NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252999,00.html

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that foreign-born prisoners seized as potential terrorists and held in Guantanamo Bay may not challenge their detention in U.S. courts, a key victory for President Bush's anti-terrorism plan.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that civilian courts no longer have the authority to consider whether the military is illegally holding the prisoners -- a decision that will strip court access for hundreds of detainees with cases currently pending.

Good. The court does have some good people in it. Now if this can be upheld at the Supreme Court....

No, hopefully SCOTUS reminds President Bush that the writ is for everyone, no matter what he and the AG think.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252999,00.html



Good. The court does have some good people in it. Now if this can be upheld at the Supreme Court....

Spoken like a person who only cares about the results and gives not a shit about the underlying principles of the Constitution.

Spoken like a person who only cares about the results and gives not a shit about the underlying principles of the Constitution.

People caught in battle in violation of the Geneva Convention do not deserve such protection.

Notice that i only support this for those caught in battle and not those on US Soil.

People caught in battle in violation of the Geneva Convention do not deserve such protection.

Notice that i only support this for those caught in battle and not those on US Soil.

nice how the GC is only relevant when it suits US purposes otherwise it's ignored...

People caught in battle in violation of the Geneva Convention do not deserve such protection.

Notice that i only support this for those caught in battle and not those on US Soil.
If the government's so sure that these people truly are enemy combatants, then why are they so afraid to prove it in a court of law? Shouldn't we have a way to stop innocent people from falling through the cracks, considering that such a thing has happened multiple times in the past?

If the government's so sure that these people truly are enemy combatants, then why are they so afraid to prove it in a court of law? Shouldn't we have a way to stop innocent people from falling through the cracks, considering that such a thing has happened multiple times in the past?

*applauds*

Well said.

*applauds*

Well said.
Thanks, but it's common sense, really. Makes you wonder why stuff like this is controversial in the first place...

what, civilians don't get to legally challenge the actions of the military anymore? isn't this a dangerous precedent to be setting?

Good

spoken like a true authoritarian

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252999,00.html



Good. The court does have some good people in it. Now if this can be upheld at the Supreme Court....

You know how I said the constitutional ban of the death penalty in France was a victory for human rights? Well this seems to be the countering defeat. I cannot see why you would ever think this is good, Corny. It's not, as it is a serious violation of their human rights. Besides, as Rhaomi said: if the government is so sure they're guilty, give them a chance to prove it in a court rather than just tuck them away. It's a slippery slope. Remember that old bit about the person watching various groups be hauled away and said nothing, only to be hauled away himself? You let a government start imprisoning people without a chance for a trial or the ability to contest the charges laid against them and you set the stage for said government to use such a system on its own people.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252999,00.html

Good. The court does have some good people in it. Now if this can be upheld at the Supreme Court....

Go read majority decision (http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200702/05-5062b.pdf)-- it openly defies Rasul v. Bush (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-334.pdf), 524 U.S. 466 (2004), (it even cites to the dissent from that case). The dissent is powerful and correct.

(BTW, the swing voter, Judge Sentelle is a real prick and a complete Republican syncophant. He also has publicly said that Rasul was wrong -- unfortunately for him that isn't his job to decide.)

Regardless, please explain what is "good" about suspending the right of habeas corpus.

"The arguments are creative but not cogent. To accept them would be to defy the will of Congress," wrote Judge A. Raymond Randolph in the 25-page opinion, which was joined by Judge David B. Sentelle. Both are Republican appointees to the federal bench.

Am I the only one to think that this is a dangerous way of thinking?
It shouldn't matter what the case is or who brought it to court. What should matter is whether or not something illegal has happened.
Congress or not, if it's illigal it should be struck down...

(BTW, the swing voter, Judge Sentelle is a real prick and a complete Republican syncophant.If he's such a stooge, wouldn't the other judge voting in favor be the "swing" voter?

Am I the only one to think that this is a dangerous way of thinking?
It shouldn't matter what the case is or who brought it to court. What should matter is whether or not something illegal has happened.
Congress or not, if it's illigal it should be struck down...

In reluctant defense of Judges Randolph and Sentelle, that sentence was regarding the statutory intent part of the opinion.

Essentially, the case had 2 issues -- (1) did the defendants have a statutory right to habeas corpus and, if not, (2) was the denial of habeas corpus unconstitutional.

Based on two recent Acts of Congress, the court correctly found that the habeas right had been suspended by Congress. That is where the "will of Congress" quote comes in.

The second question is the one the Court got wrong. The Constitution says: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended..." That seems pretty straight-forward, doesn't it?

(I hope the above explanation makes some sense. I've had both sleep medication and alcohol, so I may not be coherent.)

If he's such a stooge, wouldn't the other judge voting in favor be the "swing" voter?

Well, neither are technically. I used the term loosely to refer to the second judge that voted for, but didn''t write, the opinion.

