Liberty vs Security (1 Viewer)

[Awesome!]

What is more important to you?

For me, I'm not willing to give up one Constitutional Right to fight the war on terror. Not one! Fight the war some other way than stripping me of my inalienable rights.

The government gave us nylon back after WW2

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

This article is NOT about immigrants. Why don't you read it?

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/Section411.html#412

"Terrorists", it says.

I already addressed this point on the previos pg:

Re: Liberty vs Security

I find it rather sad that you must resort to downright lies to defend your point of veiw. The section in reference is called, in fact: "MANDATORY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS". Not exactly immagrants who overstayed their visas.

I misinterpretted your point the first time around:

[SIZE=+1]`MANDATORY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS; HABEAS CORPUS; JUDICIAL REVIEW[/SIZE]

• `SEC. 236A. (a) DETENTION OF TERRORIST ALIENS-

• • `(1) CUSTODY- The Attorney General shall take into custody any alien who is certified under paragraph (3).

• • `(2) RELEASE- Except as provided in paragraphs (5) and (6), the Attorney General shall maintain custody of such an alien until the alien is removed from the United States. Except as provided in paragraph (6), such custody shall be maintained irrespective of any relief from removal for which the alien may be eligible, or any relief from removal granted the alien, until the Attorney General determines that the alien is no longer an alien who may be certified under paragraph (3). If the alien is finally determined not to be removable, detention pursuant to this subsection shall terminate.

• • `(3) CERTIFICATION- The Attorney General may certify an alien under this paragraph if the Attorney General has reasonable grounds to believe that the alien--

• • • `(A) is described in section 212(a)(3)(A)(i), 212(a)(3)(A)(iii), 212(a)(3)(B), 237(a)(4)(A)(i), 237(a)(4)(A)(iii), or 237(a)(4)(B); or

• • • `(B) is engaged in any other activity that endangers the national security of the United States.

OK it appears that you are infact correct this is in reference to any alien they don't have to be illegal aliens I was misinterpreting it, but they do have reasonable grounds certified by the attorney general to hold them for a period of up to 6 months.

Do you mean what is wrong with keeping suspected terrorists in US prisons indefinitely and without trial? You tell me. :roll:

You're misinterpreting it the section 412 Paragraph (6) clearly states that they can only be held for up to 6 months after which point they are entitled to Habeas Corpus and Judicial Review, if during the Habeas Corpus hearings there is infact grounds to continue holding them then they will recieve a trial by military tribunal which tje SCOTUS has already found to be perfectly constitutional in the Ex parte Quirin decision.

This isn't about illegal immigrants. Read what it says, then tell me this load of crock. :roll:

I already addressed my mistake on the previous pg., however, my point still stands, because it is in reference to aliens to this country IE foreigners who are not citizens we have every right to revoke their visa and hold them until they are deported from the country, because if they were released who is to say that they would meet their appointment for deportation.

"additional periods of up to six months"

As many six month periods as they like.

Well I think you may be correct and I was misinterpreting it then, however, during this time they are entitled to Habeas Corpus and Judicial Review and if it is then found that their is just cause to hold them then they will recieve a military tribunal in accordance with the Ex parte Quirin decision:

U.S. Supreme Court
EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1 (1942)
317 U.S. 1 87 L.Ed. 7


Ex parte QUIRIN.

Ex parte HAUPT.

Ex parte KERLING.

Ex parte BURGER.

Ex parte HEINCK.

Ex parte THIEL.

Ex parte NEUBAUER.

UNITED STATES ex rel. QUIRIN
v.
COX, Brig. Gen., U.S.A., Provost Marshal of the Military District of Washington, and 6 other cases.

Nos. -- Original and Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7-July Special Term, 1942

Argued July 29, 30, 1942.
Decided July 31, 1942.

Extended opinion filed Oct. 29, 1942.

[317 U.S. 1, 6] Colonel Kenneth C. Royall, of Raleigh, N.C., for petitioners.

[317 U.S. 1, 11] Mr. Francis B. Biddle, Atty. Gen., for respondent.

RELEVANT PORTION:

"........the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals................"

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...vol=317&page=1

That's not what I've interpreted. But according to others, they've interpreted it the same as I:
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/sac/dc0603/ch5.htm

The government, for example.

