Heller Decision

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

and just how would you go about doing that? Would the "detaining" officers testify, evidence collected and cataloged from the battle field, "crime" scene sanitized? War time is an entirely different proposition than peace time policing. Your mixing a fear of losing civil liberties based on an international war is misplaced.

Heck if we wanted to (maybe we should) we could label these as "pirates" and execute them on the spot without military tribunal or any other legal process. i don't recall the total degradation of civil liberties when these policies were imposed.

Think about what you're saying. Think about what our soldiers are defending. Then think about what you're saying one more time.

[Smith]

So what is your premise then? My premise is that this is war time prosecution and as such, the SCOTUS has subverted the entire history of judicial and constitutional review of this matter.

[Guest nraforlife]

Oh hell, kill em all and let God sort em out.

[The Rabbi]

You're the biggest dodger I've dealt with in a long time. How do you know these men are guilty, and why shouldn't the government be required to answer a habeas request?

I didn't realize these were POW's, but, yes, interfering with someone's liberty such that they aren't free to go as they wish is considered by some people to be "punishment".

I'm dodging??

I asked you how you know they are to be executed. You didnt answer but changed your wording. I asked you how you know they are being punished. You didnt answer. I dont care that some people think its punishment. My daughter thinks my not buying her a car is punishment. It is irrelevant.

The men have access to military tribunals. That is all they need. They are not like German tourists picked up on a morals charge in Miami. They are combatants.

So I ask you, who says they are to be executed? Who says they are being punished?

The Constitution gives authority to the President and Congress for conduct of war and foreign policy. Those two branches have acted and put in place regulations and laws. They are accountable to the people through elections. The Supreme Court has stepped in and second guessed those bodies. That is a problem. I would much rather trust elected representatives who are answerable to the people than appointed jurists holding a life time tenure.

[The Rabbi]

So what is your premise then? My premise is that this is war time prosecution and as such, the SCOTUS has subverted the entire history of judicial and constitutional review of this matter.

Your premise is correct. Abominable Hillbilly's premise is that the government of the US is evil and dedicated to destroying the rights of its citizens and this is one more step on that road.

I evacuate myself on that premise.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

So what is your premise then? My premise is that this is war time prosecution and as such, the SCOTUS has subverted the entire history of judicial and constitutional review of this matter.

These detainees are being prosecuted? Could've fooled me. It seems that a simple reading of charges, some supporting evidence, and the government simply answering its authority to hold them would be part of any legitimate prosecution.

What is the history of judicial and constitutional review here? I'm really not familiar with it.

I'm dodging??

I asked you how you know they are to be executed. You didnt answer but changed your wording. I asked you how you know they are being punished. You didnt answer. I dont care that some people think its punishment. My daughter thinks my not buying her a car is punishment. It is irrelevant.

The men have access to military tribunals. That is all they need. They are not like German tourists picked up on a morals charge in Miami. They are combatants.

So I ask you, who says they are to be executed? Who says they are being punished?

The Constitution gives authority to the President and Congress for conduct of war and foreign policy. Those two branches have acted and put in place regulations and laws. They are accountable to the people through elections. The Supreme Court has stepped in and second guessed those bodies. That is a problem. I would much rather trust elected representatives who are answerable to the people than appointed jurists holding a life time tenure.

This is what I've seen you do before. Dodge, distract, redirect. I asked you two questions, and you failed to answer both. Do you not have an answer? I'll reiterate:

How do you know these men are guilty, and why shouldn't the government be required to answer a habeas request?

[The Rabbi]

This is what I've seen you do before. Dodge, distract, redirect. I asked you two questions, and you failed to answer both. Do you not have an answer? I'll reiterate:

How do you know these men are guilty, and why shouldn't the government be required to answer a habeas request?

That would be an apt description of your responses.

I'll answer yours. How do I know? I dont. But there is a prima facie case that they are guilty based on the circumstances of their detainment. The soldiers at the scene thought they were guilty and that's good enough for me in this case. That isn't enough for a civilian court but we aren't dealing with civilians here. NSNate has already given reasons why that is.