It's a day for opinion reading it seems. I just finished reading the Altria ruling, heh.

Anyway...

The Supreme Court reversed in Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004), holding that the habeas statute extended to aliens at Guantanamo. Although the detainees themselves were beyond the district court’s jurisdiction, the Court determined that the district court’s jurisdiction over the detainees’ custodians was sufficient to provide subject-matter jurisdiction under § 2241. See Rasul, 542 U.S. at 483-84.While many accuse the administration of screwing around with semantics by calling the detainees "enemy non-combatants" and storing them in what, technically, is not US territory, I have to say that this is an equally impressive amount of weaseling as well. This sort of jurisdiction hopping is... well... surprizing. It reminds me of venue-shopping in civil cases (I'm looking at you Southern Illinois).

Based on two recent Acts of Congress, the court correctly found that the habeas right had been suspended by Congress. That is where the "will of Congress" quote comes in.

The second question is the one the Court got wrong. The Constitution says: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended..." That seems pretty straight-forward, doesn't it?The act is perfectly clear:

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.However, if the legality of the act is in question, shouldn't it be challenged separately? It seems that what's happening here is a bit of jumping the gun.

Also, their case (as represented by the majority) is that the bill doesn't apply to them, because they're case was pending. The court is simply disagreeing with that interpretation.

I don't so much as see this a major, landmark case, but more of the court telling them to go about things in the proper order. The bill in question made no mention of special treatment for cases currently pending, so they're out of luck. I don't see this slamming the door on questioning the legality of the bill.


As an entirely separate matter...
The Suspension Clause limits the removal of habeas corpus, at least as the writ was understood at common law, to times of rebellion or invasion unless Congress provides an adequate alternative remedy. The writ would have reached the detainees at common law, and Congress has neither provided an adequate alternative remedy, through the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005,I'm not terribly thrilled that we (aparently) continue to rely on Common Law. Seems that relying on unwritten law is the source of much of the confusion and bickering in these cases and that common law has no place in modern society.

http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/

It's quite ridiculous really. Most of the inmates in Gitmo weren't captured on any battlefields. They are bascially goatherders captured all around the Middle East because the CIA offered money per "terrorist" delivered to them by various intelligence services.

If they can't appeal to US courts, where can they appeal? Nowhere. And that's what the courts should be thinking about...they should be the foremost defenders of the basic legal rights we believe people to have. Whether or not they would normally consider this their jurisdiction should be irrelevant to them when they actually get the chance to be the only proper protectors of these prisoners' rights.

Whether or not they would normally consider this their jurisdiction should be irrelevant to them when they actually get the chance to be the only proper protectors of these prisoners' rights.This phrase is just as chilling as anything said by the right. The courts should not toss the rule of law to the wind to play White Knight.

This phrase is just as chilling as anything said by the right. The courts should not toss the rule of law to the wind to play White Knight.
They're not meant to play any given role but that of administering the law. And part of that is to make sure that everyone's basic legal rights are respected by the executive.

It's in the nature of the courts that they can't simply barge in, they have to be asked for decisions. But I don't see how they can then toss such an opportunity out if they actually do get asked.

The second question is the one the Court got wrong. The Constitution says: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended..." That seems pretty straight-forward, doesn't it?
Yeah, if you've read the ruling and have the time and inclination, I'd be interested to hear you summation of the court's reasoning in coming to that conclusion (although hopefully I will at some point make time to read it myself).

(I hope the above explanation makes some sense. I've had both sleep medication and alcohol, so I may not be coherent.)
Well you conveyed the issues, the decision on each, and provided (so far as I can tell) sound opinion regarding how the court should have decided. Further your summarisation is delivered succinctly...

Yeah, I'd say that's coherent and then some.;)

As an entirely separate matter...
I'm not terribly thrilled that we (aparently) continue to rely on Common Law. Seems that relying on unwritten law is the source of much of the confusion and bickering in these cases and that common law has no place in modern society.
The US justice system is a common-law system, changing this would be a huge (I mean indescribably massive) under-taking. To not rely on common-law requires that the US abandon it's entire justice system and start afresh.

They're not meant to play any given role but that of administering the law.
Because the US has a common-law justice system, part of the role/function of the courts is necessarily to make law.

Because the US has a common-law justice system, part of the role/function of the courts is necessarily to make law.
Well, you got me there. But what I meant was simply that I don't want them to play a White Knight, I just want them to protect people from the Executive gone mad, as they should under the whole seperation of powers idea.

People caught in battle in violation of the Geneva Convention do not deserve such protection.

Notice that i only support this for those caught in battle and not those on US Soil.

It doesn't matter what they deserve. People who would deny such protecton to anyone else don't deserve such protection.

It doesn't matter what they deserve. People who would deny such protecton to anyone else don't deserve such protection.
Absolutely true!

And people start threads wondering about why the US is "hated"... have fun with your concentration camps.

