DONG

It should really be: "DONG DONG" huh?

Remove all Republicans: A mental error: Paying attention to Fred Thompson.

Yeah, I really shouldn't pay heed to an opinion from a former U.S. Attorney, the lead prosecutor on the Watergate case, and should pay more attention to someone with a troll name who posts little cartoons instead of actual discussion of the merits.

How could it be when the justices seemingly wrote a map based on ideas cherry picked from over 400 years of established law and backfilled with justifications to create a new right for alien combatants that Americans themselves do not enjoy?

Ooooh, rule of law, evidence, it SKEERS me. I need to be able to cock-punch and blindside in order to win.

I'm a farking pussy.

Nabb1:
Yeah, I really shouldn't pay heed to an opinion from a former U.S. Attorney, the lead prosecutor on the Watergate case


You're right, you shouldn't pay attention to a man who supposedly served the rule of law, but who doesn't believe in Habeus Corpus. Thank you for understanding that.

kmmontandon: Nabb1:
Yeah, I really shouldn't pay heed to an opinion from a former U.S. Attorney, the lead prosecutor on the Watergate case


You're right, you shouldn't pay attention to a man who supposedly served the rule of law, but who doesn't believe in Habeus Corpus. Thank you for understanding that.

That's actually not what Thompson was saying.

wow. Is it just me, or are republicans really lining up to shoot themselves in the foot over this decision?
Its like they're saying "We're the party that doesn't care about civil rights."

How does anyone think the dissent was right? I mean, think of the implications. Basically, what these idiots are saying is that the US government can basically get around the constitution by renting land outside the US. What?

The trip was not a pretty one. How could it be when the justices seemingly wrote a map based on ideas cherry picked from over 400 years of established law and backfilled with justifications to create a new right for alien combatants that Americans themselves do not enjoy?

What the hell is he talking about? Habeus Corpus is among the oldest rights, and of course Americans enjoy it.

they for the first time in our nation's history, conferred a Constitutional right of habeas corpus on alien enemies detained abroad by our military forces in the course of an ongoing war

Sounds like giving prisoners of war a "get out of jail free" card. I wonder if US military personnel will get the same rights by an enemy nation.

Dufus: they for the first time in our nation's history, conferred a Constitutional right of habeas corpus on alien enemies detained abroad by our military forces in the course of an ongoing war

Notice how careful he is to never say the words "prisoner of war". Somehow, an "alien enemy" captures in an "ongoing war" is not a prisoner of war.

Nabb1: Yeah, I really shouldn't pay heed to an opinion from a former U.S. Attorney, the lead prosecutor on the Watergate case, and should pay more attention to someone with a troll name who posts little cartoons instead of actual discussion of the merits.

Well he wasn't really the lead prosecutor in Watergate. That would have been Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski. Thompson was more Nixon's towel boy. I believe the quote from Nixon was that Thompson was dumb but friendly. Not really a ringing endorsement of his legal ability. But I don't believe that he has argued by way of political cartoons, so you are half right.

Paging Tacoby Bellisbury to defend Fred Thompson.

/Fred Thompson sucks.

Dufus: Sounds like giving prisoners of war a "get out of jail free" card.

Which is typically par-for-the-course for POWs. They are held not as punishment, but to keep them off the battlefield until hostilities are ended. Keep in mind, though, that the Bush administration has gone to great lengths to label these folks as "enemy combatants" and therefore not afforded Geneva COnventions protection as POWs should be.

I wonder if US military personnel will get the same rights by an enemy nation.

Maybe or maybe not, depending on the enemy. If so, great. If not, should we be using that nation's standards to guide our moral compass?

DamnYankees: What the hell is he talking about? Habeus Corpus is among the oldest rights, and of course Americans enjoy it.

