capitan_kerryfugio Lying Again
[capitan kerry_fugio #1086] (5) It was indeed a footnote in the web article quoted from the Hamdi documentation.
You know what you are saying is false. You are deliberately lying.
No capitan. It is not from a web article, it is from a Petition by a public defender.
No capitan. It is not a footnote from anything. It spans the full width of the page, and ends page 24 and starts page 25. No footnote resembles that.
The images shown in my #1402 prove beyond a doubt that the Petition for a Writ of Cert cannot be mistaken for either the decision or the dissent. It looks nothing like a decision of the Supreme Court. It bears no resemblance to a court decision. It looks nothing like any court decision on FINDLAW. Court decisions on FINDLAW are single-spaced in HTML. This Petition was double-spaced in PDF.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERT BY PUBLIC DEFENDER [ PDF LINK ]
HAMDI DECISION BY U.S. SUPREME COURT [ Findlaw LINK
Your argument stems from the fact that I said the
Mitchell quote came from the "decision" rather than the documentation from the article on the web.
Here is what I wrote back then:
From the Hamdi v Rumsfeld decision, comes this short review of Mitchell. I saw the case referenced several times, but I have not taken time to look it up yet, so I will limit my comments
(When you took exception to the use of the term "decison," I corrected it to "documentation.")
"The Fourth Circuit’s ruling also is entirely inconsistent with this Court’s long experience with the review of Executive branch seizures. In Mitchell v. Harmony, this Court reviewed and rejected the military’s seizure of a citizen’s property in Mexico during the Mexican-American war. 54 U.S. (13 How.) at 128-29. The plaintiff, a naturalized American businessman, filed an action against a U.S. colonel to recover the value of his property seized by the military. The government responded that the businessman had a “design” to trade with the enemy, and that the decision of the military commander to seize the property “must be entitled to some respect.” Id. at 118, 120.
"Rejecting these arguments, Chief Justice Taney’s opinion for the Court found the government’s defense to be based on “rumors which reached the commanding officer.” Id. at 133. “Mere suspicions of an illegal intention,” the Court stated, “will not authorize a military officer to seize and detain the property of an American citizen. The fact that such an intention existed must be shown; and of that there is no evidence.” Id. If an Article III court, consistent with separation of powers principles, can inquire into the seizure of a citizen’s property by the military within a country at war with the United States as in Harmony, these same principles surely pose no barrier to an inquiry into the seizure of the citizen himself."
It seems that Mitchell is not applicable to the situation of the South in the ACW. By their insurrection, the southern rebels forsook their claim to United States citizenship. I do not see how they could assert legal protections, if those protections were even applicable, from the document and country they renounced.
From a 'reply brief" we find this statement: "In a footnote, Respondents distinguish this Court’s opinions in Mitchell v. Harmony, 54 U.S. (13 How.) 115 (1851), Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378 (1932), and prize cases by explaining that they 'do not support the type of factual development that petitioners have in mind with respect to the challenged enemy-combatant determination in this case.'" Her is the web article:
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs_03/03-6696PetReply.pdf
I may have been mistaken about connecting the two (or maybe not), but your focus on trivial terminology diverts attention from the issue at hand. You won't argue the substance, because you'll lose; so you argue the form its presented.
It is a loser's diversion, and you are the master at it.