The question is, Alex, "What is 'tenet'?"

Oh, well play subby,

Cool, so this year so far the UK has officially removed one of the basic tenets of fair judicial process, but pinky-swear they won't abuse the change, and the US president has signed a bill stripping US citizens of their right to trial entirely but says he's not gonna actually do it, for reals y'all.

Well, I'm glad politicians and lawyers are our finest, most upstanding moral citizens, because otherwise a significant chunk of democracy appears to have died this year and we're only like a week in.

I feel for the family in this case, but for every situation in which the outcome would be positive I guarantee it'll be abused by the legal system a thousand-fold.

Jim_Callahan: Cool, so this year so far the UK has officially removed one of the basic tenets of fair judicial process, but pinky-swear they won't abuse the change, and the US president has signed a bill stripping US citizens of their right to trial entirely but says he's not gonna actually do it, for reals y'all.

Well, I'm glad politicians and lawyers are our finest, most upstanding moral citizens, because otherwise a significant chunk of democracy appears to have died this year and we're only like a week in.

If I was a project manager, and my task was to deliver a future just like the one in The Running Man, all of these things would be included in my WBS.

/We're on schedule, yo!

Jim_Callahan: Cool, so this year so far the UK has officially removed one of the basic tenets of fair judicial process, but pinky-swear they won't abuse the change, and the US president has signed a bill stripping US citizens of their right to trial entirely but says he's not gonna actually do it, for reals y'all.

Well, I'm glad politicians and lawyers are our finest, most upstanding moral citizens, because otherwise a significant chunk of democracy appears to have died this year and we're only like a week in.

Double jeopardy prohibition is kind of iffy anyway, since you can be prosecuted by two entities for the same crime. Imagine this scenario - you're accused of a state crime that happens to be a federal crime too. The state gets first crack, you're exonerated. Then you're tried federally for the same crime, and convicted. While serving your sentence you find out a civil suit has been brought against you. Just to make things this situation more interesting, you moved here at the age of 1 but haven't become a citizen yet, just a legal permanent resident. Once you get out of prison, you are then placed in ICE proceedings for removal. Then when you die, God places you on trial. You cry out seeking only his decision, He just stands and confirms you created your own prison.

Look at US law and read the Magna Carta... most of it has been repealed, too.

Jim_Callahan: Cool, so this year so far the UK has officially removed one of the basic tenets of fair judicial process

It's 2003? To the betting shop!

Jim_Callahan: the US president has signed a bill stripping US citizens of their right to trial entirely but says he's not gonna actually do it, for reals y'all.

Yeah. I don't care for the indefinite detention law, and its passage will reflect unfavorably on Obama in the history books. But the right to trial is still alive and well in all cases except detentions under the indefinite detention law. It's an important difference.

you are a puppet: Double jeopardy prohibition is kind of iffy anyway, since you can be prosecuted by two entities for the same crime. Imagine this scenario - you're accused of a state crime that happens to be a federal crime too. The state gets first crack, you're exonerated. Then you're tried federally for the same crime, and convicted. While serving your sentence you find out a civil suit has been brought against you.

If you're pointing out that it can be stretched pretty far even with the protection intact, yeah, that's kind of my point. If you can still be de facto legally harassed over one incident with the protection intact, imagine how far it's going to be taken with the protection removed.

If you're trying to argue that double jeopardy is actually legal under US law, then no, not really. The feds being able to try you after the state has acquitted is more of a loophole than an actual permission (since both are bound by the US constitution, but separately). And iirc wrongful death suits you're actually being sued for a separate offense (i.e. hurting the feeeeeeelings of the victim's family) rather than the crime itself (the murder). Technically a bit dodgy, but in reality the rules are followed.

bugontherug: Yeah. I don't care for the indefinite detention law, and its passage will reflect unfavorably on Obama in the history books. But the right to trial is still alive and well in all cases except detentions under the indefinite detention law. It's an important difference.

Um, given that the executive doesn't have to get a warrant for an "enemy combatant", I'll fix that for you:

But the right to trial is still alive and well in all cases except detentions under the indefinite detention law. whenever someone under the NSA umbrella says so.

So, yeah, thanks, that's much better.

Or did the law change at some point to require court approval/warrants/etc for enemy combatants since I last checked?

bugontherug: Yeah. I don't care for the indefinite detention law, and its passage will reflect unfavorably on Obama in the history books. But the right to trial is still alive and well in all cases except detentions under the indefinite detention law. It's an important difference.

For what it's worth there's already a bill in the House to repeal the nasty parts of the NDAA. The NDAA itself is just an appropriations bill, that the language in question was put in there is just a matter of political cowardice. As was taking 8 months between the day the bill was submitted in the House and the day the last legislative action on it was taken. And then waiting five days to send it to the President. So that it got to him when Congress was no longer in session and the old NDAA was going to expire very very soon.

Jim_Callahan: bugontherug: Yeah. I don't care for the indefinite detention law, and its passage will reflect unfavorably on Obama in the history books. But the right to trial is still alive and well in all cases except detentions under the indefinite detention law. It's an important difference.

