Why arent you out there taking up arms to defend our freedom and Liberty from our apparently tyrannical government?
Coward!
Posted on 06/03/2004 11:40:00 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian
Proof, Negative
The Justice Department's triumphant victory over the Constitution.
By Dahlia Lithwick Posted Wednesday, June 2, 2004, at 4:02 PM PT
Two years and counting With a triumphant chorus of "We-told-you-so"s, the Justice Department unveiled yesterday a seven-page document summarizing all the accumulated evil that lurks in the heart of alleged enemy combatant Jose Padilla. Why release all this information now? The folks at Justice say they were just responding to a request from Sen. Orrin Hatch. As though Hatch's was the first and only demand for some tangible piece of evidence against Padilla. ...
The DOJ insists that the timing of this release has nothing to do with public outrage about unsubstantiated warnings of stepped-up terror threats. They also say it has nothing to do with the Supreme Court's deliberations over Padilla's case, due to be decided this month.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.msn.com ...
The U.S. Constitution didn't simply hatch out of an egg one morning. Like the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights was largely conceived to correct for failures of earlier systems. In 1603 Sir Walter Raleigh was tried for treason and not permitted to cross-examine his accuser. This, it turns out, engendered unreliable evidence. The Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause was the constitutional remedy for this problem. Unremitting and unwanted prosecutorial interrogation could lead to false confessions. This made for unreliable evidence. The Fifth Amendment was, in part, the constitutional remedy for this. Years of delay prior to trials degraded evidence. The Sixth Amendment's right to a speedy trial was the constitutional remedy for this. Indefinite government detention without charges led to innocent men languishing in prison without recourse. The right to habeas corpus is thus codified in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution to remedy this. We sometimes forget that the purpose of these and other constitutional protections is not only to let guilty guys roam free (attractive though that prospect may seem), the purpose is also to protect the quality of the evidence used in criminal trials. A conviction based on a tortured confession isn't justice. It's theater.
Support the ACLU! Free Padilla!
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.
Just don't free him in My backyard (or apartment complex). /sarcasm
Why arent you out there taking up arms to defend our freedom and Liberty from our apparently tyrannical government?
Coward!
Thanks for that well-reasoned rebuttal of the Constitutional issues discussed in the article.
The case which this author pretends does not exist is In Re Quirin. As a result of that case, eight German saboteurs were tried and convicted. Six were executed, the other two recieved long prison sentences. Two claimed to be American citizens and one clearly was, having been born in Chicago. The US Supreme Court held that the status of any of the defendants as a citizen was "irrelevant" to the decision.
And all of this was constitutional -- contgrary to this entire article -- because military law and the law of war are outside the usual definitions of courts in Article III of the Constitution.
Congressman Billybob
In times of war there is a conflict between publicly prosecuting cases, and not revealing information that would be helpful to your enemies.
What are the possible solutions? Private trials? Holding the accused until after the enemy is defeated, or the information revealed in the trial is no longer helpful to your enemies? Not prosecuting such cases at all, and simply let the accused go free? Holding the trial and revealing information that is helpful to your enemies?
So is lex talionis. Big deal! Age has nothing to do with its applicibility or legitimacy as governing law. The US is solely governed by the Constitution, and no other legal theories. This is because the people of the US have, through the consent of the governed, ratified the Constitution, giving it legitimacy.
The "law of war" has had no such ratification and therefore is completely lacking in legitimacy as governing law, and any attempt to rule by it is pure fiat.
military law and the law of war are outside the usual definitions of courts in Article III of the Constitution.
The military is 100% subservient to the civilian authority, and until the civilian authority ratifies its Constitution to disallow due process of civilians, they retain that right.
No US civilians are subject to UCMJ, and they never will be.
Why did you ignore: The US Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 1942 that people who are "illegal combatants" can be held and tried outside of the Bill of Rights. [?]
???
I'm glad you brought that up.
Numerous SCOTUS decisions, that one included are in violation of the Constitution. That ruling was and still is an act of pure judicial activism, and I give it all the respect it is due, which is absolutlely none.
