|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...09-28-19-09-50
While I can hear the clicking figers of typed outrage from here, we can now put to rest the whole 'does the president have the power' or 'do terrorists have rights under the constition' argument.
I of course have long advocated the use of torture for terrorists, being that you can't expect people willing to turn themselves into human bombs for the gift of magic virgins from their invisible friend in the sky to give information willingly and it will save innocent lives. Being US methods are not maiming and more along the lines of discomfort I don't shed any tears or feel we left some mythical high road in light of how our enemies treat prisoners.
This is a needed tool in the war on terror, I'm just surprised so many democrats signed on but I'm willing to be that every one of them is up for re-election this year or thinking of running for the presidency in 2008.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
one of the few things emanating from a republican that i agree with on this latest travesty the bush administration has foisted upon us:
Quote:
Specter said hearings before his Judiciary Committee showed that the military Combatant Status Review Tribunals do not have an adequate way of determining whether suspects are enemy combatants.
He charged that by striking habeas corpus rights for terrorism suspects, the bill "would take our civilized society back some 900 years" to a time before the Magna Carta was adopted. He said this was "unthinkable."
"What this entire controversy boils down to is whether Congress is going to legislate to deny a constitutional right which is explicit in the document of the Constitution itself and which has been applied to aliens by the Supreme Court of the United States," Specter said. If the bill passes without habeas corpus protections, it will be struck down by the high court, and "we'll be on this floor again rewriting the law," Specter predicted.
|
source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2800824_2.html |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
Has it been mentioned that two of the "heroes", John McCain and Arlen Specter, "stood up to the pretzeldent",
and then voted for this fascist abortion of the consititution, anyway....as did that "stalwart" democrat, Jay Rockefeller?
Quote:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001637.php
Court Challenge to New Detainee Law May Come In "Days"
By Justin Rood - September 29, 2006, 1:02 PM
With President Bush poised to sign the White House-backed detainee treatment bill into law, groups are promising to challenge it in court "in days."
“I don’t think there’s a snowball’s chance in ‘H’ that this will be found constitutional,” Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, told "Congressional Quarterly" (sub. req.). CCR represents a number of Guantanamo prisoners.
Strangely, some senators who voted for the bill weren't convinced of its constitutionality. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), who voted for the bill even after his amendment to preserve certain rights for detainees was defeated, called the proposal "patently unconstitutional on its face," The Washington Post <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092800824.html">reported</a>. When CQ asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who negotiated with the White House to win minor concessions on the legislation, if the bill was constitutional, he responded "I think so."
|
How many of our troops suffered avoidable deaths in Iraq and in Afghanistan?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092900368.html |
This....this seems so....so.... "American" !:
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews
Detainees Now Have Access to Federal Court
By Josh White and Del Quentin Wilber
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 13, 2008; Page A04
Defense attorneys for the 270 detainees at Guantanamo Bay said the Supreme Court decision yesterday that granted detainees habeas corpus rights was a watershed moment that will allow the men, some held for as long as 6 1/2 years, to challenge their detentions before a civilian judge.
....The court's ruling immediately gives the detainees access to a federal court in Washington, where lawyers will seek to have judges order the men released from indefinite detention. Legal experts said it is unclear how the hearings will proceed, but the government could be compelled to present highly classified evidence, and detainees could for the first time be able to publicly call witnesses, present evidence of abuse and rebut terrorism allegations.
ad_icon
The decision could force the U.S. government to show why individual detainees must be held, something U.S. officials have fought for years. As many as 130 detainees have been deemed dangerous but are unlikely to ever face criminal charges, according to prosecutors, and now government officials could have to argue for indefinite detention even if the evidence is flimsy or nonexistent.
"We're going to see a high number of people the government is going to have to release," said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has represented Guantanamo Bay detainees since 2002....
|
My country, 'tis of thee,
Sweet land of liberty,
Of thee I sing;
Land where my fathers died,
Land of the pilgrims' pride,
From every mountainside
Let freedom ring!
SCOTUS Majority Opinion, Issued June 12, 2008:
Quote:
The Framers' inherent distrust of government power was the driving force behind the constitutional plan that allocated powers among three independent branches. This design serves not only to make Government accountable but also to secure individual liberty. . . .
Where a person is detained by executive order rather than, say, after being tried and convicted in a court, the need for collateral review is most pressing. . . . The habeas court must have sufficient authority to conduct a meaningful review of both the cause of detention and the Executive's power to detain. . . .
Security depends upon a sophisticated intelligence apparatus and the ability of our Armed Forces to act and interdict. There are further considerations, however. Security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom's first principles. Chief among these are freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to separation of powers. . . .
The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system, they are reconciled within the framework of law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, part of that law.
|
Last edited by host; 06-12-2008 at 10:55 PM..
|