANYBODY, foreign or domestic. American or otherwise.
Have you read this interpretation? http://oldamericancentury.org/bb/index.php?showtopic=11961
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attai...#American_usage
SO
American usage
Bills of attainder were used through the 18th century in England, and were applied to English colonies as well. One of the motivations for the American revolution was anger at the injustice of attainder—though the Americans themselves used bills of attainder to confiscate the property of English loyalists (called tories) during the revolution. American dissatisfaction with attainder laws motivated their prohibition in the Constitution (see the case of Parker Wickham). The provision forbidding state law bills of attainder reflects the importance that the framers attached to this issue, since the unamended constitution imposes very few restrictions on state governments' power.
Within the U.S. Constitution, the clauses forbidding attainder laws serve two purposes. First, they reinforced the separation of powers, by forbidding the legislature to perform judicial functions—since the outcome of any such acts of legislature would of necessity take the form of a bill of attainder. Second, they embody the concept of due process, which was later reinforced by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The text of the Constitution, Article I, Section 9; Clause 3 is:
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. The constitutions of each and every State within the American Union also expressly forbid bills of attainder. For example, Wisconsin's constitution Article I, Section 12 reads:
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed, and no conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate. Contrast this with the subtly more modern variation with the Texas version: Article 1 (Titled Bill of Rights) Section 16, entitled Bills of Attainder; Ex Post Facto or Retroactive Laws: Imparing Obligation of Contracts:
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, retroactive law, or any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall be made. Up until 2002, only five acts of Congress had ever been overturned on bill of attainder grounds. The Elizabeth Morgan Act was overturned in 2003 as a bill of attainder. Many suggested that the Palm Sunday Compromise in the case of Terri Schiavo was also a bill of attainder.
My question is...
Could the MCA also be considered as being a Bill of Attainder?
Especially in the Preamble http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-...transcript.html
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.This document expressly states ALL men are created equal. It does not state Americans are created equal, but rather it equates that ALL men are endowed by their Creator unalienable Rights. Later to be reinforced through the express definition that ALL treaties entered into by the Government with other sovereign bodies ARE to be considered the common law of the land. Later, international laws were defined as treaties.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
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.--
QUOTE(Jubal @ Friday, 20 October 2006, 12:20 pm) [snapback]76537[/snapback]
Weird. Double post.
That's happened to me, and several others quite a bit.
I think it's a government conspiracy.
Never mind that TJ has always run a very good forum, and we all respect him and what he does,
it's his board, he's responsible, so he must be part of this secret conspiracy and outta be strung up by his toes.
Anybody got any hot tar?
QUOTE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder
A bill of attainder (also known as an act or writ of attainder) is an act of legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime, and punishing them, without benefit of a trial. The United States Constitution forbids both the federal and state governments from enacting bills of attainder, in Article 1, Sections 9 and 10, respectively. It was considered an excess or abuse of the British monarchy and Parliament. They were abolished in the United Kingdom in 1870, but they had in any case been rarely used.How about a desperate Despot that seeks to retain control, muscles his political party into writing legislation that spells out that anyone who, by association, can be defined an enemy of the State and therefore denied Rights granted by the US Constitution. ANYBODY, foreign or domestic. American or otherwise.
I don't like it any better than you do. That doesn't make the MCA a bill of attainder.
QUOTE
Have you read this interpretation? http://oldamericancentury.org/bb/index.php?showtopic=11961
No. Maybe I will, but I doubt it will teach me more than five years of law school did.
QUOTE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attai...#American_usage
My question is...
Could the MCA also be considered as being a Bill of Attainder?
SO
American usage
Bills of attainder were used through the 18th century in England, and were applied to English colonies as well. One of the motivations for the American revolution was anger at the injustice of attainder—though the Americans themselves used bills of attainder to confiscate the property of English loyalists (called tories) during the revolution. American dissatisfaction with attainder laws motivated their prohibition in the Constitution (see the case of Parker Wickham). The provision forbidding state law bills of attainder reflects the importance that the framers attached to this issue, since the unamended constitution imposes very few restrictions on state governments' power.
