Habeas Corpus

WOW!

For once we agree! Thanks for the link!

. . . a senator turns his back on our country and comes to the defense of the enemy . . .

WOW!

 

WOW!

If he was even half as offensive as the senator that took up for the enemy . . .then wow again!

Doing pretty good, I pray that ya'll are doing well on the East Coast!

 

Should non American terrorists who are fighting in a war against the US be granted the same rights as a US citizen who is fighting for the US?

Were NAZI prisoners granted those rights? What about other rights, the right of free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to unreasonable search, the right to not testify against themselfs during iterigations. Would you grant them those rights?

 

I call Godwin's Law!

 

There is no right of Habeus Corpus granted to non citizens held outside he U.S.

The RINO,Spector,knows this and Gonzales certainly should know this. I suspect a slightly biased presentation by the writer of the story.

 

First, it is ludicrous to call Godwin's Law if'n ya' don' know what it means . . .

But, since you did: "Quirk's Exception."

 

I sure hope so!

I just know it was a little disgusting the way it was presented.

 

When you get right down to it, in war prisoners are treated at the mercy of their captors and they have no inherent rights except that which their captors desire to give them. In ancient times they were executed or enslaved. We decided a long time ago to treat prisoners we take a whole lot better than they ever were before in history. We set a new standard and bound ourselves to some treaties on how we'd treat prisoners of war. We didn't give up all our rights as captors to an international body and we reserved the right to add some definition to exactly what is a bona fide prisoner of war and what is a spy or saboteur and now terrorists. All in all, despite some short comings in every war, we've done just that. We treat prisoners much better than our own have been treated by our enemies. However, treating prisoners the same as citizens makes no sense at all. Bringing them into our civil courts is a major mistake and makes a mockery of our system of justice. They aren't entitled to the same due process that we are in criminal trails. War is not law enforcement. War is the failure of all means of law, negotiation, persuasion, patience, etc. War isn't fair or nice. War is the use of maximum force - lethal force - to hunt down and kill or capture the enemy.

 

We need to relearn this basic tenet of war.:thumbs:

 

That's the problem, we're not, even when the prisoners are citizens.

How is it a mockery and who is asking to bring them into civil court (by "civil" I take you to mean "not military" as opposed "not criminal")? I thought most prisoner advocates didn't object to military as much as secret or, worst of all, none whatsoever.

Yeah but once we got someone under our control, shouldn't we try to determine whether they are in fact the enemy by habeas corpus?

 

You mean when we have an enemy combatant (AKA enemy) under our control?

Why? They have no place in, or rights to, the American court system.

 

Maybe he is an enemy combatant and maybe he is not. How would we determine one way or the other, particularly with the 95% who were not captured in battle? Habeas corpus.

Geneva Convention.

 

The Geneva Convention has no say at all over our constitution and if the Geneva Convention mentions Habeus Corpus, I've never seen it.

 

That is the problem. Habeas Corpus means that we turn our evidence against them over to them and their attorney. The evidence we have is top seceret, probably because we dont want them to know how we got the evidence in the first place.

Once we give the evidence to their attorney then they can share the info with their buddies. You can see the problem with that.

 

Correct me if I am wrong. We did not sign the Geneva Convention. We only consider it a guideline.

 

More important, were American citizens with Japanese names accorded these rights?

Did the American GIs who put the American citizens into the gulags feel heroic, patroitic, and that they were doing the right thing?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daisy

Yeah but once we got someone under our control, shouldn't we try to determine whether they are in fact the enemy by habeas corpus?

Daisy see the problem? On this? You're kidding, aren't you?