Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
If habeas corpus was applied to military detainees during all of our wars every war time President in our history was in violation of the Constitution. Even the Supreme Court's ruling does not take this issue as far as your comment suggests.
|
The Constitution proivide for two exceptions to the rights of habeaus:
Article 1, section 9
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
The detainees held at Gitmo are part of neither a rebellion nor an invasion.
In fact, a large number of the detainees were guilty of nothing but being caught up in a sweep or turned in by a neighbor for cash....and after as many as 4+ years in Gitmo w/o being charge, w/o access to legal counsel, family or anyone, had no rights at all.
An eight-month McClatchy investigation in 11 countries on three continents has found that.... according to several officials, perhaps hundreds — whom the U.S. has wrongfully imprisoned in Afghanistan, Cuba and elsewhere on the basis of flimsy or fabricated evidence, old personal scores or bounty payments.
See: America's prison for terrorists often held the wrong men
Quote:
|
Get your facts straight. Unilateral? If he had the help of Congress how is that unilateral? What was overturned was legislation, the legislation you reference below.
|
Yes, unilatteral.
It was Bush/Gonzales who unilatterly determined a new definition of persons who are not guaranteed habeaus under Article I, Sect 9 or the Geneva Conventions. (
see below #174- Gonzales explanation at Judiciary Commttee hearing)
The courts have rejected that on three separate occasions now.
Quote:
|
I assumed you are a US citizen. US citizens are paying a high cost for this war. Our elected political leaders authorized and are executing this war. Our sons and daughters are at risk in this war. Our tax dollars fund the war.
|
As I US citizen, I do not support illegal acts of goverment in the name of some ill-defined "war against terrorism"...particularly when it tramples on the Constituion -- resorts to the use of torture, the denial of habeaus corpus, and, I would add, wiretappng American citizens w/o a warrant....all examples of infringing on basic rights in the name of "national security."