We have a new update on The Future of the Penny Arcade Forums.
The Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007
Kismet
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
From what I heard this bill will be coming up for debate soon, so I thought we should discuss it. The basic idea of the bill is that it will restore habeas corpus for those detained by the U.S. as "illegal combatants."
As I knew that this was coming up before long, I thought I would write my senators voicing my support for this bill, to see where they stand on the issue. Only one of them has responded so far, and he basically said (in long-winded, roundabout way) "You are terrible for wanting to give terrorists extra rights! They want to kill Americans! They don't conform to military standards (wearing a uniform, not attacking civilians, following rules of war) and so they should not be treated with the same rights as prisoners of war!"
The question that I have posed to the senator in my last message, in a nutshell is this: "If an individual is apprehended as an enemy combatant, with no proof of any terrorist activity, and no right to appear in a courtroom, with a lawyer, how is that fair?" It ends up being circular reasoning when you say that "terrorists don't deserve legal rights" because once you declare someone a terrorist, you don't have to prove in a court of law that they are terrorists... because they're terrorists and don't have any legal rights.
There have already been cases of detainees who were (and in some cases, still are being) held with absolutely no proof of any wrongdoing, for example Murat Kurnaz - held for 5 years at Guantanamo Bay with no evidence against him. His Combatant Status Review Tribunal cited classified evidence that established his guilt. When the information was later declassified accidentally, it was determined that there was no link from Mr. Kurnaz to terrorism. He was later released due to the efforts of his family and lawyer, and due to the fact that there clearly was no evidence against him.
So, am I the only one that doesn't understand how granting habeas corpus could possibly be a bad thing, for anyone? Do I hate America and love the evil terrorists?
As I knew that this was coming up before long, I thought I would write my senators voicing my support for this bill, to see where they stand on the issue. Only one of them has responded so far, and he basically said (in long-winded, roundabout way) "You are terrible for wanting to give terrorists extra rights! They want to kill Americans! They don't conform to military standards (wearing a uniform, not attacking civilians, following rules of war) and so they should not be treated with the same rights as prisoners of war!"
The question that I have posed to the senator in my last message, in a nutshell is this: "If an individual is apprehended as an enemy combatant, with no proof of any terrorist activity, and no right to appear in a courtroom, with a lawyer, how is that fair?" It ends up being circular reasoning when you say that "terrorists don't deserve legal rights" because once you declare someone a terrorist, you don't have to prove in a court of law that they are terrorists... because they're terrorists and don't have any legal rights.
There have already been cases of detainees who were (and in some cases, still are being) held with absolutely no proof of any wrongdoing, for example Murat Kurnaz - held for 5 years at Guantanamo Bay with no evidence against him. His Combatant Status Review Tribunal cited classified evidence that established his guilt. When the information was later declassified accidentally, it was determined that there was no link from Mr. Kurnaz to terrorism. He was later released due to the efforts of his family and lawyer, and due to the fact that there clearly was no evidence against him.
wiki wrote:He is also one of the detainees who has alleged that he was subject to interrogation techniques that included suffocation by drowning, sexual humiliation, beatings, heat or cold and the desecration of his religion.
So, am I the only one that doesn't understand how granting habeas corpus could possibly be a bad thing, for anyone? Do I hate America and love the evil terrorists?
Kismet on
0
Posts
No and no. Habeas corpus is a very good thing, and something that should apply to everyone regardless of nationality.
I honestly don't expect to change the mind of my senator(s), but it would be nice if I could at least make them think about what they're saying. Maybe it's just that the majority of Oklahomans agree with them. Perhaps I'm in the minority in my state.
he takes this position because it would leave Congress free to reduce habeas corpus rights or repeal them altogether.
This is disgusting.
Meet Barack Obama
I didn't know what to expect. Maybe a good reason other than "they're terrorists and don't deserve rights."
Meet Barack Obama
I think you've done all that you can hope to do: present a well-reasoned concern letter to the appropriate person. That, and threaten to mobilize every you know to vote against the politician's opponent next time around unless s/he recants...
Destroying the Constitution in order to save it?
Things are more complicated than you seem to think they are. POWs have never been given the same rights as citizens of a country in the first place, so it doesn't really make sense to expect "enemy combatants" to. There is also plenty of legal precedent to what we're doing, weather you agree with it or not.
The reason we're hesitant to actually prosecute people, instead of just holding them, is because the classified information pertaining to why they're being held contains (regardless of if they contain evidence to hold the person) operational details of our intelligence activities that we don't want people to know about.