Within the U.S. Constitution, the clauses forbidding attainder laws serve two purposes. First, they reinforced the separation of powers, by forbidding the legislature to perform judicial functions—since the outcome of any such acts of legislature would of necessity take the form of a bill of attainder. Second, they embody the concept of due process, which was later reinforced by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The text of the Constitution, Article I, Section 9; Clause 3 is:
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. The constitutions of each and every State within the American Union also expressly forbid bills of attainder. For example, Wisconsin's constitution Article I, Section 12 reads:
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed, and no conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate. Contrast this with the subtly more modern variation with the Texas version: Article 1 (Titled Bill of Rights) Section 16, entitled Bills of Attainder; Ex Post Facto or Retroactive Laws: Imparing Obligation of Contracts:
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, retroactive law, or any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall be made. Up until 2002, only five acts of Congress had ever been overturned on bill of attainder grounds. The Elizabeth Morgan Act was overturned in 2003 as a bill of attainder. Many suggested that the Palm Sunday Compromise in the case of Terri Schiavo was also a bill of attainder.
My question is...
Could the MCA also be considered as being a Bill of Attainder?
Not really. The MCA does not declare anyone guilty of a crime.
QUOTE
Especially in the Preamble http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-...transcript.html
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.This document expressly states ALL men are created equal. It does not state Americans are created equal, but rather it equates that ALL men are endowed by their Creator unalienable Rights. Later to be reinforced through the express definition that ALL treaties entered into by the Government with other sovereign bodies ARE to be considered the common law of the land. Later, international laws were defined as treaties.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
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.--
"This document," the Declaration of Independence, is not part of the law of the United States. Period.
QUOTE(Jubal @ Saturday, 21 October 2006, 3:56 pm) [snapback]76665[/snapback]
I don't like it any better than you do. That doesn't make the MCA a bill of attainder.
Can you show me how?
QUOTE
No. Maybe I will, but I doubt it will teach me more than five years of law school did.
Well, seeing that the author is an International civil rights lawyer, it might be prudent to read it, because you're all over the illogical aspect with a predisposed BIAS based on what you THINK you know is better than others. Have you read the opinions of the CCR? http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/report.as...amp;Content=871
They even have a well put together pdf that explains what the MCA does and does not do.
You should look it up sometime.
But in all honesty, isn't that shallow to simply define your knowledge superior to others simply because you HAVE FIVE YEARS of Law school? I mean, that's simple arrogance right there, NO?
QUOTE
Not really. The MCA does not declare anyone guilty of a crime.
If ANYONE is found to be sympathetic of terrorist groups, directly or indirectly, they are deemed to be an "ENEMY COMBATANT". Just because the Bush refuses to treat "ENEMY COMBATANTS" as criminals in favor of military tribunals, his direct treatment and sentencing resembles how criminals are treated.
QUOTE
"This document," the Declaration of Independence, is not part of the law of the United States. Period.
"This Document," The Declaration of Independence may not be a part OF the law, but is it not a Legal Document that defines the separation of the people from rulers, giving to the people defined Rights that no ruler may usurp? QUOTE
Can you show me how?
Sure. A bill of attainder declares a person or persons guilty of a crime. The MCA does not declare a person or persons guilty of a crime. Therefore, the MCA is not a bill of attainder.
Further questions?
QUOTE
Well, seeing that the author is an International civil rights lawyer, it might be prudent to read it, because you're all over the illogical aspect with a predisposed BIAS based on what you THINK you know is better than others.
As I said, maybe I will.
QUOTE
Have you read the opinions of the CCR? http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/report.as...amp;Content=871
They even have a well put together pdf that explains what the MCA does and does not do.
You should look it up sometime.
They even have a well put together pdf that explains what the MCA does and does not do.
You should look it up sometime.
Maybe I will. I have, however, already actually read the MCA, not a PDF, not an abstract, not an interpretation of what it means.
QUOTE
But in all honesty, isn't that shallow to simply define your knowledge superior to others simply because you HAVE FIVE YEARS of Law school? I mean, that's simple arrogance right there, NO?
I don't think it's shallow or invalid to conclude that someone who has studied the law for five years in a formal setting, and practiced in for several more years, is likely to know the law better than all but a very small fraction of the population.
