Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
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?
Only if they are otherwise participants in our legal-social
contract. For example, an Italian visiting the US legally
is entitled to such legal relief. An Italian doing crime
at the US Embassy in Rome is not except as provided by any
governing Italian law. It's worth mentioning that I certainly
agree that any international treaties to which we are party in
such a situation should be honored.
Is it worth mentioning Thomas Jefferson's opinion?
"The Habeas Corpus secures every man here, alien or citizen, against
everything which is not law, whatever shape it may assume."
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_.
By means of good intelligence, interrogation, corroborating
evidence, and the testimony of reliable witnesses. When
you catch someone calling 1-800-Al-Queda with C4 in their
apartment, it's a pretty big clue.
That does not address either question. That it does not address
the first, is obvious.
As you know, the question is not how to gather evidence, the
question is how is it decided that the evidence is sufficient.
Here in the United States, that issue is adjudicated by a court,
part of a branch of the government that is separate and
independent of the branch that claims to have such evidence.
FWIW, (I said I wasn't
going to do this), one of the strong arguments *against*,
say, torture, is that it corrupts your intelligence gathering
process. If we make it too easy to get "quick results" it's
just too tempting to tempting to use that shortcut and not
focus on sound intelligence gathering. Here again, the
Left opposition is incoherent. You cannot demand, on the one
hand, "no torture, no physical intimidation" and on the other
"no monitoring of suspicious telephone calls".
When both violate the law, why not?
Why should we reject the rule of law?
--
FF