Why shouldnt the gov't be required to answer a habeas corpus? As NSNate wrote, habeas is a right of citizens. These people are not citizens, they are enemy soldiers in war time. Actually they aren't even that, they are essentially spies, since they fight out of uniform, not in accord with the Geneva Convention. If we extend protections of the Geneva accord, much less rights of US Citizens, then we are fighting with one maybe two hands tied behind our back. Imagine a mujahideen bringing suit because the army used unnecessary force. Bringing suits for damages. It would make a mockery of the whole system.

OK, thats my response. Now you. WHo said anything about executions? What makes you think they are being punished?

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

I'll answer yours. How do I know? I dont.

You should probably stop right there if you have even the slightest respect for justice.

But there is a prima facie case that they are guilty based on the circumstances of their detainment.

You're familiar with the circumstances of every detainees detainment? Perhaps you could enlighten us. The government certainly won't.

The soldiers at the scene thought they were guilty and that's good enough for me in this case.

Where did you get this? List each detainee and the names of the soldiers alleging this evidence. Otherwise, you're simply repeating a rumor.

That isn't enough for a civilian court but we aren't dealing with civilians here. NSNate has already given reasons why that is.

NSNate offered the same assumptions you did. Again, how do you know these aren't simply civilians?

Why shouldnt the gov't be required to answer a habeas corpus? As NSNate wrote, habeas is a right of citizens. These people are not citizens, they are enemy soldiers in war time. Actually they aren't even that, they are essentially spies, since they fight out of uniform, not in accord with the Geneva Convention.

And you know this how? How do you know that each of these men is guilty of what you say?

If we extend protections of the Geneva accord, much less rights of US Citizens, then we are fighting with one maybe two hands tied behind our back.

The Geneva Accord doesn't specifically speak to people who are thusly accused. The GA speaks to POW's and to civilians.

Once again, let me make plain to you that habeas corpus is not a "right of a US Citizen". Habeas corpus is an extremely old legal concept that is a basic tenet of the legal systems of the entire civilized world. Without it, governments may simply abscond with people and never have to make any answer as to why they've done so. Some people have a slight problem with this sort of thing.

Imagine a mujahideen bringing suit because the army used unnecessary force. Bringing suits for damages. It would make a mockery of the whole system.

Well, if I imagine that, then I'd be imagining a civil action........which has absolutely NOTHING to do with what we're discussing.

So, what judicial standard shall we use to judge these men? One that doesn't require any evidence? I doubt you'd argue that, so you would agree that some level of evidence is necessary. If there's any evidence, then surely a habeas request could be easily answered.

I have absolutely no doubt that some of these detainees are the scum of the Earth and that they deserve to die and to die slowly. I also have absolutely no doubt that we, as a nation, have no moral authority when we refuse to act with integrity.

I'll answer your other questions in a separate post.

[The Rabbi]

So your point is that since we, the public, do not know the details of every single case then we must grant the detainees all the rights of US citizens.

Well, that's hard to argue with. I guess you're right. Thanks for the discussion and good luck with that one.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

I'm dodging??

Yes. You do it frequently. When you encounter a question that would be a wrench in your ineffective, pitiful machine, you swing around, duck, and start with the smoke and mirrors.

I asked you how you know they are to be executed. You didnt answer but changed your wording.

I "changed my wording" because I was being gracious. We don't know they'll be executed, right? But we assume there'll be some sort of sanction, if, as you say, they were shooting at US soldiers, right? Right. You act as though I forsook my entire line of argument and completely changed course.

BTW......do you think men found guilty of shooting at US soldiers should be executed? I do.

I asked you how you know they are being punished. You didnt answer.

Yes I did. The fact that you're choosing to be obtuse doesn't mean that I didn't answer. How about I accuse you of a crime, kidnap you, and lock you in my vault for a few years? We'll see if you deny that it could in any way be determined to have been "punishment".

I dont care that some people think its punishment. It is irrelevant.

So, because you don't think it's punishment, it's irrelevant? That pretty much sums up your approach to reality as far as I can tell.

The men have access to military tribunals. That is all they need. They are not like German tourists picked up on a morals charge in Miami.

