Bobo:

Quote :

"This is not about terrorist's rights. This is about the fact that the executive branch can now pick up anyone (U.S. citizen or not), claim they are "helping terrorists", put them before a "tribunal", without judicial review, without habias corpus, and try them without them without ever giving them a chance to face their accusers."

10/3/2006 9:05:40 PM

Quote :

"You got to love the irony redundancy that the only lawyer in this thread is the one who is anti-court. pro-constitution"

10/3/2006 9:11:02 PM

If they are in fact helping terrorists, then the only right I think they have is the right to open their mouth and say "ahh" as a gun barrel is put down it.

10/3/2006 9:11:12 PM

Quote :

"If"

And let me take the opportunity to call you chickenshit on page 2.

10/3/2006 9:12:32 PM

Quote :

"If they are in fact helping terrorists"

and how would we find this out? oh, that's right, with a fair and constitutional trial

10/3/2006 9:14:37 PM

sarcasm?

10/3/2006 9:16:27 PM

"blah blah blah....BUT OUR RIGHTS!!!!"


suspending habeus corpus is part of the reason we are the still the united states of america...

it was a great thing

10/3/2006 9:18:26 PM

Of course, as the lawyer knows, everyone accused of something is guilty, and we'd know it too, if they didin't keep "hiding behind the constitution".

Well, this law will certainly solve that problem ....

10/3/2006 9:19:32 PM

Quote :

"And let me take the opportunity to show how I do not have any legitimate points so I have to resort to immature name calling on page 2."

Permission granted.

Quote :

"Of course, as the lawyer knows, everyone accused of something is guilty"

Lol. Just lol. I'm getting ready to defend someone on Thursday. "Your Honour and May it please the Court. My client is guilty."

My client has rights. Terrorists do not, and people helping terrorists do not. End of issue.

[Edited on October 3, 2006 at 9:21 PM. Reason : add]

10/3/2006 9:19:42 PM

^^^wow you're misinformed

plz to read:




^ It's not even about the Constitution, it's about how this:

Quote :

"What scares the hell out of me is not that some terrorist might not be able to cloak himself in the Constitution. What scares the hell out of me is a terrorist flying an airplane into a building."

is one of the most spineless things I've ever heard someone say. We're agreeing on the facts, it's just that with you, your hide is more important than the principles this country was founded on

Quote :

"My client has rights. Terrorists do not, and people helping terrorists do not. End of issue."

Don't you mean suspected terrorists?


[Edited on October 3, 2006 at 9:28 PM. Reason : .]

10/3/2006 9:20:26 PM

how do you know if they really did help terrorists or if their asshole neighbor just wanted to collect a cash payout for "turning in" the taliban

10/3/2006 9:27:16 PM

well they have the right to stand before a grand jur....

oh wait!

10/3/2006 9:27:54 PM

Quote :

"suspending habeus corpus is part of the reason we are the still the united states of america... it was a great thing"

the civil war actually met one of the requirements for suspending habeus corpus. See, the constitution allows for it to be suspended in times of rebellion or invasion. Neither of which, not even based upon the most liberal definistion, can be construed to include the war on terror.

10/3/2006 9:28:32 PM

Indeed ... Wolfpack2K must have had some incidents over the summer ... first, he gets out of law school and then claims that people shouldn't have the right to prove their innocence ... then, as a Catholic, he spouts that those people should get the death penalty ... Me thinks he has been shaken beyond his core ...

[Edited on October 3, 2006 at 9:30 PM. Reason : *~<]Bo]

10/3/2006 9:29:33 PM

So I'm "spineless" for not wanting another September 11 to happen? So be it then.

The tribunals are there to get at the truth. If the person is not a terrorist, then the tribunal will release them. Going before a tribunal does not mean automatic punishment.

(PS - the Catholic Church does not teach that the death penalty is always wrong. There are some cases in which it can be justified, according to the Church. I think this is one of those.)

Of course, I could just be playing devil's advocate.

[Edited on October 3, 2006 at 9:33 PM. Reason : add]

10/3/2006 9:32:10 PM

Wolfpack2K:

Quote :

"tribunals are there to get at the truth. If the person is not a terrorist, then the tribunal will release them"

And he has history to prove it ...

