Comments or Questions?
To: habaes corpussel
This report reminds me of the reports issued by Arthur Anderson on behalf of Enron in the FY 1999 and 2000. Millions in fees to gain and little to loose.
To: habaes corpussel
Right, and al-Qauda and the Iraqis will adhere to the Geneva Convention if we allow terrorist habeas corpus hearing. You must be in legal LA LA land.
They don't need a ring master-lawyer to orchestrate a legal circus. For a change let's follow the spirit of the law not the legalities that make you guys rich.
To: habaes corpussel
What does "and to some degree" mean? Tut! Tut! That's not very precise language for an attorney.
To: habaes corpussel
I will also remind you that our Servicemembers are engaged in combat and if taken prisoner they may not be given the protection as outlined in International Conventions. Meaning they as well maybe detained as Enemy Comnatants. Just to get back at us. Our soldiers are acting as legal combatants. Theirs (as far as Padilla is concerned - and others, identified and detained) are acting as illegal combatants. One enjoys a status the other does not. If in doubt, look it up. This has been hashed through a million times. Padilla is constitutionally guaranteed a military tribunal. That is his constitutional remedy; nothing more, from what I see.
To: habaes corpussel
Just one comment. There is nothing in this world that would make the ABA happier than to tie up our civil court system for years with these terrorists. Forgive me but the ABA has nothing that I would consider even approaching an objective stance when it comes to "protecting" anyone’s rights. The ABA is just a union looking for work.
To: habaes corpussel
This is one more proof that the ABA has been taken over by leftist lawyers who are perfectly willing to thumb their noses at the controlling case in the Supreme Court (Quirin, 1943) to support and protect their own ideas which are dangerous to the lives of American citzens. But what the heck, being a lawyer means never having to say you're sorry. This is also an object lesson why most of the lawyers on FreeRepubic are FORMER members of the ABA. Why give your money to the enemy to do with it what they will? The ABA leadership is as corrupt as the leaders of every other major union, no more, no less. They adamantly say they represent a "profession," not a "trade." But they are like the "teechurs' union." Their motto is, "So long as we get ours, everyone else can go hang."
Congressman Billybob
Click for latest column: "Good People, Naked People, People Who Are Wet and Wild."
Click for latest book: "to Restore Trust in America"
To: habaes corpussel
"It is this simple. If you do not like the law, change it, not subvert it. For those who will argue that these two have the right to a Habeas Corpus hearing I will remind you both are being denied Counsel and it is not easy for a non-lawyer to file a Federal Writ of Habeas Corpus, while the Government is petitioning to quash the writ."
In at least one case, the detainee is represented by counsel retained by his family.
"I will also remind you that our Servicemembers are engaged in combat and if taken prisoner they may not be given the protection as outlined in International Conventions. Meaning they as well maybe detained as Enemy Comnatants. Just to get back at us."
And, I will remind you that any of our servicemembers taken prisoners should be treated as "enemy combatants" because that is exactly what they are. Being an "enemy combatant" merely means someone who is engaged in combat operations conducted by an enemy. IOW, a member of an opposing force.
To: habaes corpussel
Caught a little of their panel discussion on this on CSPAN.
(In fairness the modest "recommendations" of the ABA report are much more Constitutionally sound than the remarks from the panel. )
None of the panel recognized that if Padilla, like Hamdi, is a combatant his treatment is not determined under the Constitution ( law of the land) but under the law of nations.
Instead of debating the germane question of how the court should decide whether one is a combatant- their discussion only went to how much fairer a judicial trial is than an administrative determination- they completely ignored that there is no Constitutional authority for any judicial trial of combatants.
They were totally blind to their own instituional desire to judicialize a matter the Founders did not want in the Judiciary.
I hope the Separation of Powers withstands this assault from (some of) the Judiciary. The ancient Israelis rejected judges for kings, now we've advanced to Republics and I don't want to abandon that advance to go back to being ruled by such as these power-hungry litigators.
31 posted on
08/17/2002 10:04:45 PM PDT by
mrsmith
To: habaes corpussel
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION work for the betterment of the U.N.
42 posted on
08/18/2002 6:23:13 PM PDT by
USA21
To: All
73 posted on
09/05/2002 6:21:10 PM PDT by
Bob J
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