QUOTE
If ANYONE is found to be sympathetic of terrorist groups, directly or indirectly, they are deemed to be an "ENEMY COMBATANT". Just because the Bush refuses to treat "ENEMY COMBATANTS" as criminals in favor of military tribunals, his direct treatment and sentencing resembles how criminals are treated.
Wrong. If anyone is designated as an unlawful enemy combatant, they can be treated in accordance with the MCA. They don't have to be found to be sympathetic of terrorist groups, directly or indirectly. That's one of the features that makes the MCA so dangerous.
QUOTE
"This Document," The Declaration of Independence may not be a part OF the law, but is it not a Legal Document that defines the separation of the people from rulers, giving to the people defined Rights that no ruler may usurp?
No. It's a lovely wee piece of poetry that expresses some fine sentiments (and some really nasty ones). It has zero legal force or effect. And it is not a legal document.
Small explination without ego's and arrogance.
Jubal has much more experience than I have with the law. As such I will yield to him nearly every question concerning the law.
That said, this does not mean Jubal is smarter than me or anyone else, and again as such, I will NOT hold his perticular field of expertise against him because his knowledge somehow for what ever reason makes me feel insecure.
I dare say that if Jubal and I were each stuck out in the vast empty openess of Eastern Washington farm land and we each had a busted water pump, I'd figure out a way to get home, while Jubal called a tow truck. My ability to problem solve does not make me smarter than him. Although the fact that I am very likely taller than him does mean that most people will assume I am.
(sorry, but that's been researched and is fact. Taller men are perceived to be smarter, and more virile.) Even so, I will still concede that Jubal knows more about the law than I do.
I am me, Jubal is Jubal and you are you. Let's just leave it at that, OK?
Jubal came to this forum, saw that we were stumbling in one perticular area, an area in which he has some experience, and thought he could help us be sharper, more educated, and much more capabale fighters against the dark forces that are today known as Bushco.
Personally, I'm grateful.
Because I am always the student.
Jubal has much more experience than I have with the law. As such I will yield to him nearly every question concerning the law.
That said, this does not mean Jubal is smarter than me or anyone else, and again as such, I will NOT hold his perticular field of expertise against him because his knowledge somehow for what ever reason makes me feel insecure.
I dare say that if Jubal and I were each stuck out in the vast empty openess of Eastern Washington farm land and we each had a busted water pump, I'd figure out a way to get home, while Jubal called a tow truck. My ability to problem solve does not make me smarter than him. Although the fact that I am very likely taller than him does mean that most people will assume I am.
(sorry, but that's been researched and is fact. Taller men are perceived to be smarter, and more virile.) Even so, I will still concede that Jubal knows more about the law than I do.I am me, Jubal is Jubal and you are you. Let's just leave it at that, OK?
Jubal came to this forum, saw that we were stumbling in one perticular area, an area in which he has some experience, and thought he could help us be sharper, more educated, and much more capabale fighters against the dark forces that are today known as Bushco.
Personally, I'm grateful.
Because I am always the student.
QUOTE
I dare say that if Jubal and I were each stuck out in the vast empty openess of Eastern Washington farm land and we each had a busted water pump, I'd figure out a way to get home, while Jubal called a tow truck.
Nonsense. I'd simply unbolt the hood, turn it upside down, lasso a couple of passing deer, and sleigh my way back into town in style!
QUOTE
Jubal came to this forum, saw that we were stumbling in one perticular area, an area in which he has some experience, and thought he could help us be sharper, more educated, and much more capabale fighters
That's the whole point. I do apologize for when I get a bit snarky.
QUOTE
Personally, I'm grateful.
Think nothing of it.
QUOTE
Because I am always the student.
The only real wisdom there is.
Oh, so so sorry y'all. How silly of me to question people who tell suggest insist that because they have experience they know better. Well if that ain't arrogance then I don't know what is.
I'm not here to be measuring penises, just offering objective points of views. That's all. Take it or leave it.
I just call Bull Shit when someone comes allong and insists that their position is superior to alternate points of views, especially in their area of expertise., just because they say so.
