2008-09-08T15:03:11Z http://ipthoughts.com/comments/atom.aspx Quick Blog tag:ipthoughts.com,2008-09-04:1338466 Rand Bateman 2008-09-04T12:53:44Z 2008-09-04T12:53:44Z
Its at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_best_defense_is_a_good_offense

Rand]]> tag:ipthoughts.com,2008-09-04:1338447 Jason Alba http://www.JibberJobber.com/blog 2008-09-04T12:52:38Z 2008-09-04T12:48:25Z
- jason]]> tag:ipthoughts.com,2008-08-21:1300658 Tad 2008-08-21T18:48:07Z 2008-08-21T18:48:07Z tag:ipthoughts.com,2008-06-27:1153444 Rand Bateman 2008-06-27T13:10:10Z 2008-06-27T12:28:14Z
Unfortunately, opinions and facts are not the same things.

I did not enter into that agreement, yet still enjoy its protections.

Yes, you entered into that agreement by being born or naturalized a U.S. Citizen.  You are free to get out of that agreement by renouncing your U.S. Citizenship and moving to one of the many countries who will just sit by and let terrorists kill people because they cannot be bothered trying to stop them.  I have spent about 6 years abroad and I kiss the ground every time I return to the U.S.

the Constitution limits what the federal government can do in general, regardless of the person's nationality or identity

Where does it say this?  I see several references to U.S. citizens, but see none to extending its protections to foreigners.  Do we have an obligation to ensure that people in foreign countries are allowed to keep weapons?  We can barely get a 5/4 decision that U.S. citizens have a right despite the plane language of the Second Amendment.  Can the federal government impose an income tax on people who are outside the United States and not U.S. Citizens?  It would sure help the deficit.

Are we Americans immune from our actions towards foreigners, simply because they don't share our burdens?

No, we are subject to laws just as everybody else is.  The special advantage that we have is that we have a super law that prevents our government from doing to us with many other governments routinely do to their citizens.  We paid for that agreement with American lives and got it because men who could be king gave up that option so their countrymen could set an example for the world.   We are not perfect, but we have spilled the blood of over 1 million of our men to help give that opportunity to others.  So why do we now put those same brave men and women below terrorists when it comes to rights?

This is the first time in history that the Supreme Court has held that an enemy combatant has the right to petition civil courts to challenge his or her detention. - That's because this is the first time (of which I'm aware) that the President has tried to treat foreigners like scum with no rights whatsoever

Apparently we took different history classes.  I remember that there were some "foreigners" - currently properly referred to as Native Americans who had a few of their rights violated - life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc. etc. etc..   In fact, I do not think you can - with a straight face - compare club GITMO to anything that Native Americans faced.  I think Andrew Jackson was kind of set on treating them "like scum with no rights whatsoever."

More resent history has a few examples.   Franklin D. Roosevelt, a hero to many, sent a bunch of foreigners to live here in Utah at a place called Topaz.  Oh, never mind, they weren't actually foreigners.  They were American who just looked like foreigners because they committed the sin of having Japanese ancestors.   They were held despite having done nothing wrong.  Their living conditions would make club GITMO look like a hotel.   Apparently, the concern is that it is foreigners who are being treated "like scum with no rights whatsoever."

I have plenty of disagreements with Bush, but I find it interesting that those who condemn him on civil liberties will praise FDR, Woodrow Wilson and others who ran all over civil liberties.   If Bush is set on treating foreigners "like scum with no rights whatsoever", he has a long way to go to catch up with some of those his critics worship.

If you compare club GITMO against even U.S. actions during prior wars - I think you would find that the detainees are treated pretty well.

Applying the standard you set forth would mean that all of the German POWs, including the Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg trials would have had Habeas Corpus rights. -  And their petitions could have easily been rejected

At the end of WWII there were more than 400,000 German, Italian and Japanese POWs in the United States.
There were millions more in Europe and Japan.  If each has Habeas Corpus rights, it would have overwhelmed the U.S. judicial system.  Of course, the detainees at club GITMO received hearings that were approved both by the President and by Congress.  A large number have been released.  I recently heard that 50 of those who had been released had been taken again on the battle field trying to kill U.S. troops.  Why is a military hearing any worse than a civil one?  What federal judges are going to ride the circuit in Afghanistan or Iraq hearing Habeas petitions?