From Chief Justice Roberts dissent:

The plurality in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U. S. 507, 533 (2004), explained that the Constitution guaranteed an American citizen challenging his detention as an enemy combatant the right to "notice of the factual basis for his classification, and a fair opportunity to rebut the Government's factual assertions before a neutral decision maker." The plurality specifically stated that constitutionally adequate collateral process could be provided "by an appropriately authorized and properly constituted military tribunal," given the "uncommon potential to burden the Executive at a time of ongoing military conflict." Id., at 533, 538. This point is directly pertinent here,for surely the Due Process Clause does not afford non-citizens in such circumstances greater protection than citizens are due."

Interesting.

Another interesting commentary on the decision, this one from the SCOTUS blog:

Since the Court is admittedly second-guessing the combined wisdom of Congress and the Executive Branch on how best to address detainees' claims of innocence, it did not want to admit to rejecting prior case law as well. But its less-than-candid approach is difficult to square with any coherent theory of stare decisis.

I came to say that constitutional rights should only apply to citizens of these United States. I say this for many reasons, but mostly because it would be cheaper that way, but for the sake of argument why not grant Osama Bin Ladin constitutional rights.

/Flame goggles on..
//Not Troll, but can't stand people like Remove all Republicans.
///Seriously, he's on my ignore list and yet other farknuts qoute him so I have to read his crap..

I started thinking I was smart, and then saw Kaponofor3 post...He's a lawyer while I took a semester of media law. But on the plus side I bet I know more about the Giants than he does.

KaponoFor3: DamnYankees: What the hell is he talking about? Habeus Corpus is among the oldest rights, and of course Americans enjoy it.

From Chief Justice Roberts dissent:

The plurality in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U. S. 507, 533 (2004), explained that the Constitution guaranteed an American citizen challenging his detention as an enemy combatant the right to "notice of the factual basis for his classification, and a fair opportunity to rebut the Government's factual assertions before a neutral decision maker." The plurality specifically stated that constitutionally adequate collateral process could be provided "by an appropriately authorized and properly constituted military tribunal," given the "uncommon potential to burden the Executive at a time of ongoing military conflict." Id., at 533, 538. This point is directly pertinent here,for surely the Due Process Clause does not afford non-citizens in such circumstances greater protection than citizens are due."

Interesting.

It is interesting, but I don't see the point of what he's saying. The point of the majority was that even those military tribunals have to follow certain standards - you can have "an appropriately authorized and properly constituted military tribunal" which also has Habeus Corpus.

I fail to see what protection the non-citizens have that citizens don't. The right to be tried by a military tribunal is a form of protection now?

homerdrew415: but for the sake of argument why not grant Osama Bin Ladin constitutional rights.

He has them. What constitutional rights doesn't he have, assuming he were to be in US custody.

maybe he should have gotten sam watterson to argue the case?

DamnYankees: homerdrew415: but for the sake of argument why not grant Osama Bin Ladin constitutional rights.

He has them. What constitutional rights doesn't he have, assuming he were to be in US custody.

wait... you're saying OBL if placed in the custody of the US Military, (not civilian govt.)he would have all the constitutional rights we as citizens have (assuming you're a citizen)? I want to be clear on this so I don't go crazy for no reason.

DamnYankees: I fail to see what protection the non-citizens have that citizens don't. The right to be tried by a military tribunal is a form of protection now?

I think what he was trying to say was that Hamdi stated that US citizens captured on a foreign battlefield have to have the right to challenge their detention (habeas corpus). However, the plurality in Hamdi essentially said that such habeas corpus rights can be satisfied by the military tribunals set forth by Congress.

Now, in this decision, the majority says that non-citizens must be granted access to the federal courts for their habeas rights and that military tribunals cannot satisfy habeas rights.

Roberts is pointing out how it is impossible that the Due Process clause contemplates that US citizens can have their habeas rights satisfied by the military tribunal process set up by Congress (Hamdi), but non-citizens cannot and can only have their habeas rights vindicated by the federal court system instead (Boumediene).

homerdrew415: DamnYankees: homerdrew415: but for the sake of argument why not grant Osama Bin Ladin constitutional rights.

