Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Adventurer]

Leahy aims at restoring habeas corpus
Nov. 11, 2006 at 11:24PM

A battle is shaping up between Democrats and the White House over the Military Commissions Act, signed into law last month by President George W. Bush.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., is expected to take over as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and The (Calif.) Daily Journal reports that Leahy is drafting a bill to undo portions of the new law in an effort to restore habeas corpus rights for enemy combatants.

http://washtimes.com/upi/20061111-111429-7560r.htm

[Pligganease]

This is going to be an interesting couple of years. I can't wait to see the subpoenas issued and what they are issued for. My thoughts is that they are going to focus on the emotional aspects of what has happened rather than the great horrible bastardization of the constitution that has happened.

Whatever it is, I think the democrats will focus on what the American people will understand. While someone might say that they want to restore habeas corpus, I doubt that it is the top of the Democratic plan. The Democratic plan is to win in 2008.

[Ya-ta Boy]

[cbclark4]

The privilege of Habeas corpus is covered in Article I Section 9 of the US Constitution.

"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."

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html

There is some due process stuff under the Fifth Amendment to the US constitution that may pertain.

If I may place it here for those who don't have it duly memorized.

"Amendment V"

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Some of what the argument is revolves around the extension of the rights of citizens of the US to "all people".

This is derived by some from the statement in the Declaration of Independence (Paragraph 2).

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.."

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html

Submitted for reference only no license as to intent has been taken.

Please don't copy/paste this post refer to the archive links earlier posted.

cbc

[EFLtrainer]

Those provisons should also be understood as a prohibition against *taking* such actions, not just protections against the taking of those actions. Along with the statement in the D of I, this precludes US citizens from taking the rights of others, not just US citizens.

[Ya-ta Boy]

I have never understood the position that basic human rights, as spelled out in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights (mainly) are not considered universal. Of course they are; that's why they were put in the Constitution.

In our system, the burden of proof of guilt has always rested with the government. Innocent until proven guilty.

I understand prisoners of war are treated differently. They are not 'criminals' in the sense of a bank robber. But they have basic human rights, which I think are covered in the Geneva Conventions. Terrorists are not soldiers in the conventional sense, and if that presents a new realm of legel problems, then that should be dealt with, openly. Executive decisions are not what I have in mind.

If necessary, then a new Geneva Convention should be drawn up to lay out the correct proceedures for dealing with suspected terrorists.

[cbclark4]

So accepting that these rights extend to all people as intended by the declaration.

Was there any dissention in the gallery, we would like to rest on this agreement, please speak up this motion will pass after three more replies.
We then must look to the constitution itself.

Being the aforementioned Article I Sec. 9 p2 to wit:

The term "privilege" much like the privilege, which allows us to use the public roads with a motor vehicle. Not trying to be a literalist but would that mean the privilege would not be considered as a right. On the intent of this let us ponder forthwith the next few replies.

Please refrain from discussion on the body of said paragraph until the intent of the term privilege has been determined.

Those opposed (anti literalist) should argue; privilege = right.

Those in favor (literalist) should argue; privilege = sub right

If no agreement amongst participants can be met then future cases must then be weighed upon the position you take with this term. Precedent may be cited. Quotes on this subject from the Federalist papers will be weighted heavily.

Continue please:

cbc

edited per request of the paragraphista

[Ya-ta Boy]

cbclark4: I don't understand your post.

[EFLtrainer]

I understand it, but if he doesn't start using paragraphs soon, I'm going to stop reading his posts at all. I have to read submission after submission from my students with no paragraphs. I refuse to do so with adult native English speakers.

[cbclark4]

Just trying to dissect the arguement so each piece can be debated. The first issue is the extension of the constitution and the rights therein to the whole world.

The next would be more specific is a privilege a right or something more or something less. Habeas corpus is a privilege.

I'd like to clarify those items before we get into the UCMJ and it's jurisdiction.

Also I corrected my previous post from rough draft format to something that looks like paragraphing. Paragraphs are sometimes difficult for me when typing in small windoes. My apologies if I offended the Paragraphing amongst us.

A riddle, does the right to vote extend to "all people"? Why or why not?

cbc

[Ya-ta Boy]

[EFLtrainer]

As Keith Olbermann succinctly illustrated, without the right of Habeus Corpus, the rest of the Billof Rights become meaningless. I'm sure you can find the video on Youtube.

BTW, this isn't a freshman lecture on the Constitution. We hardly need establish the basic tenets of law in the US to have this discussion. In fact, there is no need for the discussion at all: the law recently passed is unconstitutional and a violation of basic human rights. Repeal is simply a matter of time.