Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
SNIP
I don't trust any politician. But you are playing a not-too clever
game of misdirection. The right of habeus corpus is extended only
to participants in our socio-legal contract. It is *not* extended
to foreign invaders.
A particulary pathetic misdirection. No one has suggested habeas
relief for foreign invaders. But I will later in this article.
There's a shocker.
You are not, by any chance, characterizing persons arrested in
Pakistan or Afghanistan, or captured in combat in Afghanistan
and taken to Guantanamo Bay, and who have never seven attemtped
to enter the United Statesas foreign invaders, are you?
I stand corrected. What I should have said was:
The right of habeus corpus .... It is *not* extended to
foreign invaders OR people with whom we are at war.
Are persons with whom we are not at war _potentially_ entitled
to habeas relief?
That the Constitution allows the Congress (nor the courts nor
the President) to suspend habeas corpus in the event of invasion,
makes it clear that habeas corpus applies absent an explicit, and
permissible, suspension.
See:
EX PARTE QUIRIN
317 U.S. 1 (1942)
The motion for habeas corpus relief was heard and denied by
the USSC. If the foreign invaders in question could not be, under
any circumstances, entitled to the writ the Court would not
have heard their petition, rather than hearing and then denying
their application.
No matter how much you try to dance around this
issue both history and legal precedent are on my side of this debate:
Please provide citations.
Your citations are utterly irrelevant because they are about people
who are _part of our socio-legal contract_.
Please explain how those foreign invaders, German-born Nazi sabotuers,
became part of _part of our socio-legal contract_.
Please explain how to identify those person who are and are not
_part of our socio-legal contract_.
And then please cite some support for the notion that being a
_part of our socio-legal contract_ is a prerequsite to habeas
relief.
Finally, please explain the legal meaning of _our socio-legal
contract_.
Please cite something, other than yourself, to support your
explanations.
They simply do not
apply to the enemy when engaged in war. This is US criminal, and
even indirectly, civil law you and yours keep trying to drag onto
the battlefield. The burden lies with you to show why the protections
of the Constitution, given and interpreted, should accrue to people
with whom we are at war. It is mind boggling you cannot grasp the
difference.
It is disgusting that you refuse to acknowledge that persons in our
custody and under our protection may or may not also be persons
with whom we are at war.
...
Just who are these invaders to whom you keep refering?
What country did they invade?
Again, it should have said "foreign invaders OR those with whom
we are at war".
Example of "foreign invaders": The 9-11 attackers.
Since habeas relief is mooted by death, that example is asinine
even for a straw man.
Example of "those with whom we are at war": "Insurgents in Iraq"
No one has suggested habeas relief should be available for
Iraqis in custody in Iraq. Another asine straw man.
Shall we now devolve into a Clintoneque debate about what words and
letters mean? It is absurd that any thinking person, regardless of
politics, insist that our legal protections be extend to a hostile
enemy during time of war. But absurdity is the special province of
the Modern "Intellectual" Left and the buzzing flies that surround
them. The Right is ridiculous, the Left is dangerous.
More sophisitcated that typical name calling,
but no more substantive.
--
FF