People caught in battle in violation of the Geneva Convention do not deserve such protection.

Notice that i only support this for those caught in battle and not those on US Soil.

Too bad the President doesn't support your principled stand. And by supporting him, neither do you. You're just talking out of both sides of your mouth.

They weren't caught in violation of the Geneva Convention, unless by that you mean we violated the Geneva Convention in capturing them.

These weren't people picked up off the battlefield shooting at our soldiers. Many of them were picked up by bounty hunters who viewed US bounties on "suspected terrorists" as an opportunity to get paid for kidnapping their enemies.

People caught in battle in violation of the Geneva Convention do not deserve such protection.

Notice that i only support this for those caught in battle and not those on US Soil.
Because of course people being held illegally couldn't have been caught illegally. I don't suppose you care about silly facts like that because they would interfere with being a dick.

The US justice system is a common-law system, changing this would be a huge (I mean indescribably massive) under-taking. To not rely on common-law requires that the US abandon it's entire justice system and start afresh.On the federal level, perhaps, but many states (such as Illinois and Michigan) have done away with common law. To do so at the federal level might be painful, I still think it's something that should be done.

If the government's so sure that these people truly are enemy combatants, then why are they so afraid to prove it in a court of law? Shouldn't we have a way to stop innocent people from falling through the cracks, considering that such a thing has happened multiple times in the past?

They are doing so in a court of law. Just not a civilian court.

what, civilians don't get to legally challenge the actions of the military anymore? isn't this a dangerous precedent to be setting?

In this case, no because these people were picked up on the field of battle and NOT in the United States.

They are doing so in a court of law. Just not a civilian court.

a court where the defendant is presumed guilty and is unable to study the evidence or testimony used against him is no court of law.

It's a court of kangaroos, nothing more.

In this case, no because these people were picked up on the field of battle and NOT in the United States.
You do know that many of them were not picked up in the field of battle don't you?

You also know that many of them were not even picked up by the US don't you?

Notice that i only support this for those caught in battle and not those on US Soil.

Well then, I have a ticket for you to Afghanistan...some friends are waiting for you there and would like to earn some easy money.

Because the US has a common-law justice system, part of the role/function of the courts is necessarily to make law.

WRONG!! The Judicial system should never ever ever make law. That is the purpose of the legislative body. The Court is not the Legislature. It can rule if it is constitutional or not but THAT'S IT!!!!

In this case, no because these people were picked up on the field of battle and NOT in the United States.

and how do you know that?

The writ of habeus corpus is designed to protect those who have been arrested illegally.

To suspend the writ to those who it is claimed are arrested as prisoners of war is to remove any protection from those that are not.

"we aren't going to let you determine if they are actually prisoners of war because they are prisoners of war".

That brand of logic is both stupid and extremist.

Well then, I have a ticket for you to Afghanistan...some friends are waiting for you there and would like to earn some easy money.

:rolleyes:

WRONG!! The Judicial system should never ever ever make law. That is the purpose of the legislative body. The Court is not the Legislature. It can rule if it is constitutional or not but THAT'S IT!!!!

Guess the founding fathers buggered up a bit in setting up the US on a common law system then eh?

WRONG!! The Judicial system should never ever ever make law. That is the purpose of the legislative body. The Court is not the Legislature. It can rule if it is constitutional or not but THAT'S IT!!!!

you really don't understand a bit how common law systems work do you?

A law can come to existance through means other than a legislative body. Culture and practice is one such way. Culture and practice are amorphous however, and do not constitute real bodies of law until a court recognizes them and gives them weight of law.

That's what common law IS.

:rolleyes:

good answer.

Now what, exactly, would you do if you were caught as a terrorist by mistake?

good answer.

Now what, exactly, would you do if you were caught as a terrorist by mistake?

Nothing because he is being held as a prisoner of not war and as a terrorist suspect so laws don't apply to him.

They are doing so in a court of law. Just a kangaroo court.

Fixed.

:rolleyes:
Dude, I personally spoke to Mamdouh Habib, a guy from Australia who spent several years in Gitmo.

He was "captured" when a backpacker bus travelling through Pakistan was stopped and he was arrested. For several months he was first moved into Afghanistan for interrogation, then to Egypt for more serious interrogation. There they offered him a deal: "Admit you're a terrorist, and we'll organise a mild punishment for you. Plus, we'll split the CIA money with you."

He ended up in Gitmo. Two years later, he was released without ever having been charged.

Now, I'm the first to admit that he acts like a bit of a dickhead. But I have no reason to doubt that intelligence services in Pakistan or Egypt were ready to take whoever they could get and send them to the CIA in return for the money. And the CIA didn't care who they got as long as they could say "we're hurting the terrorists".

good answer.

Now what, exactly, would you do if you were caught as a terrorist by mistake?

Claim it's not fair just like The Lottery's Tessie Hutchingson did when it began not being fair towards HER.