(P.S. - devil's advocate is right) ....

[Edited on October 3, 2006 at 9:35 PM. Reason : *~<]Bo]

10/3/2006 9:33:55 PM

Why not a regular civil trial/court martial

Oh yeah, those are real trials.

Quote :

"The military commissions that the Bush administration wants to put in place are not courts martial. * The accused are not allowed access to all the evidence against them. The presiding officers are authorized to consider secret evidence the accused have no opportunity to refute. * The presiding officers are authorized to consider evidence extracted under torture. * The presiding officers are authorized to consider evidence extracted through coercive interrogation techniques. * The general in overall charge of the commissions is sitting in on them. He is authorized to shut down any commission, without warning, and without explanation. * Secretary Rumsfeld has said that even an acquittal on all charges is no guarantee of a release; that he may choose to keep any detainee."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_military_commission

10/3/2006 9:35:53 PM

Quote :

"* The accused are not allowed access to all the evidence against them. The presiding officers are authorized to consider secret evidence the accused have no opportunity to refute. * The presiding officers are authorized to consider evidence extracted under torture. * The presiding officers are authorized to consider evidence extracted through coercive interrogation techniques. * The general in overall charge of the commissions is sitting in on them. He is authorized to shut down any commission, without warning, and without explanation. * Secretary Rumsfeld has said that even an acquittal on all charges is no guarantee of a release; that he may choose to keep any detainee.""

This reminds me of the HUAC trials.

10/3/2006 9:44:05 PM

im so much more informed than you, boondocks, its scary

10/3/2006 10:30:46 PM

^^AHAHA, holy shit, is that legit?

I need to read the paper more often!

Could someone give me some context? Like how does that compare to other wartime commissions, with time as a factor?

10/3/2006 10:45:10 PM

I think the biggest problem I have with this thing isnt if I think that Bush will abuse it, its the fact that he can. This a blatent breach of constitutional law, we are such hipocrits to think that the legal system we use on our own citicens should be any different than the system we use against "enemy combatants" that arent (or may even be) US citicens. Not being allowed a fair trial is like the salem witch trials... "OMG a terrorist, if he drowns hes not guilty and woops he will be forgiven, but if he can swim we must burn him." This is why the fucking terrorists target us, because we are fucking hipocrits, and I would have hoped that the fucking lawyer would have figured this out.

10/3/2006 11:32:17 PM

You have an incipient bad mouth. How come liberals can never make an intelligent point without interspersing an array of various curse words and other inappropriate language?

or, as a liberal would put it: "You mother fucker have a fucking incipient bad goddamn mouth. How in the fuck come goddamn liberals never mother fucking can make a goddamn intelligent fucking point with-fucking-out interspersing a goddamn array of various mother fuckin curse words and, son of a bitch, other inappropriate mother fucking language, mother fucker?"

10/4/2006 12:59:42 AM

Curious, I am quite liberal and I refrain from using foul language unless it is called for, but thanks for making that broad generalization. Although I'd take foul language over touching little boys.

10/4/2006 1:06:05 AM

How come republicans can never make a real argument without dodging the issue and attacking something entirely irellevent?

Oh noes! He used 3 cuss words! I'll call it *pulls out thesauraus* an interspersed array *makes sure to use words without regard to actual connotation* of curse words... Good, now that I've made a condescending quip about someone's foul language, I win The Soap Box!

10/4/2006 1:14:34 AM

^^^PROSODY, SON.

10/4/2006 2:40:51 AM

How come most far-far-right conservatives are self-hating closet homosexuals?




I was going to use "the Ambiguously Gay Archangels!" for the caption, but there's not much ambiguity here.

10/4/2006 6:34:09 AM

Who said I am a liberal? Just because I think this is wrong? Just so you know Im registered Republican but I think Bush is a Retard.

10/4/2006 9:13:04 AM

LET'S ALL PROTEST FOR THE TERRORIST'S CIVIL RIGHTS!