I don't see any other way of interpreting the following other than meaning that they are entitled to Habeas Corpus hearings:

• • `(2) APPLICATION-

• • • `(A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 2241(a) of title 28, United States Code, habeas corpus proceedings described in paragraph (1) may be initiated only by an application filed with--

• • • • `(i) the Supreme Court;

• • • • `(ii) any justice of the Supreme Court;

• • • • `(iii) any circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; or

• • • • `(iv) any district court otherwise having jurisdiction to entertain it.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Perhaps they believe that the Patriot Act does not deal with Habeaus Corpus correctly.

Or perhaps it took the SCOTUS to order the administration to give detainees the Habeas Corpus that they were already entitled to.

That's a lot of people, if you ask me. Or do you value human life?:roll:

A) Yes I value human life.

B) The bulk of civilians have been killed by the insurgency.

I know how that works. What I have said, and what I will say again is this: If the Geneva Convention has agreeable rules in dealing with prisoners of war, and we, the USA, are at a loss for ways to treat detainees in our war, why not use those or ones similar? But now that we have a set of rules of our own, we can use those, so it's not much of an issue.

A) Because they are not entitled to them.

B) You're right we have our own now so it's a non-issue.

And I was talking about suspects arrested here.... No big deal.

Well even if you were talking about aliens who were arrested in the U.S. the SCOTUS already found in the Ex parte Quirin decision that if it is found during Habeas Corpus hearings that they are infact enemy combatants then it is perfectly Constitutional to try them in military tribunals rather than civilian courts.

Note that I never said that they should be. Or anything close.

See, there's a difference we should thresh out: suspected terrorists captured in America, or suspected terrorist captured in another country, a war zone, for example, Iraq springs directly to mind.

In America: I don't believe they should be whisked away by the CIA and held indefinitely in some prison, I think they should be tried as a criminal as it is done in the USA, or whatever applies. But not the Patriot act.

See I disagree because I think that people who are in the United States with the soul purpose of destroying America should not be granted due process in a civilian court and the SCOTUS agrees with me from the Ex Parte Quirin decision involving captured German saboteurs during WW2:

"........the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals................"

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...vol=317&page=1

In Iraq: That they should be treated by the new detainee rules.

I think that regardless if they are captured in the U.S. or abroad they should be treated as unlawful combatants.

But not when the government doesn't want that.

Where does it say that in the following provision:

• `(b) HABEAS CORPUS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW-

• • `(1) IN GENERAL- Judicial review of any action or decision relating to this section (including judicial review of the merits of a determination made under subsection (a)(3) or (a)(6)) is available exclusively in habeas corpus proceedings consistent with this subsection. Except as provided in the preceding sentence, no court shall have jurisdiction to review, by habeas corpus petition or otherwise, any such action or decision.

• • `(2) APPLICATION-

• • • `(A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 2241(a) of title 28, United States Code, habeas corpus proceedings described in paragraph (1) may be initiated only by an application filed with--

• • • • `(i) the Supreme Court;

• • • • `(ii) any justice of the Supreme Court;

• • • • `(iii) any circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; or

• • • • `(iv) any district court otherwise having jurisdiction to entertain it.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/Section411.html#412

Regardless they are now granted Habeas Corpus under the Hamdi and Rasul decisions.

You can't see the differences between the post war Germans and Japanese and the Islamic populations of the Middle East? That is sad...

Actually modern Islamic fascism traces it's roots to the third reich:

The Muslim Brotherhood, Nazis and Al-Qaeda
By John Loftus
Jewish Community News | October 4, 2004


It always seems a little strange to have an Irish-Catholic talking about Yom Ha Shoah.
I had an unusual education in the Holocaust. When I was working for the Attorney General, I was assigned to do the classified research about the Holocaust, so I went underground to a little town called Suitland, Maryland, right outside Washington, D.C., and that's where the U.S. government buries its secrets -- literally.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Rea...e.asp?ID=15344

Also, do a google search for Sayyid Qutb's book entitled "Our Struggle With the Jews," it is nearly identical to "Mein Kampf," Sayyid Qutb was the co-founder along with Al-Banna (another admirer of Hitler) of the Muslim Brotherhood which is the precursor to (if not all) then most modern militant Islamist extremist including AQ.

That's unlikley, but in case you didn't know, we can defend ourselves here. Also, they thought something up a little while back: Anti-terrorism? Police?

