[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Look, guys, it’s just not going to work if we have to give every scumbag a trial.[/quote]
Nice to see you being so pragmatic, HH
This is irrelevant – the jurisdiction issue is controlling, and the military commissions cannot hear cases that do not involve “alien unlawful enemy combatants.” You cannot drop one of the qualifications and then claim it would be applicable.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
I’ll say this again: No American citizen can be an “alien unlawful enemy combatant.”
Marmadogg wrote:
Not if your citizenship is pre-emtively revoked…
That could be fought in court by ‘your’ lawyer.
‘Your’ lawyer or the court would have to locate you once citizenship was re-established.
Nothing to see here folks…move along…[/quote]
Please find me one example of this ever having happened – I’ve definitely heard of people renouncing their citizenship, but never have I heard of anyone having his citizenship preemptively revoked. Just one precedent will suffice for the purposes of this inquiry.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
I’ll say this again: No American citizen can be an “alien unlawful enemy combatant.”
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Where is this written? And can the president or a military tribunal decide otherwise?[/quote]
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.3930:
This is the language that states the application is of the military courts and habeus stripping provisions is only to non-citizens (note this is found in section 6 of the bill, entitled “Habeus Corpus Matters”:
i In General- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended–
(1) by striking subsection (e) (as added by section 1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2742)) and by striking subsection (e) (as added by added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law 109-163 (119 Stat. 3477)); and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
`(e)(1) 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–
`(A) is currently in United States custody; and
`(B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.
`(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien detained by the United States who–
`(A) is currently in United States custody; and
`(B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.'.
(b) Effective Date- The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001.[/i]
Note further that the language defining the jurisdiction of the commissions, one of the key limits of their power as they cannot hear cases over which they do not have jurisdiction, particularly limits them to aliens:
[i]`Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter
`Sec. 948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions
`(a) Jurisdiction- A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.[/i]
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sloth wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Again, someone answer me.
What is to stop the president (any president) from stripping citizenship from someone and imprisoning them forever?
I’m looking for lawyers…hey BB, what stops this? You tell me.
This law gives too much power to one man. It must be struck down.
Do you plan to renounce your citizenship before a US Consular officer?
Well, that is one way you can lose your citizenship. Other ways include
a) being naturalized in a foreign state;
b) taking an oath or making a declaration to a foreign state;
c) serving in the armed forces of a foreign state;
d) accepting employment with a foreign government and
e) committing treason against, or attempting or conspiring to overthrow, the government of the US.
Pay close attention to e). I know none of us red-blooded, patriotic Americans would ever think of committing treason against our beloved homeland, or of conspiring to overthrow the government, right?
But who gets to define treason in the War on Terrorism? The Constitution? Congress? the President?
[/quote]
Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution:
[i]Article III,
Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted. [/i]
There have been several Supreme Court cases on the requirements for conviction of treason, including the following:
Ex Parte Bolleman: Ex parte Bollman - Wikipedia
Cramer v. United States: Cramer v. United States - Wikipedia
Haupt v. United States: Permission error - Wikipedia
[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
I couldn’t care less if this applies only to noncitizens; habeas corpus is, as far as I am concerned, a basic human right, and I don’t want my government, supposedly founded on liberal principles, taking that right away from anyone–regardless of citizenship.
[/quote]
That would be a very modern view if true – historically non-citizens have not been entitled to habeus protections. And by historically I mean in every case up until today, with one case in which it was left as a possible open question, in the Rasul case in 2004.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Again, someone answer me.
What is to stop the president (any president) from stripping citizenship from someone and imprisoning them forever?
I’m looking for lawyers…hey BB, what stops this? You tell me.
This law gives too much power to one man. It must be struck down.[/quote]
The president doesn’t have the power to strip citizenship – it can be renounced, or a court can find you did something, aka treason.
Unfortunately, Jefferson was off cavorting in France when the Constitution was written and adopted – historically habeus rights have not attached to non-citizens.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Look, guys, it’s just not going to work if we have to give every scumbag a trial. Remember OJ? Guess what some scumbag lawyer would stack the jury with? Look at Saddam’s trial — its turning into a farce, and the guy is clearly a mass murderer, w/o question!
