Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
I'm not sure I'd agree with that as a general statement, but it's certainly true as regards habeas corpus.
|
specifically, what don't you agree with?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
To be more specific in this case... USC Section 9 Clause 2 reads: "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." That's the only place habeas corpus is mentioned in the Constitution.
|
which means that only congress has any power to suspend it, however, in the case of the gitmo detainees, or any detainee, they didn't invade or rebel, hence, habeus corpus should not even come in to play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. It was also suspended very specifically for Americans of Japanese descent during World War II (and only restored in the early '90s, adding long-standing insult to injury).
|
and after Lincoln suspended it, the supreme court ruled against him, however, congress capitulated later and authorized him to suspend it. semantics, but technically correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
The implication (and certainly the interpretation that the Court has held) is that habeas corpus is a privilege given all people subject to US law, whether or not they're citizens.
|
It could only be implied that way if one is to assume that the only rights a person has are ones directly written about in the constitution. This is not so and all of the documents relating to the ratification of the constitution bear this out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
FOR THE RECORD: It's dangerous to wander into an area where I've done my research!  |
and so it is with me