Um, given that the executive doesn't have to get a warrant for an "enemy combatant", I'll fix that for you:

But the right to trial is still alive and well in all cases except detentions under the indefinite detention law. whenever someone under the NSA umbrella says so.

So, yeah, thanks, that's much better.

Or did the law change at some point to require court approval/warrants/etc for enemy combatants since I last checked?

It is much better, even though the indefinite detention law sucks.

Let me know when federal or state prosecutors start putting accused murderers, pedophiles, etc., in prison without trial.

WhyteRaven74: bugontherug: Yeah. I don't care for the indefinite detention law, and its passage will reflect unfavorably on Obama in the history books. But the right to trial is still alive and well in all cases except detentions under the indefinite detention law. It's an important difference.

For what it's worth there's already a bill in the House to repeal the nasty parts of the NDAA. The NDAA itself is just an appropriations bill, that the language in question was put in there is just a matter of political cowardice. As was taking 8 months between the day the bill was submitted in the House and the day the last legislative action on it was taken. And then waiting five days to send it to the President. So that it got to him when Congress was no longer in session and the old NDAA was going to expire very very soon.

Unfortunately, I have to go. But yes, the House GOP clearly acted to maximize political pressure on Obama to pass this law. Not only because the very concept of civil liberties angers them, but also to politically sabotage Obama.

bugontherug: Unfortunately, I have to go. But yes, the House GOP clearly acted to maximize political pressure on Obama to pass this law. Not only because the very concept of civil liberties angers them, but also to politically sabotage Obama.

Cool story bro, except, you know, the part where the bill was bipartisan.

Don't you just love ignorant common rabble? They trash a basic right just to get their petty idea of justice (revenge) satisfied.

It's always interesting to see what cases tha powers that be use as a vehicle to introduce bad laws.

Here it's a young man brutally murdered in a racist attack and a young woman murdered in her home.

For example in the US a case is working its way through the supre court asking whether the police can put a gps tracking device on your car without a warrant (because they admit they don't have enough evidence to get one). They stated that they monitor a few thousand Americans like this at any time, but the caset thy are running with is for a guy who they caught with a hundred kilos of coke and close on a million bucks in cash. On the legal merits of the practice there is no reason to use that case over any of the thousands of people who they found doing nothing wrong.

Wonktnod: bugontherug: Unfortunately, I have to go. But yes, the House GOP clearly acted to maximize political pressure on Obama to pass this law. Not only because the very concept of civil liberties angers them, but also to politically sabotage Obama.

Cool story bro, except, you know, the part where the bill was bipartisan.

And, wasn't there language put in at his request, which makes the law/bill worse than it might have been?

What is double jeopardy?

*reads article*

W00t!

/oh wait no that's bad

In 1996, Gary Dobson was one of the suspects privately prosecuted by the Lawrence family at the Old Bailey.

I don't know much about the English law system, but is this like O.J. Simpson being acquitted by the state but found guilty of wrongful death in a civil suit?

Yay for piss your pants scared retards that only rely on feelings.

Wonktnod: bugontherug: Unfortunately, I have to go. But yes, the House GOP clearly acted to maximize political pressure on Obama to pass this law. Not only because the very concept of civil liberties angers them, but also to politically sabotage Obama.

Cool story bro, except, you know, the part where the bill was bipartisan.

Cool story bro, except, you know, the part where fewer than 50% of House Democrats voted for the bill, while more than 90% of House Republicans voted for it. Those would be the liberal Democrats. Voting between the parties was almost equal in the Senate, where larger, less representative constituencies force Democrats to the right to maintain electability.

Link (new window)

To clarify, you're arguing that "both sides are equally bad" where a large portion of the Democratic Party voted against the bill, but almost all Republicans voted for it. Where Obama signed it with serious reservations, under artificial political pressure created by politically motivated House GOP delay.

As usual, both sides are not equally bad. If you want to make progress on civil liberties, the answer is to elect more liberalDemocrats to Congress. Get involved in the primaries, and see to it that your issue is promoted there. Taking actions which give the anti-civil liberty right more power is irrational.

Marcus Aurelius: Vengeance feels good, so let's destroy a foundation of the legal system to get it.

Yay us!

That.

I tenanted your mother...



(Really? A Jeopardy FARK submission that took this long to SNL?)

the opposite of charity is justice: I feel for the family in this case, but for every situation in which the outcome would be positive I guarantee it'll be abused by the legal system a thousand-fold.

That's exactly what I thought when I was reading the article. It always sounds like a good idea when they take your rights away.

bugontherug: Jim_Callahan: the US president has signed a bill stripping US citizens of their right to trial entirely but says he's not gonna actually do it, for reals y'all.

Yeah. I don't care for the indefinite detention law, and its passage will reflect unfavorably on Obama in the history books. But the right to trial is still alive and well in all cases except detentions under the indefinite detention law. It's an important difference.