OMG THE UNITED STATES OPENED UP COURTS? WHAT WILL STOP THEM FROM TRYING EVERY US CITIZEN AND CONVICTING THEM!?! OH BOY I SURE AM PARANOID AS FUCK

10/4/2006 9:38:17 AM

haha....gg

they will put us all in jail!!!! i wont be able to curse in public!!1 ahhhhh RIGHTS !!@@#!@#!!!!!!!1!!1

10/4/2006 9:56:36 AM

OMG ... I'LL TALK IN CAPS! ... AND NO ONE WILL BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING! ... BUT I'LL USE EXCLAMATION POINTS! ... AND THAT WILL HELP ME THINK I'VE MADE A POINT!

Bobo:

Quote :

"This is not about terrorist's rights. This is about the fact that the executive branch can now pick up anyone (U.S. citizen or not), claim they are "helping terrorists", put them before a "tribunal", without judicial review, without habias corpus, and try them without them without ever giving them a chance to face their accusers."

10/4/2006 10:06:30 AM

^hahaha....dumb dumb

my only point was to make fun of you...

[Edited on October 4, 2006 at 10:07 AM. Reason : asdf]

10/4/2006 10:06:57 AM

If you put a terrorist on trial in a regular US court, they'll get off because they weren't mirandised, some of it was likely entrapment, and you know they're not going to testify against eachother (because we were able to "coerce" information out of them the hard way).

Let the military deal with them, because I'd rather see that happen than they all are aqquitted because some people want them to have the same rights as us.

10/4/2006 10:24:19 AM

Again, right from the start, you are assuming they are a terrorist. But who decides? The executive branch? Everyone in this country has the right, as a U.S. citizen, to a fair trial as defined by the constitution. If you don't believe this is a valuable right, then you, my friend, don't deserve to call yourself a conservative ... (or a patriotic American for that matter).

10/4/2006 10:43:18 AM

Quote :

"This is not about terrorist's rights. This is about the fact that the executive branch can now pick up anyone (U.S. citizen or not), claim they are "helping terrorists", put them before a "tribunal", without judicial review, without habias corpus, and try them without them without ever giving them a chance to face their accusers."

if they had wanted to they could have already done that

you guys are a bunch of paranoid salisburyboys on your constant "all our rights are being taken away!" type bullshit

10/4/2006 10:44:22 AM

Quote :

"If you put a terrorist on trial in a regular US court, they'll get off because they weren't mirandised, some of it was likely entrapment, and you know they're not going to testify against eachother (because we were able to "coerce" information out of them the hard way). Let the military deal with them, because I'd rather see that happen than they all are aqquitted because some people want them to have the same rights as us. "

This is tough issue for me, because I recognize the need to be able to try suspected terrorists militarily. I wish we could develop a special court system for terror-related charges so that we could have judicial oversight, but in a slightly different way. Evidence inadmissable in a regular court could be used in this hybrid court. It would be ok for people not to hear the evidence against them (because then they'll know who leaked to the feds), etc.

I don't like it being completely executive, because of the potential for abuse and also the fact that I'm a constitution loving kind of guy.

10/4/2006 10:51:00 AM

^^^ BoBo, to say it once again, this new law does not apply to either U.S. Citizens or any foreign citizen that has set foot on U.S. soil. This is because the Supreme Court has consistently upheld that the Constitution does apply to visiting aliens, even illegal aliens.

So, no, this is not a violation of the Constitution because SCOTUS said long ago that the Constitution does not apply to non-US citizens on non-US territory. As such, the only check on what our government can do to non-US citizens on non-US territory is the democratic process. On this issue, whatever the majority wants, as gleamed through the electoral process, the majority gets. If Congress votes to unilaterally nuke the whole of Mexico there is nothing SCOTUS will say on the issue except that American citizens might be killed in the attack, but that is about it.

[Edited on October 4, 2006 at 10:54 AM. Reason : ^]

10/4/2006 10:54:38 AM

Evidence elicited from torture should be non-admissable. Under torture people say whatever you want them to. This doesnt give correct information at all. So, by this law, anyone accused has a very good chance of being convicted, and not allowing a defence. Republicans think themselves the moral superiority, so what is moral about convicting a potentially innocent man because hes Islamic.