Ya but we have to get it right 100% of the time they only have to get it right once, and if they have the vast resources of an oil rich state like Iraq behind them then the job of getting it right 100% of the time will turn from difficult to impossible.

Were the Soviets plauged with terrorist attacks?

A) Not the Soviets because they were a police state.

B) They are now.

As if it isn't already.:roll:

They are not in control of the government, the military, or the vast resources; such as, oil.

But not because I believe they are freedom fighters, but because they believe they are freedom fighters.

I think jihadis hate freedom they don't consider themselves freedom fighters they consider themselves messengers from god.

 

[Navy Pride]

Hey, go easy on NP. He's got to deal with this...

Billo my friend its early...............Don't forget what happened last year when the Steelers were 7-5 and then won 8 in a row and what your avatar looked like...........

 

[Duke]

I already addressed this point on the previos pg:





You're misinterpreting it the section 412 Paragraph (6) clearly states that they can only be held for up to 6 months after which point they are entitled to Habeas Corpus and Judicial Review, if during the Habeas Corpus hearings there is infact grounds to continue holding them then they will recieve a trial by military tribunal which tje SCOTUS has already found to be perfectly constitutional in the Ex parte Quirin decision.

Yeah, that's what it seems like, right? But it says this:

"may be detained for additional periods of up to six months"

Nice and open ended, innit?

Well I think you may be correct and I was misinterpreting it then

It is rather confusing, and even more unclear, but the people with the minds of law seem to say that it means multiple six months period as well.

Perhaps....The world will never know.

however, during this time they are entitled to Habeas Corpus and Judicial Review and if it is then found that their is just cause to hold them then they will recieve a military tribunal in accordance with the Ex parte Quirin decision:

That works for me.

I don't see any other way of interpreting the following other than meaning that they are entitled to Habeas Corpus hearings:

Yes, but it rather muddles itself up down here:

`(2) RELEASE- Except as provided in paragraphs (5) and (6), the Attorney General shall maintain custody of such an alien until the alien is removed from the United States. Except as provided in paragraph (6), such custody shall be maintained irrespective of any relief from removal for which the alien may be eligible, or any relief from removal granted the alien, until the Attorney General determines that the alien is no longer an alien who may be certified under paragraph (3). If the alien is finally determined not to be removable, detention pursuant to this subsection shall terminate.
`(3) CERTIFICATION- The Attorney General may certify an alien under this paragraph if the Attorney General has reasonable grounds to believe that the alien--
`(A) is described in section 212(a)(3)(A)(i), 212(a)(3)(A)(iii), 212(a)(3)(B), 237(a)(4)(A)(i), 237(a)(4)(A)(iii), or 237(a)(4)(B); or
`(B) is engaged in any other activity that endangers the national security of the United States.
`(4) NONDELEGATION- The Attorney General may delegate the authority provided under paragraph (3) only to the Deputy Attorney General. The Deputy Attorney General may not delegate such authority.
`(5) COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS- The Attorney General shall place an alien detained under paragraph (1) in removal proceedings, or shall charge the alien with a criminal offense, not later than 7 days after the commencement of such detention. If the requirement of the preceding sentence is not satisfied, the Attorney General shall release the alien.
`(6) LIMITATION ON INDEFINITE DETENTION- An alien detained solely under paragraph (1) who has not been removed under section 241(a)(1)(A), and whose removal is unlikely in the reasonably foreseeable future, may be detained for additional periods of up to six months only if the release of the alien will threaten the national security of the United States or the safety of the community or any person.

Decoding law sure is fun, eh? :mrgreen: :roll:


Duke

 

[Duke]

Or perhaps it took the SCOTUS to order the administration to give detainees the Habeas Corpus that they were already entitled to.

That administration has always needed a little nudge to do the right thing. :mrgreen:

A) Yes I value human life.

Whew! You had me worried there!

B) The bulk of civilians have been killed by the insurgency.

It really is a shame that we went in there and shook things up the way we did, now all these civilians are dying.

B) You're right we have our own now so it's a non-issue.

All right, case closed, gentlemen. :mrgreen:

Well even if you were talking about aliens who were arrested in the U.S. the SCOTUS already found in the Ex parte Quirin decision that if it is found during Habeas Corpus hearings that they are infact enemy combatants then it is perfectly Constitutional to try them in military tribunals rather than civilian courts.