I would agree with you except for the ambiguous definition of Terrorist. Is a Terrorist someone who bombs a building? Blocks a Port in protest? Takes a gun to a TEA party rally? Wall Street executives are terrifying to me, if I was president could I detain them as long as I want?

/sorry about the double post, bad habit of posting before reading through the entire thread.

Yes, doing away with double jeopardy protection will in no way be abused by convict-at-all-costs prosecutors in the U.S. This would be a dream come true for them. That person gets acquitted? Retry the motherfarker until they're either in prison, bankrupt or insane, or better yet, all three.

We start making exceptions now, and in a decade or two we could see some very exciting things from various D.A.s.

badhatharry: Here in the US, they can lock people up without proving anything.

No they can't.

DarnoKonrad: badhatharry: Here in the US, they can lock people up without proving anything.

No they can't.

Yes they can.

Why Yes I Am A Wizard: DarnoKonrad: badhatharry: Here in the US, they can lock people up without proving anything.

No they can't.

Yes they can.

No they can't.

And furthermore, the NDAA rider even says "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."

Which is precisely what HAMDI V. RUMSFELD is.

Zombie Butler: I would agree with you except for the ambiguous definition of Terrorist. Is a Terrorist someone who bombs a building? Blocks a Port in protest? Takes a gun to a TEA party rally? Wall Street executives are terrifying to me, if I was president could I detain them as long as I want?

IIRC the bill uses the term "covered person" and defines that term (paraphrasing at best) as someone covered by the AUMF.

magores: Wonktnod: bugontherug: Unfortunately, I have to go. But yes, the House GOP clearly acted to maximize political pressure on Obama to pass this law. Not only because the very concept of civil liberties angers them, but also to politically sabotage Obama.

Cool story bro, except, you know, the part where the bill was bipartisan.

And, wasn't there language put in at his request, which makes the law/bill worse than it might have been?

No, no there was not.

And since this is turning into a highly concerned thread I'll just leave this here:
The NDAA: An FAQ for the Perplexed ^

I don't know if it's been mentioned, but I think Double Jeopardy should only limit the ability to convict more than once for the same crime, because:

actualhuman: And since this is turning into a highly concerned thread I'll just leave this here:
The NDAA: An FAQ for the Perplexed ^

That FAQ is hugely important:

"So if it doesn't significantly expand the government's detention authority, doesn't authorize detention of citizens, doesn't really mandate the military detention of other terrorist suspects, and doesn't do more to prevent the closure of Gitmo than does current law, what's all the fuss about? Is it even important?

The final bill is, indeed, far less consequential than earlier versions would have been. Much of the fuss is overblown. That said, the bill has several important elements:

* The codification of detention authority in statute is a significant development, not because it enables anything that Congress had previously forbidden but because it puts the legislature squarely behind a set of policies on which it had always retained a kind of strategic ambiguity-a tolerance for detention without a clear endorsement of it of the sort that would make members accountable. Congress has now given that endorsement, and that is no small thing.
* The transfer restrictions will continue to have negative effects on administration management of detainee affairs, reducing flexibility and agility and compelling the continued detention of people the administration does not want to detain, in a status the administration does not wish to use, and at a facility it would prefer to vacate. That this is no change from current law-indeed, that the NDAA offers slightly more flexibility than does current law-does not make these restrictions any less troublesome.
* The rump mandatory detention provision remains a bit of a wild card that could have mischievous effects in practice. Though it ends up requiring very little, it does impose-as we have described-a default option of military detention for certain categories of cases. And this option might prove politically difficult to jettison."

Mr. Coffee Nerves: I thought Matt Smith didn't replace him until 2010?

+1, was thinking the same thing :)

BarbadoSlim: Don't you just love ignorant common rabble? They trash a basic right just to get their petty idea of justice (revenge) satisfied.

"Closure" is the new word for revenge.

actualhuman: And since this is turning into a highly concerned thread I'll just leave this here:
The NDAA: An FAQ for the Perplexed ^

I'm suspicious of those two bloggers; their lawyer credentials are sound but I wonder about their motives.

Benjamin Wittes is an apologist for and a defender of the Bush torture policies (I couldn't directly link ya to the PDF it's the first listing though). In his testimony he goes on at length to explain why congress shouldn't have oversight into the practices of the CIA. Here is a blog post (pop) that talks more about his record as a civil rights reducer.

Robert Chesney writes frequently about Guantanamo Bay (pop) and is one of the indefinite detention proposals archietects (pop).

Why would I take the word of these two men when their proclivity towards reducing our civil rights has been demonstrated time and again? Especially not one of the writers of the bill who's trying to sell me the idea.

It always sounds good when they take your rights away or why would you agree to the loss?

badhatharry: So basically, the President has always had this authority. Stop freaking out. This is no big deal. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

No. Basically, the law in question does almost none of what has been claimed. Stop freaking out. While there are some legitimate objections to it, it's not the galactical deal misinformed people are making of it. We have never been at war with Eastasia, because Eastasia is fiction, and this is bare reality.

Lawyers argue. judges make judgments.