I'm not here to be measuring penises, just offering objective points of views. That's all. Take it or leave it.
I just call Bull Shit when someone comes allong and insists that their position is superior to alternate points of views, especially in their area of expertise., just because they say so.
Just to throw something in, if someone is considered an "enemy combatant" then wouldnt they be subject to a millitary tribunal, when the us constitution doesnt apply, and where no cases can be appealed to the civilian courts?
I just call Bull Shit when someone comes allong and insists that their position is superior to alternate points of views, especially in their area of expertise., just because they say so. Jubal isnt right because he "says he is" but because the facts and legal precedent says he is. THATS what makes his position superior. And thats what make alternate points of views incorrect.
QUOTE
"This Document," The Declaration of Independence may not be a part OF the law, but is it not a Legal Document that defines the separation of the people from rulers, giving to the people defined Rights that no ruler may usurp?
nope, the DOI hold zero legal clout.QUOTE
I just call Bull Shit when someone comes allong and insists that their position is superior to alternate points of views, especially in their area of expertise., just because they say so.
QUOTE
Jubal isnt right because he "says he is" but because the facts and legal precedent says he is. THATS what makes his position superior. And thats what make alternate points of views incorrect.
I'm not arguing IF he's right or wrong. I'm simply pointing out that experience alone does not render other opinions neutered and irrelevent. Other constitutional experts, lawyers, and law groups have differeing interpretations on the MCA. Not all agree either. So who's right? I hold suspect, those that insist that they know best on the "Just because" basis. Especially if others happen to hold alternate opinions.BTW, there are different versions listed for those that care to be "IN THE KNOW"
QUOTE
http://www.juancole.com/2006/10/aliens-or-...-peter-van.html
Dear Professor Cole,
I just noted an error in your post yesterday regarding the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
The original version of the House bill (HR 6166) included a definition of Illegal Enemy Combatants as:
"(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."
The original Senate Version (S 3930) as introduced applied only to aliens:' "In this chapter:When the Senate version originally passed, the version published in Thomas as "Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by Senate" ( http://thomas.loc.gov/) included that language. That has lead to most of the media stating, as you did, that the Military Commissions Act does not apply to American citizens.
`(1) ALIEN- The term `alien' means an individual who is not a citizen of the United States.
`(2) CLASSIFIED INFORMATION- The term `classified information' means the following:
`(A) Any information or material that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to statute, Executive order, or regulation to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security.
`( B ) Any restricted data, as that term is defined in section 11 y. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014(y)).
`(3) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- The term `lawful enemy combatant' means an individual who is--
`(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
`( B ) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
`( C ) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.
`(4) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means an individual engaged in hostilities against the United States who is not a lawful enemy combatant."
In the past two weeks since the Senate passed S 3930, the published version has been changed to align with the House.
I can only speculate that the language in the published version of S 3930 was not changed immediately after passage in order to mislead the media. The other possibility is that the Senate passed the bill as originally written, and persons unknown changed the published version in order to avoid the need for a reconciliation vote where the import of the bill could be revisited. In any case, the various efforts of the ACLU and others to correct the public perception are lost in the general furor, and the media keep repeating that the bill only applies to them. We have met the enemy and he is us.
See you in Gitmo! I'll be the un-named guy in the un-numbered cell. '
Peter Van Erp
SIMPLY SHARING WHAT I FIND
QUOTE("Jubal")
Further questions?
So, is the MCA not a piece of legilation that punishes individuals based on status? Just asking.
QUOTE(nygreenguy @ Sunday, 22 October 2006, 5:47 pm) [snapback]76739[/snapback]
Just to throw something in, if someone is considered an "enemy combatant" then wouldnt they be subject to a millitary tribunal, when the us constitution doesnt apply, and where no cases can be appealed to the civilian courts?
Unless they decide on summary execution... is that outlawed?
QUOTE
nope, the DOI hold zero legal clout.
Yeah, but it's still a precedent of sorts.
(listens for sirens)QUOTE
Jubal isnt right because he "says he is" but because the facts and legal precedent says he is. THATS what makes his position superior. And thats what make alternate points of views incorrect.
No, it only means the judges are more likely to agree with him.
