Posted on 07/21/2004 2:43:19 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
We all have our phobias. Mine is judicial tyranny and its many fans. The SCOTUS rewrote the habeas law in Rasul v Bush and you support that. The unchecked power in America today is not Scalia, Congress or the Executive, it is the leftist activist jurists and their unabashed supporters on the right and left.
And you're right, we will never agree. But before we call it quits I'd like your retraction. Post the relevant thread where you "shut me up" and I "slandered" the court or be a man and admit you overstepped your bounds.
And they do it by the extraordinay means of finding that we are not bound by our treaty with Cuba to treat Guntanamo as thier soveriegn territory.
Treaties are full of de facto lies (to be blunt). This ruling would be the end of foreign policy as it's been practised for all eternity- were it not so obviously specious.
I issued you the same challenege last time. America has held millions, literally, of POWS outside US soverignty over the history of this nation. Find one, JUST ONE, who has been afforde habeas rights.
I'm still waiting from last time. So come to think of it, you're the guy that when faced with the chance to put up or shut up, shut up.
Which you will again because there have been NONE!
Liar liar liar liar.
That was not the policy of this administration.
Why can't it sink into that too dense skull of yours that these decisions came about because the policy of the present administration was to hold no tribunals and they held no tribunals. The reason for putting them on Guantanomo was simply for the U.S. to try to escape the reach of the constitutional limits on its power. Said decision is what earned them a rebuke from Kennedy.
It is now the policy of this administration to hold tribunals and they are holding them as fast as they possibly can. But they only started doing that after Rasul v Bush.
It was dumb - real dumb. Bush was not well advised.
I think that the problem is that you don't know what the privelege of writ of habeas corpus means. Consequently you think that it is a lot more important than it is.
You're an idiot. Idiot, idiot, idiot, idiot. LOL
The policy of the Bush administration was to treat the terrorists at Gitmo in "the spirit of the Geneva Conventions" while not according thme the POW designation. I could have been clearer but a lie? No, its not one of my failings.
History of Habeas Corpus - Responding to abusive detention of persons without legal authority, public pressure on the English Parliament caused them to adopt this act, which established a critical right that was later written into the Constitution for the United States.
Habeas Corpus Act1679
An act for the better securing the liberty of the subject, and for prevention of imprisonments beyond the seas.
WHEREAS great delays have been used by sheriffs, gaolers and other officers, to whose custody, any of the King's subjects have been committed for criminal or supposed criminal matters, in making returns of writs of habeas corpus to them directed, by standing out an alias and pluries habeas corpus, and sometimes more, and by other shifts to avoid their yielding obedience to such writs, contrary to their duty and the known laws of the land, whereby many of the King's subjects have been and hereafter may be long detained in prison, in such cases where by law they are bailable, to their great charges and vexation.
And in the federalist paper 84 Hamilton wrote:
the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, [has] been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious Blackstone, in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital: "To bereave a man of life [says he] or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government." And as a remedy for this fatal Evil he is everywhere peculiarly emphatical in his encomiums on the habeas corpus act, which in one place he calls "the BULWARK of the British Constitution." *
How about the slander? Did you find the slander?
Find the threaad where you "shut me up"?
Figured out yet why the Constitution forbids the suspension of habeas except under unique conditions enumerated in the Constituion?
And who gets to make that determination? The desk sargeant? or some low level sked C in the pentagon?
The spirit of the Geneva convention is that you do this in accordance with lawfully established principals. Suppose I was a visiting yachtsman and an American citizen and found myself classified as an unlawful combattant and shipped off to Guantanomo. When do I get to tell a judge - sorry you got the wrong guy - call my wife and kids at home in Oshkosh WI.
Let me give you a clue. I am a retired O-6 Navy. While I have a lot of confidence in military procedures when they are followed - I know from direct personal experience how amuck things can go when you let people extemporise.
The stench we all know of as Abu Ghraib ought to give you a clue as to what happens when you let folks take the law into their own hands.
I could not give a stuff about the rights of terrorists. I only worry about my own rights, and I fear that if anyone's rights can be violated without due process then so can mine. Sorry, but I've been there and seen it.
Yeah - I found Hamilton's explanation quite compelling. And you?
Just like last time. You cannot argue your case. You resort to name calling.
You better read HAmilton again, you and he have vastly differing opinions on the importance of habeas.
And you're a weasel just like some officers I served under in the Army. You can give it but you can't take it. I can do either.
Quit whining, it doesn't become an O-6 retired from the USN. My brother, also a Navy guy is distressed by your woe is me act.
I will refrain from the speculation that this invites.
You can give it but you can't take it. I can do either.
I am still waiting for an argument rather than a bunch of names-in fact I have been waiting for a couple of months now.
my post http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1162603/posts?page=63#63
Which argument have I conceded. Please state it in black and white so that I can understand. What I understand is that you are arguing that Cuba has sovereignty over Guantanimo and so the writ of the supreme court does not run there. If Cuba is the sovereign authority, then under any of the usual definitions of sovereignty (see above for instance) the Cuban courts would have exclusive jurisdiction (that is what sovereignty means). I don't think that the U.S. government quite intended to make that argument.
To which you brought the full weight of your incisive wit:
Not repeating last evenings idiotic word games. Adios.
"Don't know much about military law do you?"
Actually I do.
"What do you have against sending a military judge around to hold hearings and declare that the individual in question really is an unlawful combattant. It isn't hard. The army did it in Gulf War I."
Nothing. I don't have anywhere near the problem with Hamdi that I do with Rasul.
The above are what's known as direct answers. Care to address any of the points I've made, particularly re: Braden?
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.