SCOTUS job is to uphold the Constitution, not rewrite it when convenient. The legal precedent set in In Re Quirin would need to be passed as a constututional amendment to hold legitimacy. It has not, and its legal backing is by pure fiat and contempt for the Constitution. Repeated activism by SCOTUS only serves to undermine its credibility and authority.
I suggest you read the Quirin case, several times until you understand it, before making comments again on this legal subject. You will find that General Washington used this area of the law to try, convict, and hang Major John Andre, who was captured behind American lines in civilian clothes, with papers on the betrayal by General Benedict Arnold hidden in his boot.
As the Supreme Court was careful to say in Quirin, what was done concerning the German saboteurs was entirely in accord with the provisions of the Constitution. READ before you post.
John / Billybob
In Quirin, the defendants were tried by a military tribunal, before which each of them admitted to having been a member of the German armed forces. Padilla has not been tried by anyone, and has denied in his Supreme Court filings that he is an enemy combatant.
I do not expect the Supreme Court to hold that Padilla must get a full civilian trial. I do expect that the Court will hold that some civilian or military court must make a factual finding that he is, indeed, an enemy combatant before Quirin can apply to him.
Free Mumia!
Free Saddam!
Free Padilla!
If this happened before the ratification of the 5th Amendment, it is irrelevent.
As the Supreme Court was careful to say in Quirin, what was done concerning the German saboteurs was entirely in accord with the provisions of the Constitution.
That's nice. They say a lot of things, many of which are contrary to the document their office was created to uphold. Such rulings are pure fiat and hold no legitimacy.
I suggest you read the Quirin case
I just read it. It mentions "the law of war" as justification. As I previously said, "the law of war" has never been ratified and holds no legitimacy.
Padilla's Habeas has not been suspended and continues to be litigated. We will hear from Mt Olympus at the ened of this month.
Until then, Padilla should and will be treated accordingly, may he rot in hell.
Amendment V:
No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
I guess that's just old and passe...
Padilla should be tried and hung as a traitor. Our form of govermnent of checks and balances was purposely a departure from the King's powers to point a finger at a person and make him dissappear on his word and his word alone.
A return to monarchy in all but name is worse than the problem.
All aspects of the "common law," which applies in a majority of the American states today, also predates the Constitution. You are approaching the Constitution as if it were the Napoleonic Code, sweeping away all prior law. That is false and has always been false.
I am the first to agree that the US Supreme Court HAS issued some decisions that contravene the Constitution. But to my knowledge, it has never issued such a decision unanimously, as the Quirin case was.
Pleases point out exactly why and how the Quirin Court violated the Constitution by ruling that both the Constitution and the first laws for the military (1789) were wrong to adopt and apply the Law of War.
If you cannot do that, all you are doing is promoting your own prejudices. You are welcome to indulge your own prejudices, but please don't foist them on others.
John / Billybob
I have heard that. Americans were treated as second class citizens at the time. While one aim of the revolution was to restore the rights of the citizens, the rights enumerated in the Constitution exceeded the rights of Englishmen. For example, Englishmen never had the right to free speech or bear arms explicity protected, we do.
You are approaching the Constitution as if it were the Napoleonic Code, sweeping away all prior law.
The Constitution explicitly addresses due process and that trials are mandated for treason, and that treason is defined as levying war against the US. Any prior law to the contrary became obsolete at that point and subservient to the Constitution.
Pleases point out exactly why and how the Quirin Court violated the Constitution by ruling that both the Constitution and the first laws for the military (1789) were wrong to adopt and apply the Law of War.
It's very simple. All branches, including SCOTUS are subservient to the Constitution. The Constitution is clear on the rights of due process and what actions are to be taken against traitors, as shown in post 18.
A constitutional amendment is required to overrule these constitutional mandates. SCOTUS has usurped the amendment power, and thus its unconstitutional rulings, while backed by guns, hold no legitimacy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.