Thanks, I now see that; I have yet to decide whether or not I agree.

See I disagree because I think that people who are in the United States with the soul purpose of destroying America should not be granted due process in a civilian court and the SCOTUS agrees with me from the Ex Parte Quirin decision involving captured German saboteurs during WW2:

Ah, each to his own! I might have to get back to you on that one, I've got to do just a little more research.

I think that regardless if they are captured in the U.S. or abroad they should be treated as unlawful combatants.

Under which measures, in this case?

Where does it say that in the following provision:

The government gets to decide who's a threat and who's not, who they want to relase, and who to keep; that is, without checks and balences in the Patriot act. Even without Habeas Corpus, as far as I can see.

Regardless they are now granted Habeas Corpus under the Hamdi and Rasul decisions.

Yep. So let's both shut up about all this, shall we? :mrgreen:

Actually modern Islamic fascism traces it's roots to the third reich:

I'd just like to clear a few things up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Islam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_germany

Also, do a google search for Sayyid Qutb's book entitled "Our Struggle With the Jews," it is nearly identical to "Mein Kampf," Sayyid Qutb was the co-founder along with Al-Banna (another admirer of Hitler) of the Muslim Brotherhood which is the precursor to (if not all) then most modern militant Islamist extremist including AQ.

Yep, Islamic extremists do have a thing for Hitler, but comparing American occupation of Germany to American occupation of the Middle East is something of a strech for me.

Ya but we have to get it right 100% of the time they only have to get it right once, and if they have the vast resources of an oil rich state like Iraq behind them then the job of getting it right 100% of the time will turn from difficult to impossible.

I believe that it is possible to leave Iraq, and through aid and assistance, prevent the country from becoming terrorist control.

A) Not the Soviets because they were a police state.

B) They are now.

See, it's not a very good comparison.

They are not in control of the government, the military, or the vast resources; such as, oil.

Well, not entirely.

I think jihadis hate freedom they don't consider themselves freedom fighters they consider themselves messengers from god.

"Messengers from God" works too. It's not a very big deal to me.


Duke

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

That administration has always needed a little nudge to do the right thing.

Well I don't blame the Administration for misinterpreting the PA, that sh!t is confusing as hell.

It really is a shame that we went in there and shook things up the way we did, now all these civilians are dying.

They were dying in the same (if not greater) numbers under Saddam.

All right, case closed, gentlemen. :mrgreen:

Glad we agree.

Thanks, I now see that; I have yet to decide whether or not I agree.

That's your right.

Ah, each to his own! I might have to get back to you on that one, I've got to do just a little more research.

Fair enough.

Under which measures, in this case?

I'm not sure I understand your question but I'll take a stab at it. If it is found in their Habeas Corpus hearings that they are infact terrorists then they should be treated as unlawful combatants and granted military tribunals, if they are found to be wrongfully imprisoned then they should be released and if they are not U.S. citizens they should be deported to their country of origin.

The government gets to decide who's a threat and who's not, who they want to relase, and who to keep; that is, without checks and balences in the Patriot act. Even without Habeas Corpus, as far as I can see.

No not exactly if the judge finds that their is no just cause to hold them then they are released and deported as was Hamdi. If their is cause to hold them they are afforded a military tribunal to determine guilt or innocence in accordance with the Ex Parte Quiren decision, now the SCOTUS later found in the case of Hamdan V. Rumsfeld that unlawful combatants were entitled to Article 3 geneva convention protections which prevented detainees from being tried in non-regularly constituted courts, this in effect put an end to the military tribunals, because these tribunals were only provided under executive authority, however, once the Congress granted the administration the authority to hold these tribunals under the detainee bill the tribunals in effect became regularly constituted courts in accordance with Article 3 of the GC and the Hamdan decision.

Yep. So let's both shut up about all this, shall we? :mrgreen:

Fair enough.

I'd just like to clear a few things up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Islam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_germany

Google the following: Nazi, al-Banna, Qutb, Muslim Brotherhood, and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

Yep, Islamic extremists do have a thing for Hitler, but comparing American occupation of Germany to American occupation of the Middle East is something of a strech for me.