For example, if the information on why they're being detained says "we found them near this secret enemy camp in this location," and the person is tried, then the person being tried, his lawyer, or other people involved in the case could leak (accidentally or on purpose) that location to the enemy, which would be bad, and would put our soldiers at risk.
Having information like locations of secret bases is how we find the people in charge. It's how we've found so many high up people in Al-Qaeda. (In fact, it's what we've done as long as we've been able to do these things.) And compromising information like this is (as we've learned the hard way) really bad. And they don't want to take any chances on this happening.
The problem with bills like the one you're talking about--weather you agree with them or not--and the reason they have so much trouble passing is because they don't address problems like this so well, because they typically insist that the legal proceedings are made public.
For a bill like this to pass, it would have to address the problem of classified information. We already have courts set up specifically to deal with things like this, but they weren't designed to handle this many people, or this kind of situation. They were more designed if, for example, a spy from another country was caught. The right way to go about doing what you want is, instead of naively going after things, would be to expand our existing systems. But the democrats will never do this, because that would be "giving in," blah blah blah republicans are evil, and the republicans wont because they're happy with what we have...
So the moral of the story is "things aren't as simple as you think they are."
The problem is that the Bush Administration has claimed (and is acting upon the idea) that enemy combatants have no legal status whatsoever, which is completely contrary to the fundamental principles of the Constitution.
Tough. I don't mean to sound harsh, but one of the fundamental principles of this nation is the idea that we preserve liberty (via the rule of law) before we preserve security, and if that makes our intelligence-gathering job more difficult, then so be it.
Which is not to say that we should abandon completely all attempts to curb terrorism: far from it. However, we absolutely must stop these immoral and un-American "unlawful combatant" detentions.
No, it definitely does not. The constitution only applies to citizens of the country, and even then, only sometimes. If you commit a felony, you lose some of your constitutional rights. If you join the military, you lose some of your rights. If you join certain federal agencies, you can lose some of your constitutional rights.
In fact, if you told our founding fathers that you think our laws / constitution should apply to people outside of the country, they'd be horrified. Wars regularly start over trying to exert your countries' laws over other people. It's a bad precedent to have.
The argument that they have "no legal status" is because there are no laws which apply to them. And--agree with it or not--it's a totally reasonable claim to make. Don't like it, pass laws that change it. Complaining that it's wrong isn't going to accomplish anything, because it isn't.
No, it's not. Where in the constitution does it say this? Where in any body of law does it say this? It doesn't. And that's all that matters. The whole point of having a government is that it's ruled by laws, not ideas, not principles, not beliefs. People have learned the hard way that things turn out really bad when you do that.
If you don't like things, fine. But change laws, complaining doesn't accomplish anything. Unless something we're doing directly contradicts already written laws, then complaining is just stupid. The whole point of making our country is so that we can actually change our laws, instead of only being able to complain!
Shouting words like "immoral" or "un-american" is something people who can't back up their claims resort to. We have laws for a reason. Laws are to follow. Laws are to change when they're unsuitable. Laws do not define what's "immoral" or "un-american," so those arguments don't do anything, and can't accomplish anything other than riling people up and getting them to shout insults at each other.
Habeas rights have been a fundamental part of the US legal system since its inception. It took extraordinary legal efforts to justify (and I think they failed anyway) suspending habeas rights for these so called "enemy combatants." You want to know why there aren't any laws regarding them? BECAUSE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION MADE UP THAT CLASSIFICATION FOR EXACTLY THAT REASON. I cannot stress this enough.
Seriously, they should be given the same rights as soldiers under the Geneva Convention and therefore, given habeas rights. If anyone is changing legal definitions for selfish gain, it is the Bush administration.
He said "However, I will not support giving them new rights" which is pretty close to the same thing.
Meet Barack Obama
You sir, are a weak-willed sycophant and an appeaser of criminals. People like you are responsible for the unlawful kidnapping, jailing and in many cases torture, of countless innocents all over the globe. The crimes you allow to take place have severely compromised the United States' reputation as a defender of liberty and of the most basic human rights, and put in question its status as a world leader.
Are you saying that it's ok to jail somebody because he broke a law but not trial him(so we can find if he actually did) as he doesn't have the right if he's been caught by US police on US soil but is not a US citizen?
Yeah, that's pretty well put.
Meet Barack Obama
That's why I said "principles" of the Constitution, not letter. And by the way, the right to legal counsel is a UN human right.
...Also, you're completely missing the point that non-citizens tried under US law have a right to legal counsel.
Either the "enemy combatants" are criminal suspects or they're prisoners of war; the Bush Administration doesn't have the legal (so says the Supreme Court) or ethical right to indefinitely detain them in a legal black hole.
