Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush And Ashcroft Assail Habeas Corpus, Scholar Says
Cato ^

Posted on 06/26/2002 8:47:55 AM PDT by Sir Gawain

June 20, 2002

Bush And Ashcroft Assail Habeas Corpus, Scholar Says

WASHINGTON--Yesterday, the Bush administration asserted sweeping new police powers over the American people. In a legal brief filed with a federal appellate court, the Department of Justice asserted that Yaser Esam Hamdi, who is an American citizen, can be held incommunicado on a military installation as an "enemy combatant." A lower court ruled that Hamdi should have access to an attorney, and the Justice Dept appealed that ruling to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Timothy Lynch, director of the Cato Institute's Project on Criminal Justice had the following comments on the issue:

"The implications of the federal government's brief go far beyond the Hamdi matter. The Bush administration has now asserted that (a) citizens can be taken into custody as enemy combatants; (b) that, beyond such battlefield detainees, citizens can also be taken off the streets of any American town; and (c) that civilian courts cannot intervene to inquire into the legality of such arrests and detentions. When these propositions are taken together as a whole, the implications are very disturbing.

"The bottom line is that President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft are attempting to suspend the 'Great Writ' of habeas corpus, which allows Americans to get into a court of law to challenge the legality of their arrest and to have their liberty restored if the court agrees that the arrest was unlawful. Without judicial review, the police can arrest people without warrants and jail people without trials.

"The controversial 'military order' that Bush issued last November has, in effect, now been extended to American citizens--and the writ of habeas corpus is now under assault. President Bush seems to believe that his commander-in-chief power gives him the authority to ignore every other part of the Constitution when he deems it necessary. The president is profoundly mistaken about that -- and the judiciary should resist this power grab."

Lynch is the author of the new Cato Institute report, "Breaking the Vicious Cycle: Preserving Our Liberties While Fighting Terrorism."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

1 posted on 06/26/2002 8:47:55 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul; tpaine; OWK; nunya bidness; AAABEST; Mercuria; MadameAxe; redrock; Free Vulcan; ..
-
2 posted on 06/26/2002 8:48:18 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
BUMP to Impeach George Clinton...I mean Bill Bush...ahh whoever.
3 posted on 06/26/2002 9:22:04 AM PDT by borntodiefree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Should we call him Mr. Ashcroft or Comrad Ashcroft? I'll bet he's got one of those nice itchy green uniforms in his closet at home.
4 posted on 06/26/2002 9:40:39 AM PDT by SiKKuS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
is this the enemy soldier who claims citizenship because he was born in La and lived here only when he was an infant?
5 posted on 06/26/2002 9:43:04 AM PDT by linn37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: linn37
is this the enemy soldier who claims citizenship because he was born in La and lived here only when he was an infant?

Yes, this is the puke whose parents weren't citizens, but gave birth to him in this country, then took him and themselves back to wherever it was they were from. It's my personal estimation he's not a citizen of this country. Of course the liberal of this land don't see it as I do.

6 posted on 06/26/2002 10:18:06 AM PDT by mass55th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mass55th
It's not a liberal issue, and name calling does nothing to further your point. Like it or not, it is a common law and Constitutional Law that the child is an American Citizen. The fact that he is a screw up and/or left the country does not change the the law.

Hey, if he is guilty, let him fry or whatever a jury decides, but don't violate the law becuase your pissed off, and then act suprised when you piss someone off and they say the law no longer applies to you.
7 posted on 06/26/2002 11:32:39 AM PDT by borntodiefree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
A consisitent pack of lies!

"the Bush administration asserted sweeping new police powers over the American people. "

They are not police powers, they are military powers granted the administration by the congress.
"authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
...The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

More lies about the Constitution and the law by Libertarians;
Why isn't any one surprised?
LOLOL!

8 posted on 06/26/2002 11:48:47 AM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
If that is what you believe is right, then you are either purposefully ignorant, or just plain stupid.

Militaries are for defense or offense against another nation or other "external" entity. Police powers are for the the "policeing" of the internal workings limited to the rules set forth by the people for how the police operate usally in the form of a "constitution". If a body uses the "military" to police the people, then they are declaring war on the people (like they did in 1863, 1913, and 1933 and continue to do this day).
9 posted on 06/26/2002 12:29:17 PM PDT by borntodiefree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: borntodiefree
Here it is, right in front of you:

""authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States. ...The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." "

Unless you can't read english, you see that military force was authorized.