The occupation of Germany was only easier because we broke the German peoples will to fight by striking at civilian targets and killing millions through carpet bombing, also, when Hitlers guirella forces who continued fighting after the end of major hostititlies would kill one of our troops we would level the entire town that it happened in along with the civilian population who was harboring him, that is no longer how we wage war now we only attack military targets with precision weapons, we now wage a kinder more gentler form of warfare this is good in preventing collateral damage and avoiding innocent deaths but it is not very good at breaking the enemy which means through the current strategy it is going to take much longer to achieve total victory against an insurgency.

I believe that it is possible to leave Iraq, and through aid and assistance, prevent the country from becoming terrorist control.

I don't, I think that if we withdraw our forces and continue to aid the fledgling Democracy like we did in Nixon's vietnamization program during that conflict that the outcome will be exactly the same.

See, it's not a very good comparison.

It's apt damnit apt, the Soviet failure in Afghanistan was the tipping point which eventually brought the Soviet Union down.

Well, not entirely.

How are the terrorists in control of Iraqi oil resources?

 

[Duke]

Well I don't blame the Administration for misinterpreting the PA, that sh!t is confusing as hell.

You think that's hard? Try the penal code, :2razz:

They were dying in the same (if not greater) numbers under Saddam.

Really? Could I please have a link about that or some-such? Thanks.

Glad we agree.

Me too.

I'm not sure I understand your question but I'll take a stab at it. If it is found in their Habeas Corpus hearings that they are infact terrorists then they should be treated as unlawful combatants and granted military tribunals, if they are found to be wrongfully imprisoned then they should be released and if they are not U.S. citizens they should be deported to their country of origin.

That sounds sensible, thanks.

No not exactly if the judge finds that their is no just cause to hold them then they are released and deported as was Hamdi. If their is cause to hold them they are afforded a military tribunal to determine guilt or innocence in accordance with the Ex Parte Quiren decision, now the SCOTUS later found in the case of Hamdan V. Rumsfeld that unlawful combatants were entitled to Article 3 geneva convention protections which prevented detainees from being tried in non-regularly constituted courts, this in effect put an end to the military tribunals, because these tribunals were only provided under executive authority, however, once the Congress granted the administration the authority to hold these tribunals under the detainee bill the tribunals in effect became regularly constituted courts in accordance with Article 3 of the GC and the Hamdan decision.

I see.
Yesterday I was flipping through the new (October 9) Time Magazine, and a headline caught my eye: "Letting The Presiedent Say; A new bill lets Bush define who is a enemy combatant and denies detainees Habeas Corpus. I've got a link, as well:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1541282,00.html

Might want to check it out. I don't like the sound of it....


Fair enough.

Google the following: Nazi, al-Banna, Qutb, Muslim Brotherhood, and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

I will, thanks

The occupation of Germany was only easier because we broke the German peoples will to fight by striking at civilian targets and killing millions through carpet bombing, also, when Hitlers guirella forces who continued fighting after the end of major hostititlies would kill one of our troops we would level the entire town that it happened in along with the civilian population who was harboring him, that is no longer how we wage war now we only attack military targets with precision weapons, we now wage a kinder more gentler form of warfare this is good in preventing collateral damage and avoiding innocent deaths but it is not very good at breaking the enemy which means through the current strategy it is going to take much longer to achieve total victory against an insurgency.

I'm not sure that the old method of going about things is the correct one, and I'm not sure about the new one either.

I don't, I think that if we withdraw our forces and continue to aid the fledgling Democracy like we did in Nixon's vietnamization program during that conflict that the outcome will be exactly the same.

If we use a more integrated aid and assistance system, and if we have the world's support, I think it's quite possible. But it's all speculation, at this point.

It's apt damnit apt, the Soviet failure in Afghanistan was the tipping point which eventually brought the Soviet Union down.

Among other things, sure. But to continue the comparison, wouldn't the Soviet Union been better off if they had just left the Middle East to its own business.

How are the terrorists in control of Iraqi oil resources?

I make Joke, Trajan, I make Joke.:mrgreen:


Duke

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You think that's hard? Try the penal code, :2razz:

Really? Could I please have a link about that or some-such? Thanks.