Well then, I have a ticket for you to Afghanistan...some friends are waiting for you there and would like to earn some easy money.
There are forty million dollars left over from a failed public works project, and they need AC2's help in getting it out of the country, for which they will give him 10% as the beneficiary of the fund. As they are civil servants, they are not allowed to operate a foreign account. All they need is some banking details. And for him to go to Afghanistan, of course.

:p

:rolleyes:

So you deny that CIA payoffs to local gangs for whoever they can round up and call a terrorist attract those more interested in money than actually giving real terrorists?

No.

So what was :rolleyes: all about?

So you deny that CIA payoffs to local gangs for whoever they can round up and call a terrorist attract those more interested in money than actually giving real terrorists?

No.

No.
So you support illegal detentions of any sort? Good to know.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252999,00.html



Good. The court does have some good people in it. Now if this can be upheld at the Supreme Court....

Dontchya just lurve activist judges?

Dontchya just lurve activist judges?

In reality it is not activism as they are stating that the court has no jurisdiction in the matter. Attack the law and not the detention is what they should have done.

In reality it is not activism as they are stating that the court has no jurisdiction in the matter. Attack the law and not the detention is what they should have done.

LOL...I think my comment went over your head mate...

No.

Do you support detention of random people for indefinite periods of time without legal recourse on the say so of equally random people?

Do you support detention of random people for indefinite periods of time without legal recourse on the say so of equally random people?

They are getting trials so the legal recourse aspect is false. Please revise before I answer.

nice how the GC is only relevant when it suits US purposes otherwise it's ignored...


I don't think the US can be singled out for this type of behavior.

good answer.

Now what, exactly, would you do if you were caught as a terrorist by mistake?
Shit his pants and cry like a bitch?

You know how I said the constitutional ban of the death penalty in France was a victory for human rights? Well this seems to be the countering defeat. I cannot see why you would ever think this is good, Corny. It's not, as it is a serious violation of their human rights. Besides, as Rhaomi said: if the government is so sure they're guilty, give them a chance to prove it in a court rather than just tuck them away. It's a slippery slope. Remember that old bit about the person watching various groups be hauled away and said nothing, only to be hauled away himself? You let a government start imprisoning people without a chance for a trial or the ability to contest the charges laid against them and you set the stage for said government to use such a system on its own people.

I think Corny would like to be one of the people that hauls others away.

I think Corny would like to be one of the people that hauls others away.

You thought wrong.

You thought wrong.

Well you're actively in support of hauling people away based on little or no evidence...

They are getting trials so the legal recourse aspect is false. Please revise before I answer.

So you support trials where the defendant is not allowed to know the evidence brought before him, nor any specifics of the crime he is accused with?

Furthermore, at the current rate of trials, the last one getting his trial will probably be in the 23rd century.

Additionally, you have not clarified your stance in regards to bounty hunting with "anyone goes" specifications that the CIA practices.

I think Corny would like to be one of the people that hauls others away.

You thought wrong.

So you'd rather just sit back and watch it happen, watch other people do the dirty work? How morally erect of you. :rolleyes:

People caught in battle in violation of the Geneva Convention do not deserve such protection.

Notice that i only support this for those caught in battle and not those on US Soil.

Most GitMo prisoners were not caught in battle, but they were caught in foreign land.

You neglect the fact that if the Supreme Court were to uphold this verdict it would affect ALL prisoners, not just the ones caught in battle.

WRONG!!
Er, no, I'm not wrong about this, trust me.

The Judicial system should never ever ever make law.
In a common law system (as opposed to a civil law or civil-code system) the judiciary necessarily makes law. In fact, without any specific knowledge other than my understanding of common-law justice systems, I'd bet money that more of the law in the US was generated by the judiciary than by the legislature.

That is the purpose of the legislative body. The Court is not the Legislature.
The Legislature certainly does legislate, but I think you'll find that there is a great deal less legislated law in the US than there is common-law.

It can rule if it is constitutional or not but THAT'S IT!!!!
I dont know quite where your misunderstanding arises (obviously you dont have all the information, but it's hard for me to guess what you do and dont know). If you are a US citizen you're entitled to understand the workings of your justice system, one might even argue that you have a duty to understand it. It's actually not at all complicated to understand the basic premises once you have the information, so feel free to ask.

So you support trials where the defendant is not allowed to know the evidence brought before him, nor any specifics of the crime he is accused with?

Furthermore, at the current rate of trials, the last one getting his trial will probably be in the 23rd century.

Well, they are terrorists after all, not merely accused terrorists but honest , real, devil incarnate terrorists. Clearly, this means they don't deserve any of those pesky things called "rights". Better to have them sit in prison with no way to defend their innocence and after having them sit in the aforementioned prison for an enormous amount of time, have a military show trial where of course the defendant's lawyer is not allowed to present any evidence since after all "national security" means that anything that may prove the defendants innocence is dangerous for people to know about. It might give extremists information to give the defendant a fair trial after all. Really now, we can't have people realize that our government is keeping people locked up for no reason now can we?