Right. The German tourists would get to hear the charges against them, choose an attorney of their choice, and generally be permitted a fair trial.

The Constitution gives authority to the President and Congress for conduct of war and foreign policy.Those two branches have acted and put in place regulations and laws.

And the Constitution provides that the Executive and Legislative branches may be checked by the Judicial. It's almost like what's going on here is perfectly legal. Indeed, it's like someone a long time ago intended this sort of thing!

They are accountable to the people through elections.

Yeap. They're even held to account for the Supreme Court justices that they themselves appoint.

The Supreme Court has stepped in and second guessed those bodies.

You don't like the Constitution very much, do you?

I would much rather trust elected representatives who are answerable to the people than appointed jurists holding a life time tenure.

So, you don't like our system of checks and balances? Or you just don't like it in this instance? I'm really wanting to hear you sing the praises of our wonderful "elected representatives" that are answerable to the powerless half of our nation who actually votes.

.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

So your point is that since we, the public, do not know the details of every single case then we must grant the detainees all the rights of US citizens.

Well, that's hard to argue with. I guess you're right. Thanks for the discussion and good luck with that one.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: hold the hearings in secret if that's what they want to do. I have no problem with that so long as there is a neutral magistrate, and at least a few neutral witnesses of known-good character. Even the MCA of '06 provides for lawyers who have a high security clearance level.

[Guest jwp]

No Heller today. All that build up and then nothing.

[The Rabbi]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: hold the hearings in secret if that's what they want to do. I have no problem with that so long as there is a neutral magistrate, and at least a few neutral witnesses of known-good character. Even the MCA of '06 provides for lawyers who have a high security clearance level.

How would you define neutral? MAybe a French magistrate? Perhaps a Saudi?

There are judicial proceedings there based on military tribunals. There already is judicial process. That isn't what the suit was about.

[G27]

No Heller today. All that build up and then nothing.

Crap - that stinks.

How did you find out? Did they already release today's decision?

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

How would you define neutral?

A judge who isn't a member of the military.

There are judicial proceedings there based on military tribunals.

So, these are POW's?

There already is judicial process.

And it's a joke. Kangaroos abound.

That isn't what the suit was about.

This suit is about whether or not you can call someone a terrorist, incarcerate them, and never have to make a timely account of your actions.

Remember: it's already been stated that the WOT is global. It can be anywhere, anytime. Terrorists could be anywhere! I don't like knowing that all the government has to do is label someone a terrorist and suddenly all semblance of a fair judicial process is out the window.

What are out soldiers defending? Why are they putting their lives on the line?

[Guest jwp]

Crap - that stinks.

How did you find out? Did they already release today's decision?

SCOTUS blog. Next date for opinions to be handed down will be this coming Thursday (6/19/08) at 10am EDT.

[The Rabbi]

SCOTUS blog. Next date for opinions to be handed down will be this coming Thursday (6/19/08) at 10am EDT.

I predict they will save it for last as it will be the most contentious and make the biggest news splash.

Of course I've been wrong before. In 1978 as a matter of fact.

[Smith]

Remember: it's already been stated that the WOT is global. It can be anywhere, anytime. Terrorists could be anywhere! I don't like knowing that all the government has to do is label someone a terrorist and suddenly all semblance of a fair judicial process is out the window.

What are out soldiers defending? Why are they putting their lives on the line?

I have no more use for this. You have effectively argued against you own point at this juncture. You have it set in your mind you can't trust the government and then want that same government to save you through some sort of judicial review. It is emotional paranoia and there's just not much than can be done with that.

Bottom line, the detainees are being treated with far more civility and legalities than they warrant (even under our own laws) and the SCOTUS directly subverted Presidential and congressional auothrity in relation to war time policy and procedure. The constitutional authority you think you are championing in one hand, you are slapping with the other. Have a good day.

[G27]

SCOTUS blog. Next date for opinions to be handed down will be this coming Thursday (6/19/08) at 10am EDT.

Ahh, thanks - they must have updated it after I last checked it this AM...