Summary
[SIZE=-1]The anti-Kurdish "Anfal" campaign, mounted between February and September 1988 by the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, was both genocidal and gendercidal in nature. "Battle-age" men were the primary targets of Anfal, according to Human Rights Watch/Middle East (hereafter, HRW/ME). The organization writes in its book Iraq's Crime of Genocide: "Throughout Iraqi Kurdistan, although women and children vanished in certain clearly defined areas, adult males who were captured disappeared en masse. ... It is apparent that a principal purpose of Anfal was to exterminate all adult males of military service age captured in rural Iraqi Kurdistan" (pp. 96, 170). Only a handful survived the execution squads.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1]How many died?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]According to HRW/ME, "at least fifty thousand rural Kurds ... died in Anfal alone, and very possibly the real figure was twice that number ... All told, the total number of Kurds killed over the decade since the Barzani men were taken from their homes is well into six figures." "On the basis of extensive interviews in Kurdistan and perusal of extant Iraqi documents, Shoresh Resoul, a meticulous Kurdish researcher ... conservatively estimated that 'between 60,000 and 110,000' died during [al-]Majid's Kurdish mandate," i.e., beginning shortly before Anfal and ending shortly afterwards. (Randal, After Such Knowledge ..., p. 214.) Other Kurdish estimates are even higher. "When Kurdish leaders met with Iraqi government officials in the wake of the spring 1991 uprising, they raised the question of the Anfal dead and mentioned a figure of 182,000 -- a rough extrapolation based on the number of destroyed villages. Ali Hassan al-Majid reportedly jumped to his feet in a rage when the discussion took this turn. 'What is this exaggerated figure of 182,000?' he is said to have asked. 'It couldn't have been more than 100,000' -- as if this somehow mitigated the catastrophe that he and his subordinates had visited on the Iraqi Kurds." (Iraq's Crime of Genocide, pp. 14, 230.)[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
http://www.gendercide.org/case_anfal.html

I see.
Yesterday I was flipping through the new (October 9) Time Magazine, and a headline caught my eye: "Letting The Presiedent Say; A new bill lets Bush define who is a enemy combatant and denies detainees Habeas Corpus. I've got a link, as well:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1541282,00.html

Might want to check it out. I don't like the sound of it....

Well it's true that they won't be given Habeas Corpus by a civilian court but they must be certified by the attorney general as "being properly detained as an enemy combatant," but the reason why they are no longer going to get Habeas Corpus hearings in a civilian court is because the act makes the military tribunals the only courts allowed to hear their cases so while they won't be recieving full due process rights they will be allowed to have their cases heard in a military tribunal. This is the most controversial part of the bill and has lead some people to speculate that if it is brought in front of the SCOTUS that it may not pass mustard due to the Hamdi and Rasul rulings pertaining to the detainee's right to Habeas Corpus in a civilian court but we'll have to wait and see.

Here's the relevant section of the detainee act:

SEC. 7. HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS.​

(a) I​

​

N GENERAL.—Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code,
is amended by striking both the subsection (e) added by section
S. 3930—37
1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109–148 (119 Stat. 2742) and the subsection
(e) added by added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law
109–163 (119 Stat. 3477) and inserting the following new subsection
(e):​

‘‘​

​

(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to
hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed
by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who
has been determined by the United States to have been properly
detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.​

‘‘​

​

(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section
1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801
note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear
or consider any other action against the United States or its agents
relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial,
or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained
by the United States and has been determined by the United
States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant
or is awaiting such determination.’’.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and
shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after
the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect
of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention
of an alien detained by the United States since September 11,
2001.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.txt.pdf​

If we use a more integrated aid and assistance system, and if we have the world's support, I think it's quite possible. But it's all speculation, at this point.

Well the Iraqi President has said that a U.S. withdrawal at this point would be a disaster for his country.

Among other things, sure. But to continue the comparison, wouldn't the Soviet Union been better off if they had just left the Middle East to its own business.

Ya but the Soviets went into Afghanistan to capture a warm water port we went in because we were attacked.

 

[Duke]

Well it's true that they won't be given Habeas Corpus by a civilian court but they must be certified by the attorney general as "being properly detained as an enemy combatant," but the reason why they are no longer going to get Habeas Corpus hearings in a civilian court is because the act makes the military tribunals the only courts allowed to hear their cases so while they won't be recieving full due process rights they will be allowed to have their cases heard in a military tribunal. This is the most controversial part of the bill and has lead some people to speculate that if it is brought in front of the SCOTUS that it may not pass mustard due to the Hamdi and Rasul rulings pertaining to the detainee's right to Habeas Corpus in a civilian court but we'll have to wait and see.