The Legislature certainly does legislate, but I think you'll find that there is a great deal less legislated law in the US than there is common-law.

That depends on how you define "US" and how you define "legislated law".

If you refer to the US as the federal government, and define legislative law as law passed by congress, then yes, the federal government is largely a common law system.

However there are regulations that carry the force of law, passed by executive regulatory agencies promulgated pursuant to legislative authority.

Think tax codes. Tax codes are regulations, created by the IRS. The IRS an agency of the executive branch. The IRS is part of the executive branch, not the legislative, and the regulations the IRS creates are law.

So, you ask, if the legislative passes laws, and the IRS is an executive agency, how does the regulation the IRS passes have force of law? Because congress authorized the IRS to do it. In other words, the IRS, as an executive agency, passes law under the permission of congress (sort of congress saying, we and we alone have the authority to make law, but we are giving you permission to draft regulation with the force of law, so you make the law, but only under our authority, and only for the purposes we allow you to do it...in this case, in tax law).

So if we count regulations, of which there are TONS, tax regulations, employment regulations, health care regulations, commercial transaction regulations (my speciality as it happens) and all sorts of other things as "legislative law" because, while they are passed by executive agencies with authority of the legislature, then it swings back.

Additionally if we count all the law IN THE US, rather than just federal law of the US, then we add in state laws, and many states have gotten rid of common law all together.

So when we're talking federal government, it's likely true there is more common law than there is law passed by congress. But start adding up regulations and state laws it swings the othr way.

That being said, federal law is generally commonlaw.

They are getting trials so the legal recourse aspect is false. Please revise before I answer.

Military justice is to justice what military music is to music. Now explain why you support illegal arrests and detentions of any sort.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252999,00.html

Good. The court does have some good people in it. Now if this can be upheld at the Supreme Court....

...then the travesty can continue and we can all, once and for all, laugh heartily when someone claims that the US is a democratic nation where the rule of law applies. I feel a smile coming on just thinking about it :)

And people start threads wondering about why the US is "hated"... have fun with your concentration camps.

If the Busheviks had their way, there'd be Allahschwizt for Muslims, Asschwitz for gays, and AlFrankenscwizt for "Liberals".

That depends on how you define "US" and how you define "legislated law".
Actually rather than depending on how "US' is defined, it depends more on how "law in the US" is defined. I would suggest that it doesnt make sense to interepret "law in the US" as refering to anything that forms or has formed part of any body of law within the US. Can you name a single jurisdiction where 'every law that forms part of any body of law within the US' actually is part of the applicable law? I dont see how that could be possible given that law within various jusrisidictions in the US is contrary to law within various other jurisidictions in the US...that's kind the whole point about State law isnt? What is law in New York, may not be law in Colorado.
As for how legislation is defined, generally if I mean "all statutory law" rather than "law legislated by the Legislature", I'd use the phrase "statutory law". In this (or indeed any) particular case if in doubt refer to the context that sets the frame of reference. At issue,
That is the purpose of the legislative body. The Court is not the Legislature.
It should be clear from this that unless signalled otherwise 'legislation' in this case refers to law legislated by the legislation. Even if it happens to be your custom to refer to any statuary law, including for instance delegated legislation enacted by the executive under delegated authority legislated by the Legislature, this is a case where context makes such an interpretation silly.

If you refer to the US as the federal government, and define legislative law as law passed by congress, then yes, the federal government is largely a common law system.

However there are regulations that carry the force of law, passed by executive regulatory agencies promulgated pursuant to legislative authority.

Think tax codes. Tax codes are regulations, created by the IRS. The IRS an agency of the executive branch. The IRS is part of the executive branch, not the legislative, and the regulations the IRS creates are law.
No kidding, that's why it doesnt make sense to define 'legislation' as referring to delegated legislation in this context - I refer you back to the frame of reference; "law legislated by the legislature contrasted with common-law generated by the judiciary". Delegated legislation is a bit of a red herring and an unnecessary complication in terms of conveying the very simple point being made in regards to the law generating aspect of the judiciary. For what purpose would I have intended to include law generated by the executive given the nature of the point being illustrated?

So, you ask, if the legislative passes laws, and the IRS is an executive agency, how does the regulation the IRS passes have force of law?
NO, dear, I dont ask any such thing. What I would ask is why you would think 'legislation' in this context might mean "all statuary law including delegated legislation created by the executive" when the clearly signalled frame of reference is the contrast between law legislated by the legislature and law generated by the judiciary?

