|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
 Posted - 06/13/2002 : 10:11:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
It is not much of an oversimplification to say that all we have seen against the suspected terrorist to this point is Mr. Bush saying, that he is a "bad man".
No, it is an oversimplification, as from what I've gathered in the news stories (unfortunately, my only source for information on this subject) the entire intelligence community, both U.S. and British, know this guy is in al-Qa'ida and they are the ones who are saying he is a "bad man".
quote:
The way I understand the US legal system is, that after they captured him they had a month time to come up with anything or let him go. They did neither. Instead they declared him to be guilty by presidental decree.
Would anyone have the same objections if a german Nazi soldier was caught in the U.S. during WWII? It's the same scenario. [I would think that] they would not have had to try him in [a civilian]court, find him guilty of being an enemy soldier, and sentenced him.
Being a member of al-Qa'ida is enough.
I would totally agree with you were there any doubt to his involvement in al-Qa'ida.
------------
fortiter in re, suaviter in modo
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 06/13/2002 08:29:11
TokoyoDreamer I have to disagree. If he is guilty then let him have his day in court and prove it. When you start letting politicians label who is guilty and who is not, we open a can of worms we may never get closed.
Please see amendment V & VI of the U.S. constitution. What they have done with this man is a direct violation of those amendments, but hey I have kind of come to expect that, politicians routinely wipe their arse with the consitution.
As for your WWII scenario, yes he should get his trial. Point in case, how many Japanese were falsely persecuted in WWII because of their race? The majority without any resemblence of a trial.
The constitution guarantees us a fair and speedy trial by our peers. I don't want any politician calling the shots about who is guilty and who is not no matter how obvious their guilt is.
|
 |
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2002 : 02:32:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Would anyone have the same objections if a german Nazi soldier was caught in the U.S. during WWII? It's the same scenario. [I would think that] they would not have had to try him in [a civilian]court, find him guilty of being an enemy soldier, and sentenced him.
Surely this is a different legal situation. In that case there was a formal state of war existing between The USA and Germany, and a Nazi soldier would have been legally defined as an enemy of the USA.
But in "The War against Terrorism" with whom exactly is the USA (and Britain, for that matter) at war with?
quote:
Please see amendment V & VI of the U.S. constitution. What they have done with this man is a direct violation of those amendments, but hey I have kind of come to expect that, politicians routinely wipe their arse with the consitution.
So your Constitution does have something to say about this then (sneers, for effect).
I live in a country that has been under terrorist attack since 1969, and have seen in my lifetime several trial decisions overturned ("The Guildford Four" and "The Birmingham Six") after innocent people had spent the best years of their life in prison.
These people *got* due process in British courts, and there was still an horrendous mis-carriage of justice. Meanwhile, the real perpatrators went free.
How much more chance of such injustices is there if the evidence doen't even make it to court?
Edited by - NottyImp on 06/14/2002 02:41:57 |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2002 : 07:07:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So your Constitution does have something to say about this then (sneers, for effect).
I live in a country that has been under terrorist attack since 1969, and have seen in my lifetime several trial decisions overturned ("The Guildford Four" and "The Birmingham Six") after innocent people had spent the best years of their life in prison.
These people *got* due process in British courts, and there was still an horrendous mis-carriage of justice. Meanwhile, the real perpatrators went free.
How much more chance of such injustices is there if the evidence doen't even make it to court?
Oh yes I agree, getting your day in court through due process in no way guarantees the guilty will get prosecuted and the innocent will go free. However the "due" process is sure a hell of allot better than Dubya Bush and his croonies calling the shots.
Let's take a look at this case and compare it to the Amendments V & VI and see where the violations are.
First Amendment V (not ver batim, but piece meal on a point by point basis).
quote:
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.
By placing him at the hands of a military court there is very little doubt that he will get the benefit of a grand jury. Right #1 lost.
quote:
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
By detaining him indefinitely he is being deprived of liberty without the due process of the law. Right #2 lost.
Amendment VI
quote:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed;
Now here is where his rights are flying out the window. Where is his speedy trial? Will it be public, has yet to be seen. Is a military court an impartial jury of the State/district of where the crime was committed?
Again allot of politicians pay lip service to the constitution but don't have too much of a problem treading all over it.
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
|
|
Physiofly
Skeptic Friend
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2002 : 18:20:47 [Permalink]
|
The $64 question is does the President of the US have the legal authority to deny anyone of due process? The Constitution says that is the duty of the Judicial branch, yet the Supreme Court has historically upheld Presidential decisions similar to what is now happening in the past during times of national crisis. President Lincoln, for example, suspended the right of habeas corpus during the American Civil War. Several articles I was reading today suggest that next move for Padilla's lawyer is to file a writ of habeas corpus so let's see if history repeats itself.
No one doubts Padilla is a bad man and I for one am glad he's behind bars, but I think Benjamin Franklin said it best:
quote:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
"Men are so simple and so much inclined to obey immediate needs that a
deceiver will never lack victims for his deceptions." - Niccolo Machiavelli
|
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2002 : 16:34:41 [Permalink]
|
From Article 1 Section 9 of the U.S. 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."
Lincoln had a justification that met this test: the Confederacy was in a state of rebellion.
As it happens, there is no rebellion worthy of the name in existence, nor an invasion. Logically, I would hope that our judicial system would find the balls to say NO to any attempt to suspend habeas corpus.
But what our Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice Freisler, would do is anybody's guess.
The Bushies are clearly trying to stake out the legal position that there is no limit to their power to do whatever they choose to whomever they choose. The far right has spent the last couple of decades working to salt the judiciary with true believers hostile to the very notion of the citizen having rights that outweigh the wishes of the powerful. We're starting to see the payoff from that.
Anyway, an executive branch that believes that it can simply remove a citizen from the jurisdiction of the judicial branch and strip him of all legal protection by adminstrative fiat isn't likely to respect a court decision to the contrary if one were by some miracle to be handed down.
I agree with some of the above posts- it ain't paranoid to make plans to get the Hell out of Dodge when you can see the tools of tyrants being assembled all around you.
Whether it's part of an organized plan for a police state or improvising by (possilby well-meaning) people with a predilection to authoritarianism isn't really relevant. Schutzhaft is what it is- a tool that's awfully handy for a tyrant, whatever the original purpose of instituting it.
That's the first step. Keep an eye out for the others- and keep enough gas in the tank to make the border.
Ford, there's an infinite number of monkeys outside who want to talk to us about this script for Hamlet they've worked out. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