The courts are not going to step in and separate right from wrong and make everything hunky-dory. The justice system does not exist to find everything wrong and make it right. (I think we already discussed this on an impeachment thread.)
SCOTUS might slow down the march to fascism. It's up to the people to stop it.
QUOTE("Jubal")
QUOTE("Max-1")
"This Document," The Declaration of Independence may not be a part OF the law, but is it not a Legal Document that defines the separation of the people from rulers, giving to the people defined Rights that no ruler may usurp?
No. It's a lovely wee piece of poetry that expresses some fine sentiments (and some really nasty ones). It has zero legal force or effect. And it is not a legal document.
Riddle me this then...What would the USA be without the DOI?Who's rule would the USA be under?And, what would happen to the resulting Bill of Rights and the entire Constitution that grew out of our sepperation from England? You can't dismiss the relevency of the Founding documents that established this country, just because they are written on parchment. I mean you obviously did. But in doing so, aren't you saying that the relevency of the Bill of Rights and Constitution have no relevency either? What else would you call the Declaration of Independance then? You seem to hold them with little significance and regard to HOW this nation was built and WHAT it was built upon. Didn't our founders agree to and sign this Declaration of Independance? What was the significance of their signitures versus say...a hand shake?
QUOTE
Just to throw something in, if someone is considered an "enemy combatant" then wouldnt they be subject to a millitary tribunal, when the us constitution doesnt apply, and where no cases can be appealed to the civilian courts?
Actually, the appeal chain goes from the military commission to another military commission that reviews military commissions, to the Federal Appellate Court for the D.C. Circuit, to the Supremes.
If the detainee ever gets a trial in the first place, that is.
QUOTE(Max-1 @ Sunday, 22 October 2006, 7:27 pm) [snapback]76745[/snapback]
So, is the MCA not a piece of legilation that punishes individuals based on status? Just asking.
No. The MCA, by itself, punishes no-one. It establishes a procedure (in my humble opinion unConstitutional), that enables the executive to punish individuals without review by the judiciary.
To be a bill of attainder, the bill must, standing alone, declare a person or persons guilty of a crime. That's why it's forbidden. Under separation of powers, only the judiciary branch, not the legislative, has the power to declare a person guilty of a crime.
QUOTE
No. It's a lovely wee piece of poetry that expresses some fine sentiments (and some really nasty ones). It has zero legal force or effect. And it is not a legal document.
Riddle me this then...What would the USA be without the DOI?
Riddle me this then...What would the USA be without the DOI?
Exactly what it is now.
QUOTE
Who's rule would the USA be under?
The people of the United States.
QUOTE
And, what would happen to the resulting Bill of Rights and the entire Constitution that grew out of our sepperation from England?
Neither the Bill of Rights nor the Constitution "resulted" from the Declaration of Independence.
QUOTE
You can't dismiss the relevency of the Founding documents that established this country, just because they are written on parchment. I mean you obviously did.
Being written on parchment wasn't my criterion. Listen carefully.
I did not say the Declaration of Independence is Not A Good Thing.
I did not say the Declaration of Independence is Not An Important Historical Document.
I did not say the Declaration of Independence is Not An Expression of The Ideals of the Founders.
I said the Declaration of Independence is not part of the law.
The Bible, the philosophies of John Stuart Mill, and the writings of Thomas Jefferson and many, many others were also very important in founding the United States. They're not part of the law either.
QUOTE
But in doing so, aren't you saying that the relevency of the Bill of Rights and Constitution have no relevency either?
Who's talking about "relevency?" (I'm assuming you mean "relevance.") I said the Declaration of Independence is not part of the law. Observe -
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land..." U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 2.
QUOTE
What else would you call the Declaration of Independance then?
Asked and answered. In case you missed it, I said it was a lovely wee piece of poetry that expressed some fine sentiments and some pretty nasty ones. Specifically what it was was a letter to the King stating that a group calling itself the Continental Congress was declaring that the thirteen Colonies were declaring themselves an independent country and stating their reasons.
QUOTE
You seem to hold them with little significance and regard to HOW this nation was built and WHAT it was built upon. Didn't our founders agree to and sign this Declaration of Independance? What was the significance of their signitures versus say...a hand shake?