He has them. What constitutional rights doesn't he have, assuming he were to be in US custody.

wait... you're saying OBL if placed in the custody of the US Military, (not civilian govt.)he would have all the constitutional rights we as citizens have (assuming you're a citizen)? I want to be clear on this so I don't go crazy for no reason.

oh wait...you're an aussie...as much fun as it would be to drink with you, you wouldn'tcouldn't understand what I'm talking about in my posting.

homerdrew415: I came to say that constitutional rights should only apply to citizens of these United States. I say this for many reasons, but mostly because it would be cheaper that way, but for the sake of argument why not grant Osama Bin Ladin constitutional rights.

Goddammit, why do you have to construct flamebait so well? :)

To answer, though, why not, indeed, give OBL constitutional rights to due process in the event of his capture? If we can't convict him in a fair trial, then we have no business trying him at all. We might as well just say, "He's guilty because we say so" and dispense with the illusion of a court's (or court's-martial) jurisprudence. I have no problem with locking him up and throwing away the key, or killing him, or any number of deservedly horrible ends for him, but not until we've duly convicted him in a court of law where he can confront the evidence before him.

The entire basis of our constitution, no matter how badly it's been subverted and distorted over the years, is that all people have a set of innate rights, and that our government (unlike most others at the time) pledged to recognize those rights. When we seek loopholes around basic human rights of due process based on country of origin, that's not justice; it's tyranny.

homerdrew415: wait... you're saying OBL if placed in the custody of the US Military, (not civilian govt.)he would have all the constitutional rights we as citizens have (assuming you're a citizen)? I want to be clear on this so I don't go crazy for no reason.

Oh, then no. I don't know what he would be, though. From what I understand, the military doesn't 'arrest' people. So we'd have to give him the rights of a POW.

I'm not an expert on this.

KaponoFor3: DamnYankees: I fail to see what protection the non-citizens have that citizens don't. The right to be tried by a military tribunal is a form of protection now?

I think what he was trying to say was that Hamdi stated that US citizens captured on a foreign battlefield have to have the right to challenge their detention (habeas corpus). However, the plurality in Hamdi essentially said that such habeas corpus rights can be satisfied by the military tribunals set forth by Congress.

Now, in this decision, the majority says that non-citizens must be granted access to the federal courts for their habeas rights and that military tribunals cannot satisfy habeas rights.

Roberts is pointing out how it is impossible that the Due Process clause contemplates that US citizens can have their habeas rights satisfied by the military tribunal process set up by Congress (Hamdi), but non-citizens cannot and can only have their habeas rights vindicated by the federal court system instead (Boumediene).

Here's my question reading that (I haven't yet read the decision, so if I'm missing something let me know): is the majority making the argument that because the system of military tribunals was so messed up they didn't entrust the military do handle due process, and thus gave them a federal appeal? Otherwise, I would say they were just diverging from Hamdi, the way you describe it.

homerdrew415: oh wait...you're an aussie...as much fun as it would be to drink with you, you wouldn'tcouldn't understand what I'm talking about in my posting.

I'm an American. Born in Los Angeles, go to NYU law. I'm just working in Sydney for the summer.

DamnYankees: homerdrew415: wait... you're saying OBL if placed in the custody of the US Military, (not civilian govt.)he would have all the constitutional rights we as citizens have (assuming you're a citizen)? I want to be clear on this so I don't go crazy for no reason.

Oh, then no. I don't know what he would be, though. From what I understand, the military doesn't 'arrest' people. So we'd have to give him the rights of a POW.

I'm not an expert on this.

Well he's not a POW in the Geneva Convention's eyes, as he doesn't fight for any country or under a nation's flag. He also doesn't fight in a military uniform as becoming a soldier. The Geneva convention is pretty clear that those are requirements for POW status. If you want to say that he's fighting under the flag of Islam & is fighting for Dar al Islam (house of Islam, or a global caliphate) you might be able to convince me, but those aren't nation states as modern history has defined them. Yes I know, Islam had a Caliphate back 1000 years ago, but that was then and this is now..

homerdrew415: Well he's not a POW in the Geneva Convention's eyes, as he doesn't fight for any country or under a nation's flag. He also doesn't fight in a military uniform as becoming a soldier. The Geneva convention is pretty clear that those are requirements for POW status. If you want to say that he's fighting under the flag of Islam & is fighting for Dar al Islam (house of Islam, or a global caliphate) you might be able to convince me, but those aren't nation states as modern history has defined them. Yes I know, Islam had a Caliphate back 1000 years ago, but that was then and this is now..