Why should enemy combatants - people who will not even follow the rules of war - get better treatment than our men and women in uniform?

Let me ask you this instead: Some individuals have been in prison for six years, unable to challenge their detention or see the alleged evidence of their crime. Should the government, in your mind, be free to keep them locked up for good? Should they have no recourse for seeking their own release? Time and time again we've seen the government mistakenly detaining an individual -- should the innocent individuals have no opportunity to challenge their sentence?

First, why not answer my question?  I am happy to answer yours.

Your question is based on a fundamental fallacy that the individuals are unable to challenge their detention.  (Kind of like - When did you stop beating your wife?)  The prisoners are able to challenge their detentions - much more so that real POWs in any prior war.  The issue before the Supreme Court was not whether detainees could challenge their detentions, it is whether they get to do so in U.S. civil courts.  Numerous detainees at GITMO have successfully challenged their detentions and been released.   Yep, some of them are again shooting at our troops.

So once again, why do enemy combatants - those who fight in violation of the Geneva Convention - get better rights than our men and women they are shooting at?  Seems kind of silly to me.  ]]> tag:ipthoughts.com,2008-06-27:1152799 Connor http://www.connorboyack.com 2008-06-27T11:56:15Z 2008-06-27T08:50:44Z Those who are not citizens of the United States or have become resident aliens did not enter into that agreement and are thus not beneficiaries of it.

I did not enter into that agreement, yet still enjoy its protections. Sure, I'm a citizen, but the guarantees of the Constitution nowhere limit themselves solely to citizens of the US government. Instead, and as the author of that cited statement wrote, the Constitution limits what the federal government can do in general, regardless of the person's nationality or identity.

Foreigners have none of the burdens of U.S. Citizens or resident aliens and should not get the benefits.

So how are they to be treated? Are we Americans immune from our actions towards foreigners, simply because they don't share our burdens? May they be raped, murdered, or robbed, simply because they aren't citizens? I'm not so sure that this argument makes sense.

This is the first time in history that the Supreme Court has held that an enemy combatant has the right to petition civil courts to challenge his or her detention.

That's because this is the first time (of which I'm aware) that the President has tried to treat foreigners like scum with no rights whatsoever.

Applying the standard you set forth would mean that all of the German POWs, including the Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg trials would have had Habeas Corpus rights.

And their petitions could have easily been rejected. Remember, the burden of proof for showing somebody to be guilty is on the government, not the individual. If Uncle Sam wants to lock somebody up, it must have a good reason (enough, say, to convince a judge).

Regarding the rights of foreigners under the Constitution and what the government is able to do with respect to their detention and prosecution, please read this">http://www.constitution.org/col/foreign_rights.htm">this article.

(It is interesting that your website relies on the 10th Amendment - which has been virtually written out of the Constitution. When was the last time a Federal Government program was held to violate the 10th Amendment?).

When was the last time the Federal Government heeded the Constitution at all? Just because it's the status quo does not make it right.

Why should enemy combatants - people who will not even follow the rules of war - get better treatment than our men and women in uniform?

Let me ask you this instead: Some individuals have been in prison for six years, unable to challenge their detention or see the alleged evidence of their crime. Should the government, in your mind, be free to keep them locked up for good? Should they have no recourse for seeking their own release? Time and time again we've seen the government mistakenly detaining an individual -- should the innocent individuals have no opportunity to challenge their sentence?]]> tag:ipthoughts.com,2008-06-27:1152394 Rand Bateman 2008-06-27T06:02:33Z 2008-06-27T06:02:33Z tag:ipthoughts.com,2008-06-26:1152036 Roane 2008-06-27T06:00:46Z 2008-06-26T23:40:20Z
My understanding was that when in doubt, apprehended combatants were to be treated as semi-POWs until a Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) hearing was held to determine the status of the combatant as either lawful or not. Controversy exists where there is no limit to how long it may take to have one of these hearings. In the meantime since their status is up in the air, the apprehended are unable to appeal to any court since lawful and unlawful combatants have different rights to appeal to different courts and semi-POWs have no right to appeal to any court. Would it not be easier (relatively speaking of course) to enable more efficient or at least facilitate more frequent CSRT hearings? The ambiguity surrounding the state of semi-POWs seems to be the trouble spot.]]> tag:ipthoughts.com,2008-06-26:1151988 Rand Bateman 2008-06-26T23:13:40Z 2008-06-26T23:13:40Z
Point well taken.  However, it is my recollection that Ex Parte Merryman found Lincoln's action unconstitutional because Lincoln had acted unilaterally without an act of Congress.  I agree with the decision on that basis and think it would only be extreme circumstances where Habeas Corpus would be suspended for U.S. Citizens or resident aliens in the U.S.