One more time. I said the Declaration of Independence is NOT PART OF THE LAW. I didn't say it wasn't significant. I didn't say it wasn't important. I said it's not part of the law.
Are we clear yet?
QUOTE(Jubal @ Monday, 23 October 2006, 3:41 am) [snapback]76773[/snapback]
Are we clear yet?
You've made your self clear.
Please refer to your PM i sent.
Convo over.
K thx Bi
QUOTE(Max-1 @ Monday, 23 October 2006, 5:20 am) [snapback]76774[/snapback]
Oh yes.
You've made your self clear.
Please refer to your PM i sent.
Convo over.
K thx Bi
Splendid. By the way, do you remember when you asked me if I knew what "an ad hominem" is? Here's a perfect example -
Jubal - The Declaration of Independence is not part of the law.
Max-1 - The Declaration of Independence is a major founding document of the country.
Jubal - I didn't say it wasn't. I said it's not part of the law.
Max-1 - You're shallow and arrogant.
Classic argumentum ad hominem.
QUOTE(Jubal @ Monday, 23 October 2006, 3:41 am) [snapback]76773[/snapback]
Are we clear yet?
I'm clear.
The DoI was and is an important paper. It's the document by which the people of the US formally explained to England that we intended to be our own country. It was an expression of intention. Basically, a real fancy poetic letter.
I'm also clear that it's not law. That the DoI was never intended to be law. That's what the Constitutions purpose is.
These are two seperate documents that were intended for two seperate actions. One was a statement, the other to set basic American law.
How am I doin so far?
QUOTE(Jubal @ Monday, 23 October 2006, 4:56 am) [snapback]76776[/snapback]
Splendid. By the way, do you remember when you asked me if I knew what "an ad hominem" is? Here's a perfect example -
Jubal - The Declaration of Independence is not part of the law.
Max-1 - The Declaration of Independence is a major founding document of the country.
Jubal - I didn't say it wasn't. I said it's not part of the law.
Max-1 - You're shallow and arrogant.
Classic argumentum ad hominem.
Glad to know that you still think I'm your tool.
You did get my PM. NO?
Since you wish to continue to publically insult me and for those that missed it, and so that my position is clear:
QUOTE
So as I may stop exposing myself as being the idiot and that you may cease having to insult my intelligence, argument over.
I stand by my claim:
You are arrogant.
My initial offering was one of possible insight of interpretations concerning the MCA that I have read from OTHER sources. Instead of welcoming these possible insights, you have tossed them and my input aside like trash. Acting as if your opinion is what counts most. To me, that's shallow. It shows a lack of depth in your character to not consider OTHER input when offered.
Continuing on, you find opportunities to make it a point to correct my grammar as if I'm the village idiot. Other than a self serving agenda in an attempt to highlight your superiority (at least in the grammar part) what good does it do? Prove? Other than your arrogance.
Been nice discussing things, would like to have an exchange of ideas but personally, I find it difficult to do so with people who regard themselves with such great importance.
BB
I stand by my claim:
You are arrogant.
My initial offering was one of possible insight of interpretations concerning the MCA that I have read from OTHER sources. Instead of welcoming these possible insights, you have tossed them and my input aside like trash. Acting as if your opinion is what counts most. To me, that's shallow. It shows a lack of depth in your character to not consider OTHER input when offered.
Continuing on, you find opportunities to make it a point to correct my grammar as if I'm the village idiot. Other than a self serving agenda in an attempt to highlight your superiority (at least in the grammar part) what good does it do? Prove? Other than your arrogance.
Been nice discussing things, would like to have an exchange of ideas but personally, I find it difficult to do so with people who regard themselves with such great importance.
BB
How is saying you used an invalid argument an insult? I've used them. Everybody's used them at one time or another. The political parties and candidates (the ones you like and the ones you don't) use them all the time.
QUOTE(Jubal @ Friday, 20 October 2006, 8:52 am) [snapback]76496[/snapback]
That's my real goal here. I'm happy to wrangle and fight and swap insults, but my real goal is to help (make) people think, and incidentally to give information that I happen to have because of my training and profession. I regard critical, thoughtful analysis and reasoning as the best basis for political action. I will be perfectly happy if someone starts out opposed to me, and partly because of my efforts, ends up still opposed to me, but with higher quality arguments on the subject.