Then he goes into the civilian system. This has been the problem of the Bush Administration (one of many) - they want to create this middle ground of "enemy combatant" without delineating what it means. There needs to be a system in place. As of now, there are 2 system - national and international. The former is a civil justice system, the latter is a military/POW system. Unless you create a full-fledged system for 'enemy combatants' which is internationationally and natonally recognized, you have to stick with what we have.

NeauxFear: homerdrew415: I came to say that constitutional rights should only apply to citizens of these United States. I say this for many reasons, but mostly because it would be cheaper that way, but for the sake of argument why not grant Osama Bin Ladin constitutional rights.

Goddammit, why do you have to construct flamebait so well? :)

To answer, though, why not, indeed, give OBL constitutional rights to due process in the event of his capture? If we can't convict him in a fair trial, then we have no business trying him at all. We might as well just say, "He's guilty because we say so" and dispense with the illusion of a court's (or court's-martial) jurisprudence. I have no problem with locking him up and throwing away the key, or killing him, or any number of deservedly horrible ends for him, but not until we've duly convicted him in a court of law where he can confront the evidence before him.

The entire basis of our constitution, no matter how badly it's been subverted and distorted over the years, is that all people have a set of innate rights, and that our government (unlike most others at the time) pledged to recognize those rights. When we seek loopholes around basic human rights of due process based on country of origin, that's not justice; it's tyranny.

Would you grant him 4th or 5th amendment rights? How about 1st or second amendment rights? I'm not trying to Troll, just not interested in giving OBL anything, short of 72 cloned Rosie O'Donnel's.

DamnYankees: homerdrew415: Well he's not a POW in the Geneva Convention's eyes, as he doesn't fight for any country or under a nation's flag. He also doesn't fight in a military uniform as becoming a soldier. The Geneva convention is pretty clear that those are requirements for POW status. If you want to say that he's fighting under the flag of Islam & is fighting for Dar al Islam (house of Islam, or a global caliphate) you might be able to convince me, but those aren't nation states as modern history has defined them. Yes I know, Islam had a Caliphate back 1000 years ago, but that was then and this is now..

Then he goes into the civilian system. This has been the problem of the Bush Administration (one of many) - they want to create this middle ground of "enemy combatant" without delineating what it means. There needs to be a system in place. As of now, there are 2 system - national and international. The former is a civil justice system, the latter is a military/POW system. Unless you create a full-fledged system for 'enemy combatants' which is internationationally and natonally recognized, you have to stick with what we have.

Enemy combatants isn't a new concept, it's been around for a long time, and was changed to it's current meaning by FDR (new window).

homerdrew415: wait... you're saying OBL if placed in the custody of the US Military, (not civilian govt.)he would have all the constitutional rights we as citizens have (assuming you're a citizen)? I want to be clear on this so I don't go crazy for no reason.

habeas corpus is actually not a right granted by the constutition (or expressly forbidden from being infringed, however you want to look at it), but rather a right simply assumed. the only mention of habeas corpus in the constitution is the conditions under which it can be temporarily suspended.

this is because habeas corpus does not stem from the constitution, it predates it by several hundred years (the concept was first issued as a writ in the 12th century), and it is considered a cornerstone of any civilized nation.

so basically, the right of habeas corpus is not an american right, it is not one stemming from the US constitution, it is considered more fundamental than the constitution or the bill of rights, and as such it should be applied to every living human being. the failure to do so has been the mark of tyranny for nearly a thousand years.

but you know... those terrorists are really, especially bad, right? totally worse than anything else that has happened in the past millennium.