That's why we've established the process of extradition. People in foreign countries break US laws all the time, relatively speaking, and they're still tried in US courts.
As for the rest, Sanstodo said it well.
But what if by doing this we really ARE giving legal rights to real terrorists?
I said real terrorists.
Giving rights to the terrorists who don't give a shit about your life or legal system and would slit your mother's throat for a nickel.
I don't know how to break that for you, but I saw on TV that them terrorrrrrists are human and them legal rights were called human rights. Could have been a spoof tho.
You're the one who needs to resort to calling people names. And I gave specific examples of where it DOES NOT apply. Go ahead and look up what rights you sign away when you join the army. Go ahead and look at how real POWs have been treated, on US soil, and what rights they have.
Like I said, you don't have to agree with it. But the law is consistent with doing that. If it weren't the supreme court would've overruled this instead of UPHOLDING it. And they have certainly overturned SOME of what we wanted to do, but they haven't ever, in any decision they've ever made, said what you are claiming. And I think, maybe, the supreme court knows just a little more about the law than you do.
Then they're found guilty and punished accordingly.
This is exactly why we have legal systems. Anyone who supports the Bushies on this one doesn't actually believe that our legal system will work in this case, which is patently absurd.
And what if they weren't found guilty?
Then maybe they're not that REAL? gasp...
Edit: Sorry sorry, it's ok. I forgot we scream terrorist, cut the head, and go on with our lives. It was a joke.
Did you even read what I wrote at all? The Bush administration purposely changed their classification to put these people in legal limbo. They are the ones making up law and only defending it post facto. You would absolutely outraged if other nations were doing this to US citizens. You should be similarly outraged that the US government is doing this, since it is the absolute antithesis of what we stand for as a nation and as a people.
Again, it is the administration that is ignoring the law by sidestepping restrictions by creating an entirely new class of "combatants" that they are using as a free pass to do whatever the fuck they want. If you think that's right, moral, and even remotely legal, then you're a fucking dumbass, as previously stated.
I just fear this will create a new breed of terrorists, who can operate in such ways that they can never be found guilty.
Fortunately for us, we're governed by laws, and not some internet person's interpretations of vague principles he thinks someone hundreds of years ago had.
Yes, tried under US law. They have not been tried under US law. That's the point of this argument.
The law does not say this. It doesn't say you're one thing or the other. It say "criminal suspects are this" and "POWs are this," the administration argues "they don't fall under the definition of either."
They are not in a "legal black hole," the supreme court, as you mentioned, has said what rights they have under our laws!
This is only for people who commit crimes on US soil, which is another part of the problem, as they have not committed a crime on US soil.
If they were actually terrorists and we had firm evidence, then they wouldn't go free. Even if they did, it is far preferable to let an actual terrorist go free than to wrongfully imprison a non-terrorist. That's how our legal system differs from, say, Napoleonic systems.
Btw, our intelligence agencies would be all over that person from then on if somehow, in some way, they got off (unlikely as it may be). They wouldn't be able to fart without us knowing. That, combined with the failure rate of terrorist attacks (pretty high for attacks on US soil, hell bringing down the towers on 9/11 was blind luck), minimizes the possible damage this could do.
We don't even know if these people have even committed crimes. They're being detained indefinitely and the administration doesn't even have an intention of trying many of them.
The only reason the administration claims they don't fall under other categories is so they can do whatever they want. If they were really interested in refining the definition, they would have worked out the rights given to them ahead of time.
Again, you're all wrong in your chronology. The administration was doing this well before they came up with these arguments. These are all post facto justifications. The bald truth is that the administration only cared about creating the "enemy combatant" classification once they got caught doing shit that was obviously illegal.
Then how the hell do we capture the wrong people in the first place if our intel is so great?
You don't understand how the law works. If the law doesn't apply to something then, shockingly enough, you can't make it apply to them. Laws are painstakingly laid out to be very careful about who is classified as what, and if they can be interpreted to not apply to them, then they may not apply to them. This is WHY WE HAVE LAWYERS. It's a lawyer's business to use this to his advantage all the time. It's how every legal case ever works.
And, I'll say it again, if it were illegal, the supreme court would say so. And I THINK the supreme court knows more about the laws than you. And I'll agree with what they say, instead of what you say.
And, you'll note, if you bother to read what I say, I haven't said anything about what I agree with. All I've said is what the law says. Our system is based on laws, if you don't like how things are, change the laws. Don't call people "fucking dumbasses," our country isn't a grade school playground where things are decided on who can call people the most names.