10/4/2006 11:23:39 AM

the intelligence community doesnt go after someone just because they are Islamic

10/4/2006 11:26:50 AM

Assuming for the moment that you were going to give a suspected terrorist a fair trial, tell me, where in this country do you think you're going to find an impartial jury?

10/4/2006 11:28:46 AM

LoneSnark, I think you are wrong. It applies an anyone accused of being a terrorist, or enemy combatant.

Quote :

"José Padilla ... is an American citizen of Puerto Rican descent accused of being a terrorist by the United States government. He was arrested in Chicago on May 8, 2002, and remains in detention in a military prison. For the first three years of his detention he was held without charge; he is now charged with "conspiracy to murder, kidnap, and maim people overseas." ... The U.S. administration has in the past described him as an illegal enemy combatant, arguing that he was thereby not entitled to the normal protection of US law, nor protection under the Geneva Convention."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_%28alleged_terrorist%29

[Edited on October 4, 2006 at 12:02 PM. Reason : *~<]Bo]

10/4/2006 11:50:17 AM

Do we have the full text of the law anywhere? Or just the alrmist article at the beginnign of the thread?

10/4/2006 11:57:19 AM

just the non sourced New York Times article

10/4/2006 12:48:49 PM

And, in accordance with U.S. Law and Tradition, José Padilla is the petitioner in Padilla v. Rumsfeld, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as the respondent to this petition.

This is a legal battle and as any U.S. Citizen or foreign citizen on U.S. soil, the Supreme Court "...requires a habeas corpus hearing for any alleged enemy combatant who demands one."

He may lose that hearing, but no act of congress or the President can deny your right to a hearing, and if the judge decides there is insufficient grounds available under current law to hold you (which does not require charges) you can be ordered released.

Here is the actual offending text:
"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."

So, what this means is that before issuing a write of habeas corpus a petitioner must first demonstrate that the detained is either not an alien (1), or has not been determined to be an enemy combatant (2).

To prove (1) is easy, just present a birth certificate. To prove (2) just demonstrate that the detained does not fit the definition laid out by congressional law. Then the judge can proceed to arguments on whether or not a writ of habeas corpus is warranted.

[Edited on October 4, 2006 at 1:01 PM. Reason : .,.]

10/4/2006 12:50:48 PM

Quote :

" What scares the hell out of me is not that some terrorist might not be able to cloak himself in the Constitution. What scares the hell out of me is a terrorist flying an airplane into a building. "

you know that really didnt have to happen. The terrorists could have easily been apprehended before the attacks, and if it came down to it the Air Force could have lit up those planes; they simply chose to do nothing about it.

10/4/2006 4:18:42 PM

^^ Actions speak louder than words. They held Padilla (a U.S. citizen) for three years without charging him. They only charged him after it was clear the Supreme Court was going to raise a stink about Bush's tactics. They can, because they have ...

10/4/2006 4:51:30 PM

Quote :

"(PS - the Catholic Church does not teach that the death penalty is always wrong. There are some cases in which it can be justified, according to the Church. I think this is one of those.)"

oy vey...

what is more important: the teachings of the church, or the teachings of the new testament?

not to say either is right here, but i tend to view the actual, you know, direct words of jesus and god as more important than their words as intepreted by a body of humans, but thats just me, i not high on catholicism.

10/4/2006 5:19:47 PM

Quote :

"You have an incipient bad mouth. How come liberals can never make an intelligent point without interspersing an array of various curse words and other inappropriate language? or, as a liberal would put it: "You mother fucker have a fucking incipient bad goddamn mouth. How in the fuck come goddamn liberals never mother fucking can make a goddamn intelligent fucking point with-fucking-out interspersing a goddamn array of various mother fuckin curse words and, son of a bitch, other inappropriate mother fucking language, mother fucker?""

What's with all these liberals and their bad mouths?

10/4/2006 5:38:50 PM

BoBo, my point is that this law doesn't change anything for Padilla, they can pick his brother up tomorrow and hold him in jail for 3 years. They could on September 10th, 2001. The constitutional protections you are talking about were taken away decades ago, no point lamenting their loss now.

What they have not and hopefully never will take away is your right to have others petition on your behalf during those three years.

10/4/2006 6:12:03 PM