McCain has also thrown his hat into the "the constitution only applies to people we say it applies to" party:

Linky (new window)

I'm not saying that AQ is any better or worse than anyone else evil in the history of the world. What I'm saying is that unless AQ and it's troops wants to fight under a unified flag of a nation, in uniforms, they don't have much of a leg to stand on in terms of POW status. I would recognize Hezbollah as having POW status, since they fight under the flag of a political party and have sponsorship of a Nation. I would also recognize Hamas in this same way. I wouldn't apply this same standard to AQ and OBL.

homerdrew415: wait... you're saying OBL if placed in the custody of the US Military, (not civilian govt.)he would have all the constitutional rights we as citizens have (assuming you're a citizen)? I want to be clear on this so I don't go crazy for no reason.

I fail to see why we should throw out the rule of law just because we're pissed off. Give him the right to face his accuser and to be tried, if he even lives that long, because if we don't have enough evidence to convict him after all this effort and time, we are well and truly farked as a country.

Some folks in this country would like our moral high ground and our laws to actually function under duress, and not just get thrown out along with our soiled panties as soon as we face some people that don't like us.

Fred Thompson:: One can only ponder the state of our nation directed by the subjective instead of the Constitution.

Irony tag anyone? One doesn't need to ponder that scenario, Fred. One needs only pay one iota of attention to the actions of the government and congress over the last few decades. The commerce clause? All that other elastic bullshiat? The PATRIOT Act? Seriously? Who's farking pondering? Wake up and pay attention. The time for pondering passed when you were just a boy. Now is the time for action, and to, as Buckley said, paraphrasing here, "stand astride society screaming 'Stop!" And thankfully, 5 of the 9 justices on the SCOTUS were willing to do so.

Nabb1: Remove all Republicans: A mental error: Paying attention to Fred Thompson.

Yeah, I really shouldn't pay heed to an opinion from a former U.S. Attorney, the lead prosecutor on the Watergate case, and should pay more attention to someone with a troll name who posts little cartoons instead of actual discussion of the merits.

You DON'T really want to bring up the Watergate thing when praising him, do you?

Ron Paul Revere: Do you or do you not support holding people indefinitely without trial?

What type of trial are you talking about -- military tribunal or federal court trial? The dissent is saying that the military tribunal system, valid to satisfy Due Process and habeas corpus rights for US citizens under Hamdi, should also be valid for non-citizens.

homerdrew415: I came to say that constitutional rights should only apply to citizens of these United States

Too bad the Supreme Court already decided quite a while ago that's not how it is.

What's interesting is how the very same people who cry about moral relativism have absolutely no problem engaging in it themselves the second they have to deal with the word of law. I'm looking at you McCain and Thompson et al.

DamnYankees: homerdrew415: oh wait...you're an aussie...as much fun as it would be to drink with you, you wouldn'tcouldn't understand what I'm talking about in my posting.

I'm an American. Born in Los Angeles, go to NYU law. I'm just working in Sydney for the summer.

Shh, you are going to ruin his xenophobic moment. You know, all those furreners are stupid.

What's great is because of this Supreme Court decision, most if not all of future Enemy Combatants will never be brought to the US or US soil overseas. They will stay on foreign bases, or on US Navy vessels, or in other countries versions of the same. The Supreme court has just changed US Military policy and not in the way that most think.

homerdrew415: DamnYankees: homerdrew415: wait... you're saying OBL if placed in the custody of the US Military, (not civilian govt.)he would have all the constitutional rights we as citizens have (assuming you're a citizen)? I want to be clear on this so I don't go crazy for no reason.

Oh, then no. I don't know what he would be, though. From what I understand, the military doesn't 'arrest' people. So we'd have to give him the rights of a POW.

I'm not an expert on this.

Well he's not a POW in the Geneva Convention's eyes, as he doesn't fight for any country or under a nation's flag. He also doesn't fight in a military uniform as becoming a soldier. The Geneva convention is pretty clear that those are requirements for POW status. If you want to say that he's fighting under the flag of Islam & is fighting for Dar al Islam (house of Islam, or a global caliphate) you might be able to convince me, but those aren't nation states as modern history has defined them. Yes I know, Islam had a Caliphate back 1000 years ago, but that was then and this is now..