In the present case, Congress approved the Military tribunals for the Gitmo crowd.  Thus, my fundamental problem still stands.  Why should enemy combatants - people who will not even follow the rules of war - get better treatment than our men and women in uniform? ]]> tag:ipthoughts.com,2008-06-26:1151965 Sarah 2008-06-26T23:07:44Z 2008-06-26T23:01:03Z
The Supreme Court overruled Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in Ex parte Merryman. So while it is true that Lincoln basically went ahead with the suspension anyway, he certainly was NOT sanctioned by the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Taney said, "Such is the case now before me, and I can only say that if the authority which the constitution has confided to the judiciary department and judicial officers, may thus, upon any pretext or under any circumstances, be usurped by the military power, at its discretion, the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found."]]> tag:ipthoughts.com,2008-06-26:1150865 Rand Bateman 2008-06-26T14:41:59Z 2008-06-26T14:39:27Z
Nice talking points but it overlooks about 230 years of legal precedent.   The Constitution was established as an agreement between the peoples of the several states and the Government that they authorized to have power over them.  Those who are not citizens of the United States or have become resident aliens did not enter into that agreement and are thus not beneficiaries of it.   Foreigners have none of the burdens of U.S. Citizens or resident aliens and should not get the benefits. 

This is the first time in history that the Supreme Court has held that an enemy combatant has the right to petition civil courts to challenge his or her detention.  To the contrary, the courts have repeatedly held that Habeas Corpus does not apply to non-citizens or to those outside the United States.  Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus for U.S. citizens during the Civil War.

Applying the standard you set forth would mean that all of the German POWs, including the Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg trials would have had Habeas Corpus rights.  During World War I and World War II, there was no rebellion or invasion of the United States.  Remember, Hawaii was not a state at the time the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.  Perhaps the Courts should have let all of those soldiers clog our courts with petitions for release.  9/11 was as much an invasion as Pearl Harbor, and it was on U.S. soil.

Applying the Constitution as broadly as you seek to would render fighting a war impossible.  Enemy soldiers would have a right to keep their weapons under the second amendment.  Soldiers would have to get permission of a home owner to stay in the house (something I highly doubt they did in Germany in 1945).  Soldiers would need to get a search warrant to enter a building or must have probable cause that a soldier from an opposing army had committed a crime prior to taking them into custody.  (I have to wait until he shoots at me before I can apprehend him).  Under the Fifth Amendment, a soldier could not kill an enemy combatant without due process of law - even though the American soldier is expressly not entitled to the same.  Likewise, Germany could have sued the U.S. for the damage done to German property by our bombing.

Enemy soldiers would be entitled to a speedy trial and would be able to compel the attendance of witnesses (i.e. those who took them into custody).  (Kind of hard to fight a war if you have to go be a witness everytime you take an enemy combatant into custody).  Enemy soldiers could simply make bail under the Eighth Amendment and go back to the battle field.  Of course, our soldiers would have to learn multiple languages so that they could give enemy combatants their Miranda rights in a language they can understand.   We could not get information from enemy combatants until they had a court appointed lawyer.

I believe in treating people fairly and believe that prisoners of war should have the right to challenge their detention in a military court.  If a military court is good enough for our men and women in uniform, it is good enough for anyone else taken on the battlefield.
 
(It is interesting that your website relies on the 10th Amendment - which has been virtually written out of the Constitution.  When was the last time a Federal Government program was held to violate the 10th Amendment?).

]]>