Because congress authorized the IRS to do it. In other words, the IRS, as an executive agency, passes law under the permission of congress (sort of congress saying, we and we alone have the authority to make law, but we are giving you permission to draft regulation with the force of law, so you make the law, but only under our authority, and only for the purposes we allow you to do it...in this case, in tax law).
Yes, I am familiar with delegated legislation enacted by the executive, I just dont see why you would think it were relevent or why you wouldnt realise that the frame of reference (the contrast between legislation passed by the legislature and law generated by the judiciary) excludes interpreting 'legislation' in this context as being something other than law legislated by the legislature.

So if we count regulations, of which there are TONS, tax regulations, employment regulations, health care regulations, commercial transaction regulations (my speciality as it happens) and all sorts of other things as "legislative law" because, while they are passed by executive agencies with authority of the legislature, then it swings back.
Generally I wouldnt count any and every statutory law as 'legislation' unless there were a specific reason to do so (ie the context requiring or making such an interpretation more appropriate). 'Statutory law' allows us to communicate the referent you are trying to attach to 'legislation' but calling all statutory law 'legislation' leaves the referent 'legislation legislated by the legislature' without a singular word description. I see no reason why anyone would prefer to have two seperate words to communicate 'all statutory law' and no single-word capable of comminicating the referent "legislation legislated by the legislature' - that's a hassle to write/type/speak and to read/hear.

Additionally if we count all the law IN THE US, rather than just federal law of the US, then we add in state laws, and many states have gotten rid of common law all together.
Why would we count any more than the body of law applicable within in particular jurisdiction? That wouldnt make sense since some things would be both the law and not the law of the US at the same time (given that some law in some states is contrary to some law in some states).

So when we're talking federal government, it's likely true there is more common law than there is law passed by congress. But start adding up regulations and state laws it swings the othr way.

That being said, federal law is generally commonlaw.
Aha, but when we make sensible interpretations (ie interpretations that are both indicated by the context and not contra-indicated by the context) we find communcation much easier and can avoid unnecessary irrelevent red-herrings that only arise if we interpret things less than sensibly.

People caught in battle in violation of the Geneva Convention do not deserve such protection.

Notice that i only support this for those caught in battle and not those on US Soil.

But as this ruling affects all in Guantanamo etc regardless of how they got there......

They are doing so in a court of law. Just not a civilian court.

Nope, they are doing so in a court. There may be some law involved, but it seems to be carefully selected and by one side only.


You thought wrong..

So you only want to cheer-lead for those who haul people away....

Nope, they are doing so in a court. There may be some law involved, but it seems to be carefully selected and by one side only.

So you only want to cheer-lead for those who haul people away....


This will end soon in the Supreme Court. Want to guess how it will come out?

This will end soon in the Supreme Court. Want to guess how it will come out?

The Bush ruling clique screwing over the Constitution and taking another step towards authoritarianism?

The Bush ruling clique screwing over the Constitution and taking another step towards authoritarianism?

As I recall, quite a few Democrats voted FOR the Military Commissions Act which is the legality in question here.

Hardly Bush ruling clique...

As I recall, quite a few Democrats voted FOR the Military Commissions Act which is the legality in question here.

Hardly Bush ruling clique...

Well, here's hoping that the Dem's can gain enough votes and undo the harm this godawful act has done. I'm not even an American, and I can't wait for 2008...

As I recall, quite a few Democrats voted FOR the Military Commissions Act which is the legality in question here.

Hardly Bush ruling clique...

Quite a few if you consider 12 out of the 45 (at the time) Democratic Senators to be quite a few. And Senator Dodd has already introduced legislation to repeal the more egregious postions of the MCA.

And for a little context, the Republicans voted for the MCA 48-1, with the 1 being, I believe, Lincoln Chaffee, who is on longer a Senator. This was a Republican bill, and a Republican law. Don't try to pawn it off on us.

This will end soon in the Supreme Court. Want to guess how it will come out?

No idea. But no doubt you'd love it to fall the USG's way, because then you could be smug...over a bunch of mostly sheeperherders being battered and occassionally sodomised by the US army. Go you.

Well, here's hoping that the Dem's can gain enough votes and undo the harm this godawful act has done. I'm not even an American, and I can't wait for 2008...

What do you believe is going to happen in 2008? (this might sound like a silly question, but I am curious as to what your predictions are)

What do you believe is going to happen in 2008? (this might sound like a silly question, but I am curious as to what your predictions are)

Best Thing: Democrats win, with Obama. Reality: Democrats win with someone vaguely reasonable, and they start undoing the damage Bush has done the past eight years.

If the Busheviks had their way, there'd be Allahschwizt for Muslims, Asschwitz for gays, and AlFrankenscwizt for "Liberals".

Nice one!

Attention:
Many of those imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay are not insurgents or terrorists captured in Iraq or Afghanistan in violation of the Geneva Conventions. Many of them are innocent young men who are suspected anti-Musharraf activists from Pakistan who have been taken from their families by the government and shipped to the US, branded as Al-Qaida combatants. There are also European Muslims imprisoned there who have been picked up off the street based on shaky intelligence. There were British citizens held at Guantanamo (perhaps there still are, I don't know) and were eventually released without charge. Guantanamo is damaging to the US's image around the world and should be be ridden of immediately.

