The Day Habeas Corpus Died

[SpencerH]

Habeus Corpus has never been extended to enemy combatants captured by the USA. Since we're now treating these scum as enemy combatants and allowing them protection under the Geneva Conventions they are not entitled to Habeus Corpus. They are however allowed to contest their status via other means.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Someday I'm going to find enough fellow anti-Patriot Act Republicans to start a new party and actually win ... someday ...

[dannubis]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Habeus Corpus has never been extended to enemy combatants captured by the USA. Since we're now treating these scum as enemy combatants and allowing them protection under the Geneva Conventions they are not entitled to Habeus Corpus. They are however allowed to contest their status via other means.

I really hope you did not detain some of that "scum" wrongfully for more than 5 years, American.

[DRoseDARs]

Except that's already happened, been documented, and reported...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Habeus Corpus has never been extended to enemy combatants captured by the USA. Since we're now treating these scum as enemy combatants and allowing them protection under the Geneva Conventions they are not entitled to Habeus Corpus. They are however allowed to contest their status via other means.

A. It does to US citizens and the administration has classified some US citizens as "enemy combatants" (Hamdi and Padilla to name two)

B. Whether it has in the past or hasn't, it should be extended to these enemy combatants so that they may challenge the fact that they actually are Al Queda or were picked up improperly. We have made plenty of mistakes since the WoT started in detaining folks who shouldn't have been.

[Elok]

Y'know, with that title, I feel like I should be responding with the words "bye, bye miss American pie" in Latin. Only I don't know Latin.

[Arcite]

These developments are disturbing.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


A. It does to US citizens and the administration has classified some US citizens as "enemy combatants" (Hamdi and Padilla to name two)

And that would be the means to have SCOTUS review this legislation. As presumably freinds and family would have standing within the eyes of the court.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by dannubis



I really hope you did not detain some of that "scum" wrongfully for more than 5 years, American.

Innocent people are wrongfully incarcerated in every country. So long as there is a mechanism whereby they may challenge that (and there is one), I see no problem nor any need to clog the civilian court system with bull**** legal cases brought by our enemy.

As for being an american, I'm not, but thanks for the compliment.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


A. It does to US citizens and the administration has classified some US citizens as "enemy combatants" (Hamdi and Padilla to name two)

I agree that US citizens such as Hamdi and Padilla have the right to habeus corpus. I also agree with your implied comment that they not be classed as "enemy combatants". They should be tried as the traitors that they are then executed if found guilty.

B. Whether it has in the past or hasn't, it should be extended to these enemy combatants so that they may challenge the fact that they actually are Al Queda or were picked up improperly. We have made plenty of mistakes since the WoT started in detaining folks who shouldn't have been.

I agree that there should be a system for detainees to challenge their incarceration and in fact one exists. Could/should the existing system be improved? Quite possibly, but allowing enemy combatants acess to civilian courts via habeus corpus is a foolish mistake and a right that has never been extended to such individuals before.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


And that would be the means to have SCOTUS review this legislation. As presumably freinds and family would have standing within the eyes of the court.

An interesting slant. You're suggesting that without habeus corpus there can be no SCOTUS review of the legislation?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I agree that there should be a system for detainees to challenge their incarceration and in fact one exists. Could/should the existing system be improved? Quite possibly, but allowing enemy combatants acess to civilian courts via habeus corpus is a foolish mistake and a right that has never been extended to such individuals before.

Why would it be a foolish mistake to try foreign enemy combatants in civil courts via habeus corpus?

An interesting slant. You're suggesting that without habeus corpus there can be no SCOTUS review of the legislation?

No, I think he's speaking of SCOTUS review of the habeus corpus provisions of the bill. Not of the other stuff.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Why would it be a foolish mistake to try foreign enemy combatants in civil courts via habeus corpus?

How are habeus corpus rights handled under the UCMJ? This is going to be a military trial after all so that should be the standard used.

[Ramo]

Innocent people are wrongfully incarcerated in every country. So long as there is a mechanism whereby they may challenge that (and there is one),

That's the point - there isn't a meaningful mechanism. There is no presumption of innocence in the Combat Status Review Tribunal. Enemy combatants do not get lawyers. Hearsay evidence and testimony derived through coercion (i.e. torture) are admissible.

Again, what Congress has just said is that the President has the power to arbitrarily detain anyone he wants.

[Ramo]

How are habeus corpus rights handled under the UCMJ? This is going to be a military trial after all so that should be the standard used.

Standard military trials offer reasonably decent due process rights. CSRT's are very different from standard military trials. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's getting all the bells and whistles, but a goatherder that an Afghan warlord picked up and called a terrorist in exchange for a bounty will be detained for as long as Dear Leader wants.