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

I have no more use for this. You have effectively argued against you own point at this juncture. You have it set in your mind you can't trust the government and then want that same government to save you through some sort of judicial review. It is emotional paranoia and there's just not much than can be done with that.

Bottom line, the detainees are being treated with far more civility and legalities than they warrant (even under our own laws) and the SCOTUS directly subverted Presidential and congressional auothrity in relation to war time policy and procedure. The constitutional authority you think you are championing in one hand, you are slapping with the other. Have a good day.

No. I'm wanting one branch of the government to be able to check the other. That's not wishing one thing at one time, and wishing another thing at another time. That's merely wishing for constitutionality. Kinda like hoping SCOTUS strikes down the crime time policies of the DC gun banners.

How do you know that these detainees are being treated fairly based on what they "warrant"? Seriously. How do you know what they warrant? I feel confident that some of them are rightly accused, but neither one of us knows for sure. The government refuses to answer the question.

Again, for what do our soldiers fight?

[The Rabbi]

No. I'm wanting one branch of the government to be able to check the other. That's not wishing one thing at one time, and wishing another thing at another time. That's merely wishing for constitutionality. Kinda like hoping SCOTUS strikes down the crime time policies of the DC gun banners.

How do you know that these detainees are being treated fairly based on what they "warrant"? Seriously. How do you know what they warrant? I feel confident that some of them are rightly accused, but neither one of us knows for sure. The government refuses to answer the question.

Again, for what do our soldiers fight?

I re-read Americas First Freedom article on Heller this AM from one of the attorneys present at oral arguments. It seems clear that they will get a large majority to agree with an individual right but I expect a lot of individual opinions on the various questions of strict vs intermediate scrutiny etc. There will be some kind of consensus.

What I don't see happening is an upholding of DC's ban.

And for those of you bashing the Bush administration, this wouldn't have been possible without him.

[Fallguy]

Again, for what do our soldiers fight?

IMO the are fighting to try and prevent some crazies from flying airliners into buildings again. Or from committing some other act of terror on US soil or against US interest.

If that means a few deemed as enemy combatants have to be held until things are sorted out...then so be it.

Despite what has been said in the press or by the government in attempts to be PC, I don't think our soliders are fighting to try and spread democracy or peace or to create a better life for the people in any other country. If they are though, it is only to the extent that it serves our purpose to protect ourselves from future attacks.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

IMO the are fighting to try and prevent some crazies from flying airliners into buildings again. Or from committing some other act of terror on US soil or against US interest.

If that means a few deemed as enemy combatants have to be held until things are sorted out...then so be it.

Despite what has been said in the press or by the government in attempts to be PC, I don't think our soliders are fighting to try and spread democracy or peace or to create a better life for the people in any other country. If they are though, it is only to the extent that it serves our purpose to protect ourselves from future attacks.

I agree. They're defending our nation, and, by extention, all the nations of the world who are our friends in holding high the same ideals that we profess.

So, what makes our nation worth defending? To me, it's its uniqueness in all the history of the world. Never was there any other nation that ever so doggedly sought to recognize and defend the rights of man.

To me, denying the rule of law for these detainees is nothing but an invalidation of the principles for which our men and women in uniform are currently struggling.

[Guest grimel]

Remember: it's already been stated that the WOT is global. It can be anywhere, anytime. Terrorists could be anywhere! I don't like knowing that all the government has to do is label someone a terrorist and suddenly all semblance of a fair judicial process is out the window.

What are out soldiers defending? Why are they putting their lives on the line?

Umm, they aren't on US soil, they aren't US citizens. They aren't members of a national army. They were captured on the battlefield.

So, explain to me just how they are afforded rights under the US Constitution? Per this asinine ruling, everyone in the world has rights under the US Constitution and should be brought here for trial.

[The Rabbi]

Umm, they aren't on US soil, they aren't US citizens. They aren't members of a national army. They were captured on the battlefield.

So, explain to me just how they are afforded rights under the US Constitution? Per this asinine ruling, everyone in the world has rights under the US Constitution and should be brought here for trial.

But if we're trying to bring democracy to the world then its only fitting that we start by showing them what rights are and granting them. Right?? Right??