To say this is a police matter is "the big lie"

Libertarian liars are no better than any others.

10 posted on 06/26/2002 12:37:52 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
A common law violation, or an unconstitutional law is an illegal law, I don't care who the hell wrote it. It is void ab inito, nunc pro trunc.

If ANYONE starts using military force within our borders for internal affairs, we need to shoot the bastards between the eyes, and I'll be one of the first to pull the trigger. This is exactly why the founding fathers, federalists and anti-federalists, didn't want a powerful standing army.

Maybe you better go look up in Black's Law, Find Law, or some other dictionary and look up miitary force (martial law) vs police power.

At least someone who is lying on purpose understands what he is lieing about. I think an ignorat liar is the worst of all for he doesn't even know what he is lieing about.
11 posted on 06/26/2002 1:15:20 PM PDT by borntodiefree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: borntodiefree
No, the author isn't an 'ignorant liar'.
He knows he is lying.

When congress authorizes the president to use military force against a group, he does not act under his "police power" as the chief law enforcement officer- he acts as the Commander In Chief of the military.

The Founders put the war powers in the congress for good reason, it is too bad you don't appreciate their wisdom.

12 posted on 06/26/2002 1:20:28 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: borntodiefree
"If ANYONE starts using military force within our borders for internal affairs"

LOL! Even trying to defend this guy you admit the lie he is using.

War and combatants are not "internal affairs".

13 posted on 06/26/2002 1:26:10 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
Maybe you've heard of those pesky extensions to the Constitution called the Bill of Rights which were required before the Constitution was to be ratified by the much wiser anti-federalists. Particularly the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th, and 8th ammendments which apply to this issue.

Oh and by the way, Congress has not constitutionally "Declared War" on anyone yet...
14 posted on 06/26/2002 1:28:11 PM PDT by borntodiefree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
Property destruction, murder, sedition, treason are all internal affairs and are subject to police powers, not military powers.
15 posted on 06/26/2002 1:31:55 PM PDT by borntodiefree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: borntodiefree
In follow up to 15, only for American Citizens or on American Soil
16 posted on 06/26/2002 1:34:58 PM PDT by borntodiefree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: borntodiefree
"Congress has not constitutionally "Declared War" on anyone yet... "

So now 'big lie 1' gets backed up by 'big lie 2', sigh, what do you have against the Constitution and the Founders?
They made the very best compromise between security and liberty and you spit on it!

What's really so convincing about Adams' and Jefferson's conduct of wars by acts of congress instead of a declaration is that the congresses that used this method to grant war powers were both Federalists and Republicans, were all present during the ratification of the Constitution, and were many of them the very same people who had ratified it at the state conventions.

But you don't like the founders' view of the constitution- you know better LOL!

17 posted on 06/26/2002 1:37:39 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: borntodiefree
Hamdi was captured, armed, on a battlefield in Afghanistan.

I'm very glad you don't list that under your 'internal' law enforcement issues- I was wondering just how silly you are willing to be...

18 posted on 06/26/2002 1:44:06 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
Please provide where Congress has Declared War on "the terrorists". I strongly support the anti-federalists. The Federalists in some of their stances is what made the current constitution open to such abuses as we see today.

They did create a more perfect union, but it was far from the more appropriate form of government found in the Articles of Confederation, of the Confedete government of the South which were both far better that the current constitution though they both had some errors. I am in no way comparing myself to any individual of the "founders", but I can clearly point to many of the tyranical holes that they left in the constitution which all have been utilized to their fullest extent by power hungry, self absorbed polititicians.

There is NO compromise between security and liberty, there is only deligation of authority for a few to act on the behalf of the many according to the rules that they have set forth to solely protect the rights of the individual. Otherwise it is nothing but tyranny.
19 posted on 06/26/2002 1:49:32 PM PDT by borntodiefree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: borntodiefree
Yeah, the anti-federalists made many good points.
But the Constitution is still a great contract.

If a president was detaining military detainees without congress having authorized him to use the military against them- then we would have the situation the author is using.
But they did, and the author knows it.

20 posted on 06/26/2002 1:56:48 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson