Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
01-09-2003, 03:01 PM | #21 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: SoCal
Posts: 207
|
Quote:
On an aside, since everybody knows atheists have no morals, they must all be terrorists. Of course, papa Bush said that atheists aren’t even citizens, so I guess this whole issue doesn’t apply to us anyway. |
|
01-09-2003, 03:15 PM | #22 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: SoCal
Posts: 207
|
Quote:
I take issue with something else in your post. You use the term “less due process”. What is “less due process”? It seems to me that process is either “due” or it’s not “due”. Part of due process, as established in the Constitution, is the right to consult a lawyer (is it not?) All you are saying is that there was some kind of process within the courts. I suppose I’ll concede this point. How that constitutes “due process”, however, is still beyond me. |
|
01-09-2003, 08:36 PM | #23 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,587
|
blah, see below
|
01-09-2003, 08:43 PM | #24 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
I followed a link on the CNN site -
Handi v. Rumsfeld A relatively short opinion - the list of attorneys involved takes up about a quarter of the webpage. |
01-09-2003, 08:49 PM | #25 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,587
|
I didn’t see the last comment in your last post. It was directed to Toto, but I’d like to give my answer.
Faustuz said: Quote:
|
|
01-09-2003, 09:16 PM | #26 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,587
|
I'm a moron
I probably shouldn’t have responded until I read the decision and not just what the AP said about it.
I’m having trouble following what the court actually DID say, as opposed to what I assumed they said. It seems really peculiar. The court doesn’t seem to deal with the 5th and 14th amendments (although at one point they seem to claim that the war powers vested in the President can allow him to ignore the bill of rights and later they argue that the 14th and 5th amendments don’t apply since this isn’t a criminal proceeding and he has been charged with no crime.) The court says: Quote:
Quote:
edited to add: thanks for the link Toto! Fromtheright, do you have any problems with this decision? |
||
01-09-2003, 09:53 PM | #27 |
Regular Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: SoCal
Posts: 207
|
It’s obvious that we’ve been getting tripped up over semantic issues. We should probably be specific and say “the due process guarantees of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments”. Then I think we can all agree that these are being denied in Hamdi’s case. Apparently, based on the snippet Pug quoted, there is judicial precedent for this. The question we should be debating is not whether due process is being denied. It obviously is (again, due process being contingent upon the definition above). The question is whether or not this is an appropriate case in which to deny due process.
During WWII we had a close ended conflict where everybody knew what the exit condition would be. We had an extremely well defined adversary. Everybody knew who the adversary was. Of course, even then there were exceptions to this: the Japanese internments being the well known case. Most people now think the Japanese internments were wrong headed, however. We now have an open ended conflict with an ill defined enemy. The administration has chosen to call this conflict a war and is choosing to treat it as a war in the traditional sense (at least for the sake of these detentions). This, as far as I’m concerned, is a dangerous precedent. It leaves the executive extreme leeway. If the executive designates an individual as an enemy combatant, due process can be denied. A person can be held without access to a lawyer, without a right to defend themselves before a jury of their peers, without even the right to necessarily know why they are being held. Since the war may never end, they can potentially be held indefinitely. I once read a story by Franz Kafka that describes this situation, but I used to think that the Constitution of the United States protected citizens from such things. |
01-10-2003, 05:37 PM | #28 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 1,531
|
This case makes a mockery of constitutional law. A writ of habeas corpus should be all that is needed to free Hamdi. The whole point of such a writ is to require the government to prove that its detention of a citizen is legal. If Hamdi has not been charged with a crime, then he is being held illegally. Otherwise, the police could throw anyone in jail indefinitely without charging that person with a crime. Habeas corpus would be meaningless. Our "government of law" has suddenly transformed itself into a "government of men".
It is nonsensical to claim that there are no crimes that Hamdi could be charged with. He could be charged with treason or conspiracy to commit murder. The apparent problem with that approach is that the government doesn't have enough evidence to prove such criminal behavior. If they don't, then they have to release him. That's the whole point of a government of law. :banghead: |
01-15-2003, 05:58 AM | #29 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Broomfield, Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,295
|
Guess who's on Pickering's side. That's right, it's cross burner Daniel Swan, Pickering's fellow policital "victim."
|
01-15-2003, 08:02 AM | #30 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: WI
Posts: 4,357
|
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|