As for Americans who take up arms against this country — they have abnegated any rights whatsoever. They deserve worse than some ignorant Afghani.
HH[/quote]
The rights in the BILL OF RIGHTS are for EVERYBODY. They were meant to be, and are, natural rights that should be given to every innocent being on this earth.
Do we KNOW Osama Bin Laden is a criminal. Yes. There is evidence. So would I agree to locking him the fuck up. Nope.
Random Muslim guy flying through canada though? He deserves his rights. No matter how big of a “feeling” you have that hes a terrorist.
OJ deserved his trial. He got off, but so many scumbags do. Thats the price we pay for freedom. The freedom that we so desire to “protect” in Iraq.
If we become like the extremists, we are no better. We aren’t close to that, but we are begining to slip.
Benjamin Franklin is turning in his grave.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
blck1jack wrote:
This is quite a bunch of hog wash. If you are not a US Citizen you are not protected by the US Consitution. Its that simple. The terrorists and illegals do not get a trial under the protection of the Consitution. There are no rights being take away. There were none for them. under our Consitution in the first place.
LBRTRN wrote:
“The Habeas Corpus secures every man here, alien or citizen,
against everything which is not law, whatever shape it may
assume.”
-Thomas Jefferson
Unfortunately, Jefferson was off cavorting in France when the Constitution was written and adopted – historically habeus rights have not attached to non-citizens.[/quote]
The new law applies to citizens as well that are deemed dangerous.
And even though it is not given to non-citizens in law, thats a terrible symantic excuse to deny someone a natural right.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
blck1jack wrote:
This is quite a bunch of hog wash. If you are not a US Citizen you are not protected by the US Consitution. Its that simple. The terrorists and illegals do not get a trial under the protection of the Consitution. There are no rights being take away. There were none for them. under our Consitution in the first place.
LBRTRN wrote:
“The Habeas Corpus secures every man here, alien or citizen,
against everything which is not law, whatever shape it may
assume.”
-Thomas Jefferson
Unfortunately, Jefferson was off cavorting in France when the Constitution was written and adopted – historically habeus rights have not attached to non-citizens.[/quote]
how about us chumps who busted our asses to get green cards? My taxes not good enough to protect me?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
The new law applies to citizens as well that are deemed dangerous.
And even though it is not given to non-citizens in law, thats a terrible symantic excuse to deny someone a natural right.[/quote]
No it does not – it applies specifically only to non-citizens, via the limited jurisdiction of the military commissions.
Any habeas rights for non-U.S. citizens held outside the U.S. was mostly unheard of throughout our history. See Eisentrager. The Supreme Court changed course somewhat in Rasul in 2004, but it is far from clear that they were establishing the right to habeus petitions as a “natural right” always available to non-citizens.
It’s available to citizens because it’s in the Constitution - Article 1, Section 9 Clause 2.
[quote]Ren wrote:
how about us chumps who busted our asses to get green cards? My taxes not good enough to protect me?[/quote]
Sorry Ren – there are still privileges of citizenship. And given you’re a smart guy, I assume you know paying taxes has nothing to do with it…
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
The rights in the BILL OF RIGHTS are for EVERYBODY. They were meant to be, and are, natural rights that should be given to every innocent being on this earth.[/quote]
I’m glad to note that you think every innocent being on this earth is endowed with the right to bear arms…
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I’m glad to note that you think every innocent being on this earth is endowed with the right to bear arms…
[/quote]
Well, they are, after all.
This is a semantic point, but I think it should be re-iterated.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms and so on. Every man and woman on the planet, US citizen or otherwise.
Trouble is, some governments don’t see it this way. We call these kind of governments “oppressive.”
The US Constitution gives no rights to anyone. It only prohibits the US legislature from passing laws that would limit these already existing rights. How well it continues to accomplish this is a matter of some debate.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
I’ll say this again: No American citizen can be an “alien unlawful enemy combatant.”
Marmadogg wrote:
Not if your citizenship is pre-emtively revoked…
That could be fought in court by ‘your’ lawyer.
‘Your’ lawyer or the court would have to locate you once citizenship was re-established.
