sing 'reign of law' united-states-of-america

[Avatar]

Supreme Court Restores Habeas Corpus

http://news.google.com/news?ned=us&hl=e ... eas+corpus

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/washi ... ted=1&_r=1

The first thing I want to say is: it's about time.

The time will soon come to choose between the presidential candidates. If McCain criticizes this decision, I'll have to count that as a mark against voting for him.

Another consideration, for me, will be the possibility that two, maybe three Justices from the Supreme Court will probably retire during the coming presidential term. My decision about any candidate will definitely be influenced by the type of person these candidates would nominate for a position on the Supreme Court.

[u:2ns760ck][b:2ns760ck]I can't say how strongly I disagree with Justice Scalia. [/b:2ns760ck][/u:2ns760ck]

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/12/sca ... be-killed/

Well, this is historic. This is definitely one case that will be talked about for years. My opinion: it doesn't matter if these detainees are citizens of the US, not citizens, or citizens of any other country. These are 'people' whose status is controlled by the US government, through our chain of command. Our government has only the powers that are specifically given to it by the Constitution, by us. We have not given anyone the authority to imprison people without cause. Our handling of these detainees so far is illegal, simply because we haven't been following our own laws. Time after time, our representatives in the government have decided not to follow our Constitution.

Best Regards,
Charles

[*juggleblood*]

isn't it ridiculous that it would come down to this: the supreme court forcing the gvmnt to do something w/ guantanamo by blurring the definition of citizen to include colonial subjects? I'm indignant. At the problem and the solution.

[Weasel]

[quote="Avatar":dh1ef87p]My opinion: it doesn't matter if these detainees are citizens of the US, not citizens, or citizens of any other country. These are 'people' whose status is controlled by the US government, through our chain of command. Our government has only the powers that are specifically given to it by the Constitution, by us. We have not given anyone the authority to imprison people without cause. Our handling of these detainees so far is illegal, simply because we haven't been following our own laws. Time after time, our representatives in the government have decided not to follow our Constitution.
Best Regards,
Charles[/quote:dh1ef87p]

The whole "do as I say, not as I do" attitude from the US govt really bugs me, so in that sense it's about time something was done. The Constitution however [i:dh1ef87p]does[/i:dh1ef87p] allow for the removal of habeas rights when the country faces rebellion or invasion. This isn't yet an invasion, however in the case of detainees that were captured on American soil, that point is certainly debatable.

I wonder though, will it end up being the American taxpayers who foot the bill for detainee legal representation? Interesting twist if so.

[Avatar]

The Constitution does allow for -Congress- to suspend Habeas Corpus, it never allowed for the -Executive- branch to do so.

We should pay for the legal representation. We've held these people for 6 years.

[Weasel]

You do realize that [i:3fofv6yw]many[/i:3fofv6yw] are there because they would kill you given the opportunity? Not saying they don't deserve a trial, but I have little pity for any human who thinks it's ok to chop someone's head off for not agreeing with them, and kill women and children indiscriminately for the same reason.

Actually please don't respond, I really don't want to get into it. I have a tendency to try to argue either side heh.

[Tap]

This is a fine line that US is walking. On one hand, I'm sure there are plenty of prisoners who are indeed "guilty" and need imprisonment. Like our own country, people can and have been falsely accused and imprisoned for a crime they didn't commit. But it is difficult, if not impossible, to weed out those of less influence. I'm certain there was one guy who got released, went back and blew himself up at a police station killing 15-20 officers a couple of months ago. I'm not as opposed as to the imprisonment as I am to how they are treated. No-one actually knows the level of mental/physical abuse that goes on but I wouldn't be surprised. Having said that, we are only at the tip of the iceberg. Bush isn't really worried about what the High Courts, Obama, McCain etc etc say or threaten to do publicly. The man is sitting on martial law. I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop. It's coming.

[Medios]

Can we just turn em over to Mossad?

[*juggleblood*]

I think a prob the gov ran into was that even if the detainees were innocent, they became terrorists after their stay at gitmo. What are we sposed to do with a foreign terrorist who hasn't actually committed any crime yet?

[Rynquald]

I'm guessing it's something along the lines of treating them like terrorists anyway. The whole premise of Guantanamo Bay is imprisoning people for crimes that they haven't committed yet, or indeed, may ever.

There seems to be a growing movement towards this misguided "pre-emptive" thinking by governments. Just look at the way many countries treat decent people that want to keep firearms to protect themselves and their property, or most of the situation with the middle-east.

Very Minority Report.

[alias]

We have been in a pseudo dictatorship for a long time now.

[Roadrunr]

[quote="alias":3sd0hkj1]We have been in a pseudo dictatorship for a long time now.[/quote:3sd0hkj1]

just remember, congress writes and passes the laws, the president does not. if you really think a democrat will be any better, I've got a bridge to sell you. Not only have they not changed a thing since they took control of congress, they also bragged that they had a 'secret plan' to lower gas prices (which have risen 60% since they took over).

the president has a lot less power than most people seem to think.

[Tap]

[quote:105zmavv][color=yellow:105zmavv]just remember, congress writes and passes the laws, the president does not. [/color:105zmavv][/quote:105zmavv]

These were recently passed giving Bush total authority at his whim. Don't take my word for it...look around the web..plenty of proof

[color=red:105zmavv][url:105zmavv]http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html[/url:105zmavv]
[url:105zmavv]http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/230507martiallaw.htm[/url:105zmavv]
[url:105zmavv]http://infowars.com/articles/ps/martial_law_bush_plan_so_shocking_congress_cant_see_it.htm[/url:105zmavv]
[url:105zmavv]http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911[/url:105zmavv]

[/color:105zmavv]

Just a few small links...plenty more with little effort to find....basically Bush is/has been bragging about instituting martial law. Not an advocate for violence but I have extreme prejudice towards self-perservation. Stock up now before Nov..... no telling what might go down

[Weasel]

[quote="alias":1olnsrp5]We have been in a pseudo dictatorship for a long time now.[/quote:1olnsrp5]
LOL ..you should travel more ..outside the US that is