This will end soon in the Supreme Court. Want to guess how it will come out?

The destruction of an illusion?

This will end soon in the Supreme Court. Want to guess how it will come out?

It'll probably depend on how many times Kennedy flips the coin in his pocket.

Best Thing: Democrats win, with Obama. Reality: Democrats win with someone vaguely reasonable, and they start undoing the damage Bush has done the past eight years.

No, reality: Democrats win with someone vaguely reasonable, bare majority in the House and bare minority in the Senate (or vice versa), and then proceed to bungle up every chance they get to undo President Bush's damage despite all manner of heady rhetoric. Not to mention, as soon as all of Bush's lovely plans to leave America's tax system clusterfucked are followed through in 2010, the Dems will get blamed for it and lose any semblance of power they might have had. The Republicans will then get into power again in the White House in 2012, and fail to do just about anything either because the Democrats will still be holding on to about 50% of each legislative body (give or take). And American politics remain in chaos for a while.

Go on, call me a cynic. You know you want to.

You're a cynic.


(Doesn't preclude you from being possibly right.) :p

Then again everyone thought the Republicans were going to keep control of Congress too.

Hope isn't entirely dead.

Go on, call me a cynic. You know you want to.

You're a cynic.


(Doesn't preclude you from being possibly right.) :p

You're a cynic.


(Doesn't preclude you from being possibly right.) :p

Unfortunately for humanity, the cynics usually are.

I sometimes joke that I'm only a pessimist because we're always satisfied -- either we're right, or things turn out well in the end. :D

Unfortunately for humanity, the cynics usually are.

I sometimes joke that I'm only a pessimist because we're always satisfied -- either we're right, or things turn out well in the end. :D

:D

Well, here's hoping that the Dem's can gain enough votes and undo the harm this godawful act has done. I'm not even an American, and I can't wait for 2008...

IIRC, the Democrats were climbing over themselves to arrange for quick passage of the MCA.

Tell me again how this was a Bush clique thing.

For them to undo it now would be the ultimate in flip-flopping.

IIRC, the Democrats were climbing over themselves to arrange for quick passage of the MCA.

You recall wrong.

the 109th congress had 201 democrats in the house


Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_elections,_2004)

34 of those 201 voted in favor of the MCA

Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/27/AR2006092701287.html)

That is less than 17%.

In comparison 219 of the 232 of the republicans in the house voted in favor of it. This is slightly higher than 94%

In other words, YDNRC.

You are perhaps thinking of the authorization to use military force, not the military commissions act?

Tell me again how this was a Bush clique thing.

Because 94% of his party voted the way he wanted them to vote, and only 17% of the opposition party did.

Again, I will trust facts over "what you recall"

For them to undo it now would be the ultimate in flip-flopping.

I'm curious how it would be the "ultimate in flip-flopping" to undue a law less than 1 in 6 of them supported.

This will end soon in the Supreme Court. Want to guess how it will come out?

Sure. The decision will be overturned, just like in Rasul v. Bush (6-3) and Hamadan v. Rumsfeld (5-3).

What makes you think this case will suddenly convince the Court that habeas corpus can be suspended?

(@#$%@ computer ate my first three times at giving a more detailed answer.)

Sure. The decision will be overturned, just like in Rasul v. Bush (6-3) and Hamadan v. Rumsfeld (5-3).

What makes you think this case will suddenly convince the Court that habeas corpus can be suspended?

(@#$%@ computer ate my first three times at giving a more detailed answer.)

Since Congress actually suspended it with the MCA....

Sure. The decision will be overturned, just like in Rasul v. Bush (6-3) and Hamadan v. Rumsfeld (5-3).

What makes you think this case will suddenly convince the Court that habeas corpus can be suspended?

(@#$%@ computer ate my first three times at giving a more detailed answer.)

Because it was pretty clear to me in both cases that they gave the green light to doing so as long as Congress made specific stipulations.

So the MCA was hurriedly passed - by a substantial number of Democrats as well - who foresaw a future where every POW held by the US in every future war would seek to have his case heard in US civilian courts.

Gee, we didn't process our German and Japanese POWs through US civilian courts - could it be because they didn't have the right to do so?

Since Congress actually suspended it with the MCA....

That could put the legality of the MCA into question and end up revoking it. Let's try to be optimistic.

That could put the legality of the MCA into question and end up revoking it. Let's try to be optimistic.

The MCA was specifically written to address Supreme Court concerns brought up in the previous cases.

SCOTUS broadly hinted that if these concerns were addressed directly by Congress, it would be a free ride.

Try to be optimistic.

The MCA was specifically written to address Supreme Court concerns brought up in the previous cases.

SCOTUS broadly hinted that if these concerns were addressed directly by Congress, it would be a free ride.