I suppose we will have to wait and see.

But it bears the question: what was wrong with Habeas Corpus; why do we need the new system?

Here's the relevant section of the detainee act:

Thanks, I read that.

Well the Iraqi President has said that a U.S. withdrawal at this point would be a disaster for his country.

And it very well might (by "disaster" he probably means "more of a disaster. ) But remaining in Iraq is a disaster for this country: is it worth it?

Ya but the Soviets went into Afghanistan to capture a warm water port we went in because we were attacked.

I was under the impression that we were comparing the Soviet invasion of Iraq to the current American invasion of Iraq...


Duke

 

[stsburns]

:lol:

What is more important to you?

For me, I'm not willing to give up one Constitutional Right to fight the war on terror. Not one! Fight the war some other way than stripping me of my inalienable rights.

Its like deja-vu with you billio. Sometimes I think I know you better than myself. :lol:

In my personal oppinion, all of our rights were violated the second we made all of our computers talk to each other. :comp:****:comp:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I suppose we will have to wait and see.

But it bears the question: what was wrong with Habeas Corpus; why do we need the new system?

A) If they're getting the military tribunals and being certified by the attorney general I think that's enough but the SCOTUS may well disagree which is why we'll have to wait and see.

B) They were already given military tribunals but the SCOTUS found in Hamdan that unlawful combatants are entitled to Article 3 protections under the GC, and they said that since the military tribunals were only conducted under executive authority and not congressional authority that they were not regularly constituted courts and thus were prevented by article 3 of the GC and they were ended but now that the detainee act grants the President the authority to hold these tribunals they are now considered to be regularly constituted courts in accordance with the Hamdan decision and article 3 of the GC.

And it very well might (by "disaster" he probably means "more of a disaster. ) But remaining in Iraq is a disaster for this country: is it worth it?

Well the National Intelligence Estimate says that pulling out before the job is done would be an even worse disaster:

The Iraq conflict has become the “cause celebre” for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves to have failed we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/De..._Judgments.pdf

Here's what Talabani said about pulling out of Iraq:

On Capitol Hill, meanwhile, Talabani told a group of six senators that setting a deadline for withdrawal of U.S. troops would be a tragedy for Iraq as it works to build its military and police forces, Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said in a conference call with reporters.

Pulling out now would "encourage the militias and the enemies of a free and independent and unified Iraq," Lieberman quoted Talabani as saying.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4216141.html

I was under the impression that we were comparing the Soviet invasion of Iraq to the current American invasion of Iraq...

I think you meant the Soviet invasion off Afghanistan and I think that they are pretty good analogies we're basically facing the same enemies of the Soviets.

 

[Duke]

A) If they're getting the military tribunals and being certified by the attorney general I think that's enough but the SCOTUS may well disagree which is why we'll have to wait and see.

B) They were already given military tribunals but the SCOTUS found in Hamdan that unlawful combatants are entitled to Article 3 protections under the GC, and they said that since the military tribunals were only conducted under executive authority and not congressional authority that they were not regularly constituted courts and thus were prevented by article 3 of the GC and they were ended but now that the detainee act grants the President the authority to hold these tribunals they are now considered to be regularly constituted courts in accordance with the Hamdan decision and article 3 of the GC.

Let's just say I'm not :2razz: ... Yet.

Well the National Intelligence Estimate says that pulling out before the job is done would be an even worse disaster:

I'm not denying that. But staying in Iraq could, in theory, end up much worse of a disaster, mainly for the USA, which, to me, takes priority over Iraq, to be perfectly honest.

I think you meant the Soviet invasion off Afghanistan and I think that they are pretty good analogies we're basically facing the same enemies of the Soviets.

I think the situation is different: Most importantly, Afghanistan was well within striking range of the Soviet Union; how hard is it to sneak across the border? But only highly coordinated terrorist teams could do much against the USA, the type that are possible to detect.


Duke

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by stsburns:
Its like deja-vu with you billio. Sometimes I think I know you better than myself.

In my personal oppinion, all of our rights were violated the second we made all of our computers talk to each other.

Boy, you sure are a bastion of knowledge!

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Awesome
The government gave us nylon back after WW2

While at the same time making hemp illegal.