How can the Republicans say they want to spread freedom throughout the world when most of them won't restore habeas corpus in our own country?
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00340
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/09/19/national/w081916D07.DTL&type=politics
ouch - get ready for a massive cartoon
Quote from: chuncken on September 19, 2007, 02:44:27 PM
How can the Republicans say they want to spread freedom throughout the world when most of them won't restore habeas corpus in our own country?
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00340
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/09/19/national/w081916D07.DTL&type=politics
I'm sorry, can you tell me where habeas corpus is not restored to an
American citizen in this country? Please give us the multiple people that it is not extended to since there surely must be millions, or thousands or 1.
Thanks in advance.
And while you're at it, you and Marc can take a history lesson on Abe Lincoln and FDR (a Democrat last I checked) about the suspension of Habeas Corpus on actual US Citizens, something that this current administration hasn't done...with foreign detainees...yes....with American citizens...no. Please, educate yourself. Habeas Corpus has not been denied any American citizen by this administration..PERIOD. Not since FDR, a Democrat, has that happened.
How about the vast majority that are CURRECTLY detained as suspected terrorists-----why does the focus have to be on the small minority of people INCORECTLY detained?
Quote from: Murffieus on September 19, 2007, 07:08:07 PM
How about the vast majority that are CURRECTLY detained as suspected terrorists-----why does the focus have to be on the small minority of people INCORECTLY detained?
I just love the road this goes down. The implication is that US citizens are denied this right and they are most certainly not by this administration. In fact, this administration has done far less in terms of rights denials then what FDR pulled in WWII...it's not even close. A few great articles on this the last few years.
If a guy gets picked up on the battlefield with an AK-47 and a computer filled with plans to blow up US bases or embassies, well too bad....he's an enemy combatant.
I suggest the following cases be reviewed as refreshers for some....starting with MorOn and Olberman and Matthews.
Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942)
Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81 (1943)
Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944)
Ex Parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944)
Or I can provide earlier cases from the 1860's during the Civil War or cases later during the Korean War.
Here is the necessary legal language as it applies today.
Military Commissions Act of 2006
"Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for
a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been
determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination." ยง1005(e)(1), 119 Stat. 2742.
No cartoons necessary Marc....learn something first...perhaps even from somewhere other than the sources listed above.
Chunked....you're still a student, why don't you seek out some of the legal experts on campus who can guide you to the reality of the situation.
Quote from: Murffieus on September 19, 2007, 07:08:07 PM
How about the vast majority that are CURRECTLY detained as suspected terrorists-----why does the focus have to be on the small minority of people INCORECTLY detained?
for the same reason that several states have put a moratorium on executing people on death row - a small minority have been found to actually be innocent.
Or do you also believe that those few innocent people are just the price of justice?
In the war on terrorism, better to err on the side of detaining an innocent person than to err on the side of detaining a culpable terrorist/jihadist. The innocent person at some point will likely be released-----the jihadist if not detained lives to fight another day!
No system is perfect----there will always be mistakes made----and that applies to anything!
Quote from: Murffieus on September 20, 2007, 11:30:12 AM
In the war on terrorism, better to err on the side of detaining an innocent person than to err on the side of detaining a culpable terrorist/jihadist. The innocent person at some point will likely be released-----the jihadist if not detained lives to fight another day!
No system is perfect----there will always be mistakes made----and that applies to anything!
and what if, by some off chance, they make a mistake and that innocent person is you or one of your loved ones? do you just sit back and say "it was just a mistake" then?
Chuncken, can you list all the Americans that have been denied Habeas Corpus? Thanks