Try to be optimistic.

Well, if you support and gloat over this in case I'm wrong, you'll be gloating over the fact that YOU might not have habeas corpus soon enough. Fine by me. I'm not an American.

Well, if you support and gloat over this in case I'm wrong, you'll be gloating over the fact that YOU might not have habeas corpus soon enough. Fine by me. I'm not an American.

I'm not gloating, I'm just pointing out that this was already a pre-engineered end run, and that thinking otherwise is specious.

I'm not gloating, I'm just pointing out that this was already a pre-engineered end run, and that thinking otherwise is specious.

Do you support it?

Do you support it?

It's too complex a document to say "I support it" or "I don't support it".

If you consider that the intention was to make it impossible for POWs captured in battle to hear their cases in US civilian courts, I am OK with that intent.

After all, we NEVER have given that right to ANY POWs captured in ANY previous war - and neither has anyone else.

Military courts have been held by the Geneva Convention to be suitable for that purpose.

Which is fine with me, as long as they abide by the UCMJ, which adheres to the Geneva Convention.

Making special, new, military tribunals is unnecessary in my opinion. Which is a mistake that both Republicans and Democrats are making in this instance.

That could put the legality of the MCA into question and end up revoking it. Let's try to be optimistic.

Read up on the Constitution. Congress has full right to suspend Habius Corpus.

It's too complex a document to say "I support it" or "I don't support it".

If you consider that the intention was to make it impossible for POWs captured in battle to hear their cases in US civilian courts, I am OK with that intent.

After all, we NEVER have given that right to ANY POWs captured in ANY previous war - and neither has anyone else.

Military courts have been held by the Geneva Convention to be suitable for that purpose.

Which is fine with me, as long as they abide by the UCMJ, which adheres to the Geneva Convention.

Making special, new, military tribunals is unnecessary in my opinion. Which is a mistake that both Republicans and Democrats are making in this instance.

Hear! Hear!

Read up on the Constitution. Congress has full right to suspend Habius Corpus.You should read up on it--they only have that power in very limited circumstances, none of which currently apply.

I'll make it easy on you, so you don't even have to look it up:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Emphasis mine.

Read up on the Constitution. Congress has full right to suspend Habius Corpus.

So, you're claiming to be very knowledgeable on the concept you can't spell? Regardless, congress isn't free to suspend it when it suits its whims.

You should read up on it--they only have that power in very limited circumstances, none of which currently apply.

I'll make it easy on you, so you don't even have to look it up:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Emphasis mine.

Tell it to Congress and not to me.

Tell it to Congress and not to me.

I already have. I'm telling you here because you're the one making stupid statements here.

I already have. I'm telling you here because you're the one making stupid statements here.

Just going by what Congress has done Nazz. So if it is a stupid statement, blame Congress.

It is incumbent upon congress or the supreme court to right this wrong.

The real enemies of freedom, as this indicates, are a great deal closer than baghdad.

Spoken like a person who only cares about the results and gives not a shit about the underlying principles of the Constitution.

Since when are the principles of the Constitution applied to foreign (read: non citizen) detainees?

Since Congress actually suspended it with the MCA....

which means nothing. Just because congress tries to do something doesn't mean they can.

See City of Bourne and RFRA

Really now, how do you expect to argue nuances of constitutional law when you don't know anything about it?

I don't come to where you work and tell you how to make the fries so crispy, don't be so arrogant to presume you can do MY job.

Since when are the principles of the Constitution applied to foreign (read: non citizen) detainees?

That's a long time ago...

Since when are the principles of the Constitution applied to foreign (read: non citizen) detainees?

since about 1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, ...nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

We can flash forward about 80 years or so:

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Take a look at the bolded parts. No PERSON shall be denied these rights. Right to a speedy trial in ALL criminal prosecutions.

The 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments make no restrictions for CITIZENS (well the 14th does, but not in the section I quoted), and based on the original drafter's ease at replacing "person" with citizen, should they have so choosen, it is quite clear that these amendments apply to ANY that fall under the jurisdiction of the united states.

In fact, because Section 1, clause 1 of the 14th amendment clearly DOES reference citizens, and speaks of rights of citizens, where as clause 2 speaks to the right of PERSONS, it is very clear that the drafters clearly seperated rights of citizens, and rights of persons. Art 1 clause 1 of the 14th specifically speaks to citizens. Clause 2 clearly speaks to persons in general. Because the drafters clearly wrote CITIZEN when they meant CITIZEN, there can be no other inference that in the absence of the word CITIZEN they didn't intend to put it there.

which means nothing. Just because congress tries to do something doesn't mean they can.

See City of Bourne and RFRA

Really now, how do you expect to argue nuances of constitutional law when you don't know anything about it?

I don't come to where you work and tell you how to make the fries so crispy, don't be so arrogant to presume you can do MY job.

Since this is corny, the answer is unequivocal:

"Yes"