If this is the case you agree that the War on Terror isn't really a war, right? And it isn't a military responsibility?

Ron Paul Revere: it essentially presents them as soldiers, which the enemy combatant designation plainly refutes.

They are "soldiers" for a non-state entity. If they were soldiers for a state entity, they'd have to be considered prisoners of war.

homerdrew415: They will stay on foreign bases, or on US Navy vessels, or in other countries versions of the same. The Supreme court has just changed US Military policy and not in the way that most think.

I really think that this is the natural consequence of the decision.

Sabyen91: DamnYankees: homerdrew415: oh wait...you're an aussie...as much fun as it would be to drink with you, you wouldn'tcouldn't understand what I'm talking about in my posting.

I'm an American. Born in Los Angeles, go to NYU law. I'm just working in Sydney for the summer.

Shh, you are going to ruin his xenophobic moment. You know, all those furreners are stupid.

How was I being xenophobic? I said it would be fun to drink with an Aussie, but as they are a country which has much harsher immigration laws than ours, they wouldn't or couldn't understand the concepts we would be applying to a non citizen under the flag of a nation as open to foreigners as the USA is.

/Nice try farkstick you just might PWN me later, but not this time slick

homerdrew415: DamnYankees: homerdrew415: Well he's not a POW in the Geneva Convention's eyes, as he doesn't fight for any country or under a nation's flag. He also doesn't fight in a military uniform as becoming a soldier. The Geneva convention is pretty clear that those are requirements for POW status. If you want to say that he's fighting under the flag of Islam & is fighting for Dar al Islam (house of Islam, or a global caliphate) you might be able to convince me, but those aren't nation states as modern history has defined them. Yes I know, Islam had a Caliphate back 1000 years ago, but that was then and this is now..

Then he goes into the civilian system. This has been the problem of the Bush Administration (one of many) - they want to create this middle ground of "enemy combatant" without delineating what it means. There needs to be a system in place. As of now, there are 2 system - national and international. The former is a civil justice system, the latter is a military/POW system. Unless you create a full-fledged system for 'enemy combatants' which is internationationally and natonally recognized, you have to stick with what we have.

Enemy combatants isn't a new concept, it's been around for a long time, and was changed to it's current meaning by FDR (new window).

Yeah, he was wrong. Enemy combatants have rights under US law (according to Supreme Court rulings). The new term is 'unlawful combatants'. Semantics to throw them into a legal limbo.

homerdrew415: The Supreme court has just changed US Military policy and not in the way that most think.

Pssst. That's been going on since long before this decision.

But it is kind of funny how you blame the SCOTUS for that. Why is the SCOTUS responsible for the actions of the DoD/CIA etc etc? Why are they not responsible for their own actions?

homerdrew415: They will stay on foreign bases, or on US Navy vessels,

And they will still be entitled to Constitutional protections. It doesn't matter where they are, so long as they are in US territory, a military base counts, and being dealt with by the US government? It all applies.

How could it be when the justices seemingly wrote a map based on ideas cherry picked from over 400 years of established law and backfilled with justifications to create a new right for alien combatants that Americans themselves do not enjoy?

I fully support Thompson's argument. We can't just let the Covenant POWs out of Guantanamo.

\Kidding
\Thompson's an idiot

Nabb1: Remove all Republicans: A mental error: Paying attention to Fred Thompson.

Yeah, I really shouldn't pay heed to an opinion from a former U.S. Attorney, the lead prosecutor on the Watergate case, and should pay more attention to someone with a troll name who posts little cartoons instead of actual discussion of the merits.

Yea, and this is the same Fred Thompson that Nixon referred to as being dumber than a bag of bricks.

Why should we care? Is he going to read this upon his return to L&O?

He ain't running for President anymore. He can make inbred jokes now.