How noble.
QUOTE(Southpaw @ Tuesday, 24 October 2006, 7:48 am) [snapback]76928[/snapback]
How noble.
Not noble at all. Purely self-interested. Hearing people repeat what they heard on Rush or Air America is dull. Intelligent argumentation is far more interesting.
QUOTE(Jubal @ Tuesday, 24 October 2006, 8:54 am) [snapback]76934[/snapback]
Not noble at all. Purely self-interested. Hearing people repeat what they heard on Rush or Air America is dull. Intelligent argumentation is far more interesting.
Not trying to initiate an argument, but the post was perceived, by me, as a bit pompous. Usually the text of a message is enough to convey its purpose and validity. Self promotion often comes off arrogant. Air America and Rush parrots are rather rigid.
QUOTE(Southpaw @ Tuesday, 24 October 2006, 9:08 am) [snapback]76935[/snapback]
Not trying to initiate an argument, but the post was perceived, by me, as a bit pompous. Usually the text of a message is enough to convey its purpose and validity. Self promotion often comes off arrogant. Air America and Rush parrots are rather rigid.
Be kinda interesting to parse out how much of that I implied, and how much you inferred.
QUOTE(Jubal @ Tuesday, 24 October 2006, 9:11 am) [snapback]76936[/snapback]
Be kinda interesting to parse out how much of that I implied, and how much you inferred.
Message perceived vs. inferred.
QUOTE(Jubal @ Tuesday, 24 October 2006, 7:54 am) [snapback]76934[/snapback]
Not noble at all. Purely self-interested.
I mean really... If I bring up someone else's opinion/interpretation of the MCA you bat it down as inconsequential to your opinion you promote here saying simply, "I'll cosider reading it..." But in the meantime your overt treatment OF other aproaches to objectivly looking at this subject is one of simple dissmissiveness. For someone who says, "That's my real goal here. I'm happy to wrangle and fight and swap insults, but my real goal is to help (make) people think, and incidentally to give information that I happen to have because of my training and profession. I regard critical, thoughtful analysis and reasoning as the best basis for political action. I will be perfectly happy if someone starts out opposed to me, and partly because of my efforts, ends up still opposed to me, but with higher quality arguments on the subject." You sure don't leave much room for your own personal growth and enlightenment when you close yourself off to others in your search to make people think. Just pointing out the hypocritical position you admit to placing yourself in.
Opening minds requires an open mind. THINK ABOUT IT.
QUOTE(Max-1 @ Tuesday, 24 October 2006, 9:12 pm) [snapback]77038[/snapback]
Does this explain why you are resistant to OTHER people's opinions? OTHER professional interpretations on the very same subject?
I mean really... If I bring up someone else's opinion/interpretation of the MCA you bat it down as inconsequential to your opinion you promote here saying simply, "I'll cosider reading it..." But in the meantime your overt treatment OF other aproaches to objectivly looking at this subject is one of simple dissmissiveness. For someone who says, "That's my real goal here. I'm happy to wrangle and fight and swap insults, but my real goal is to help (make) people think, and incidentally to give information that I happen to have because of my training and profession. I regard critical, thoughtful analysis and reasoning as the best basis for political action. I will be perfectly happy if someone starts out opposed to me, and partly because of my efforts, ends up still opposed to me, but with higher quality arguments on the subject." You sure don't leave much room for your own personal growth and enlightenment when you close yourself off to others in your search to make people think. Just pointing out the hypocritical position you admit to placing yourself in.
Opening minds requires an open mind. THINK ABOUT IT.
And here's a blast from the past -
QUOTE
Convo over.
K thx Bi
K thx Bi
Guess it wasn't.
I'm touched by your concern for my personal growth and enlightenment.
Firing salvo's of insults and personal attacks back and forth, though interesting,
do not address the topic of this thread.
Just a small reminder from a fellow idiot
do not address the topic of this thread.
Just a small reminder from a fellow idiot
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.