Saturday, June 14, 2008
Explaining Law 101 to JJ
Habeas corpus is the right to have the lawfulness of one’s detention tested before a judge. It is enshrined in the Suspension Clause (Art. I, Sec. 9) of the Constitution — the compact between the American people and the government they created — in order to protect Americans from arbitrary arrest and adhesive conditions of confinement. As a judicial remedy, it extends only where the federal courts have jurisdiction. Thus, as Justice Scalia elaborated (joined in dissent by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito), habeas has never been thought to extend to the benefit of aliens outside the United States — much less those who are at war with the United States, and less still those who wage such a war by mass-murdering civilians, using women and children as human shields, and perpetrating other depravities that flout the laws of civilized warfare. Ah, mais non, mais non, says JJ -- we must bow to the ACLU on this. Whatever, dude.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
habeas has never been thought to extend to the benefit of aliens outside the United States
I agree wit hAI - that was the whole purpose of guantanamo: here we are a country of laws, there we ain't. on this side of the border, we have "values" that we pride ourselves with and pretend to strongly believe in (along with tremolo in tommy boy-scout's voice for emphasis), but one foot away across that line and down the drain go the beloved values. American values met technical legalities and guess who won?
mass-murdering civilians, using women and children as human shields, and perpetrating other depravities that flout the laws of civilized warfare.
what does Hiroshima & Nagasaki have to do with this?
American values lost, and the American people lost. But Planet Pepe won.
Oh, by the way, "we pride ourselves with and pretend to strongly believe in" . Good to see that Pepe let the truth slip through.
First, Pepe does NOT believe in American values. He simply PRETENDS to.
Second, Pepe takes pride in things he simply pretends to believe.
Pathetic.
AI, could you argue coherently and honestly or have you been dining with SB lately?
habeas has never been thought to extend to the benefit of aliens outside the United States .
That kills any contention you had and puts my arguments on bedrock.
AA, you're full of it. The proper take is that there is no goddamned reasonable pretending anymore. It is reasonable to have different rules for yourself in your own country than you impose or reward foreigners with. It's like a country, dude.
Pepe's now in a bind because the court has made the whole world the good old USA. He should be rejoicing the triumph of American humanity instead of continuing to criticize.
JJ, cheio de poucaria,claro, croaked: "The proper take is that there is no goddamned reasonable pretending anymore"
Uh, Ok, so it was once reasonable to pretend to believe in American values, but now it isn't reasonable? So, one should not pretend and actually believe? Or one should not pretend and actually disbelieve? Both of these options would be reasonable? Precisely one of these? None of these?
Or are we to assume that there IS reasonable pretending, but it is not going to be damned by God anymore?
JJ, sounding as if he expects to be countering a contrary opinion , comes out then with: "It is reasonable to have different rules for yourself in your own country than you impose or reward foreigners with. It's like a country, dude."
Uh, yeah, that's the whole point. Captured enemy combatants are foreign prisoners of war, not domestic prisoners. I'ts exactly like a country, dude.
RetAArd, perhaps you should learn to read.
I have without exception abhorred this SC decision, even posting to that effect several times.
The only 'good' that could come of it is that Pepe and his ilk should admit now that the US is now de jure affording the same rights to everyone in the world, and no possible 'contradiction' can be brought to bear against our ideals of aid to the oppressed no matter where they are and our practice.
I do not think this is a good thing, necessarily, and I do not believe it is 'American values' to grant everyone in the world the rights we have here.
AI and I are currently in a disagreement because he can't tell the difference between military tribunals for crimes committed in the US by people on US soil and by garbage swept up on the battlefield in Afghanistan.
AI also seems to think it hilarious or intellectually stimulating to wrongly imply that I am siding with the Kennedy court although I am not.
For the present, AA why don't you read something simpler.
I suggest Dick and Jane if you know all the letters.
All right, boys and girls, let's calm down. Maybe, in the heat of the argument, I misunderstood some of the respective positions -- or maybe, said positions have been evolving in the meantime (who can really tell?) At any rate, glad to hear finally and unequivocally that JJ does not agree with Kennedy, Souter, Ginzburg & co. Let's count our blessings.
I for one don't believe in all these territorial crap. If an enemy combatant is caught in time of war -- on the field of battle, in Katanga, or in Porter Square [sic!] -- I don't care, he's not to be afforded the rights bestowed by the US Constitution to US citizens (or legal/illegal aliens, visitors, etc). He is to be treated as either
(1) prisoner of war, according to the Geneva conventions -- if caught in uniform, fighting on the up-and-up.
(2) spy/saboteur/terrorist/lowest-of-the-low, also as allowed by the Geneva Conventions -- if caught out of uniform, wreaking havoc wherever that may be.
End of lesson. Take that JJ, put it in your pipe, and smoke it.
I agree completely, but it is difficult to define 'enemy combatant'.
If, say, I want to kill, say, AA, for, say, Osama bin Laden, then am I an enemy combatant or am I excluded from that by my citizenship?
What if I am a French citizen in the US legally?
There are questions need clearing up before the thing can be decided obviously, AI, and just as obviously, all these objections that are particular to terrorism have not been yet been defined precisely in law or in decisions.
My position has not evolved.
Pepe's now in a bind because the court has made the whole world the good old USA. He should be rejoicing the triumph of American humanity instead of continuing to criticize.
Exactly the contrary. It's made america the whole world, and forces it to be consistent by preventing it to throw in some arbitrary geographical limitation to truths that "we hold self-evident".
why don't you read something simpler.
I suggest Dick and Jane if you know all the letters
This is beautiful. Are you sure you aren't french?
What if I am a French citizen in the US legally?
I say shoot first.
you obviously mean give him a pearl necklace, like you like, right?
Post a Comment