Nothing to see here folks…move along…
Please find me one example of this ever having happened – I’ve definitely heard of people renouncing their citizenship, but never have I heard of anyone having his citizenship preemptively revoked. Just one precedent will suffice for the purposes of this inquiry.[/quote]
Yaser Esam Hamdi was not formally charged or convicted of treason. He was never formally charged or convicted of anything during his three-year incarceration, and was only released after a Supreme Court decision.
He may very well have been an illegal enemy combatant, a Taliban scumbag. But we’ll never know, because charges were never filed, and the case never went to trial. Regardless, he got three years in the slammer, loss of his US citizenship, and deportation to Saudi Arabia. I don’t know it that will satisfy your definition of “preemptive”, but I’d say it comes pretty close.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
I’m glad to note that you think every innocent being on this earth is endowed with the right to bear arms…
Varqanir wrote:
Well, they are, after all.
This is a semantic point, but I think it should be re-iterated.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms and so on. Every man and woman on the planet, US citizen or otherwise.
Trouble is, some governments don’t see it this way. We call these kind of governments “oppressive.”
The US Constitution gives no rights to anyone. It only prohibits the US legislature from passing laws that would limit these already existing rights. How well it continues to accomplish this is a matter of some debate.[/quote]
I actually do appreciate that natural rights outlook as a philosophical basis.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t bear any reality to the modern government, particularly since the evisceration of the Commerce Clause’s obvious restrictions on the power of the federal government to do whatever the hell it wants to do. I am just about at a loss to determine any “limits” in the concept of limited government power since the New Deal and the Warren Court era, other than what is specifically set forth in the Constitution (or pretended to be there, lurking within its penumbras and emanations, a la the USSC).
Really, all of this hue and cry over the Patriot Act, which did next to nothing, and this bill, and no one cares a whit about the RICO act or the Federal Drug Laws – particularly the ones that confiscate property related to drug offenses.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
I’ll say this again: No American citizen can be an “alien unlawful enemy combatant.”
Marmadogg wrote:
Not if your citizenship is pre-emtively revoked…
That could be fought in court by ‘your’ lawyer.
‘Your’ lawyer or the court would have to locate you once citizenship was re-established.
Nothing to see here folks…move along…
Please find me one example of this ever having happened – I’ve definitely heard of people renouncing their citizenship, but never have I heard of anyone having his citizenship preemptively revoked. Just one precedent will suffice for the purposes of this inquiry.
Yaser Esam Hamdi was not formally charged or convicted of treason. He was never formally charged or convicted of anything during his three-year incarceration, and was only released after a Supreme Court decision.
He may very well have been an illegal enemy combatant, a Taliban scumbag. But we’ll never know, because charges were never filed, and the case never went to trial. Regardless, he got three years in the slammer, loss of his US citizenship, and deportation to Saudi Arabia. I don’t know it that will satisfy your definition of “preemptive”, but I’d say it comes pretty close.[/quote]
He was renouncing his citizenship – as part of a plea bargain, no less. And this is from an editorial critical of his treatment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45796-2004Sep23.html
I’d say that as a citizen he should have had access to a quicker trial (the fact that I don’t consider this a preemptive stripping of citizenship does not mean I think his rights as a citizen were not violated - though I would need to refresh myself on citizens captured on the battlefield, taking up arms against American forces) – and then he should have been tried for treason and shot.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Yaser Esam Hamdi was not formally charged or convicted of treason. He was never formally charged or convicted of anything during his three-year incarceration, and was only released after a Supreme Court decision.
He may very well have been an illegal enemy combatant, a Taliban scumbag. But we’ll never know, because charges were never filed, and the case never went to trial. Regardless, he got three years in the slammer, loss of his US citizenship, and deportation to Saudi Arabia. I don’t know it that will satisfy your definition of “preemptive”, but I’d say it comes pretty close.[/quote]
Hamdi is precisely the sort of reason why this the Detainee act and Military Commissions act of 2006, have been created. Now he’d be charged, given his trial, and have appeals through the DC Circuit court, and the ability to petition the Supreme Court. You should be onboard here.
man, busting my ass and I can still get fucked. Citizenship countdown is still at 3.5 years 