one of the worst decisions in history!

[lapsedmodernist]

"Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Friday sharply denounced a Supreme Court decision that gave suspected terrorist detainees a right to seek their release in federal courts. "I think it's one of the worst decisions in history," McCain said. "It opens up a whole new chapter and interpretation of our constitution."

yes, right there along with Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson and Bush v. Gore.

Comments

[signamax.livejournal.com]

"made it very clear that these are enemy combatants, they are not citizens, they do not have the rights of citizens."

can't argue that.
why would like to put them through federal courts?

[signamax.livejournal.com]

and this
@"What happened yesterday was unprecedented," Graham said. "Americans are going to be shocked to find that that mastermind of 9-11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, now has the same legal standing as an American citizen"

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

that is so retarded. But I always love a mention of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed by the press--the same press that doesn't seem to remember that they covered his very dramatic, public death, after scribbling Allah is Great on the wall of a cave in his blood, two years before they covered his capture. It's like Weekend at Bernie's Orwell Style in the US Press.

[mjmj.livejournal.com]

Americans are going to be shocked to find that that mastermind of 9-11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, now has the same legal standing as an American citizen

i am shocked. given the political leadership in this country in both of the large parties, they'd be happy to give up pretty much all of the Bill of Rights, except the Second Amendment.

what happened yesterday was unprecedented

let's see:

1. trials were "precedented" for the prisoners at nuremberg, who were responsible for the deaths of tens of millions.

2. trials were "precedented" for charles manson and numerous other serial killers and mobsters.

3. trials continue to be "precedented" daily for all sorts of crimes. perhaps graham is suggesting that trials no longer be used -- simply execute people near the scene of crimes. their guilt is established by proximity.

what's a mystery is how graham managed to pass the bar exam and get into the military's JAG.

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

habeas corpus isn't limited to citizens. the constitution doesn't confer it on the citizens, like other civil privileges, it only puts limits on the removal of it. I guess unless you want to agree with Gonzalez, in his moronic reponse to Arlen Specter--and even there he doesn't say anything about citizenship specifically; he just says it's not guaranteed for anyone (citizens or non-citizens).

Until 2006 and the Military Commissions Act, habeas corpus was understood to be a right of everyone--not just citizens--the MCA specifically suspended it for non-citizens, so I find McCain invoking a recent, controversial, anti-constitutional by many accounts act, which, among other things, includes provisions to allow torture, to justify his position, as if it's some kind of long-standing historical precedent, and not self-serving legislation of a warmongering, illegal government, ridiculous.

[signamax.livejournal.com]

it is too complicated

in simple words - should terrorists be treated as americans or not?

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

in simple words, habeas corpus applies to all humans, not only americans. so your question reproduces the fallacy at the core of McCain's idiotic statement.

[signamax.livejournal.com]

habeas corpus applies to all humans - it is an obvious misconception
HC is not a part of internationally recognized human right, what i got from literature, right?

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

the fact that in 2006 there was an act specifically to revoke HC for non-citizens kind of shows that prior to 2006 HC was for everyone.

[signamax.livejournal.com]

in fact it just shows that it is not a big deal and that they can put it one way or another.

it also means that it is not amongst "basic" or internationally recognized human rights

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

no, it just shows that this "government" has no regard for international law. It's interesting that the same law that suspended HC authorized torture, freedom from which is an internationally recognized human right.

HC is the oldest statute in Anglo-Saxon law, it's older than the Magna Carta, it's the idea that you can challenge your imprisonment, regardless of what citizenship

it also means that it is not amongst "basic" or internationally recognized human rights

Amnesty International, HRW, as well as Articles 6-10 (10 is especially explictly relevant here) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights disagree with you.

Where do you get your constitutional law, Fox News?

[signamax.livejournal.com]

wiki

let me read more
but so far, this thing does not matter much to me

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

It's amazing how to a majority of Russian Immigrants human rights violations only matter when they happen to Jews. And yet they are as far as one can get from Pastor Niemoeller, in spirit.

[signamax.livejournal.com]

did I even mention jewish subject to you?
you don't know my opinion on that, so why do you assume?

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

you've mentioned recently on my journal that the biggest factor in deciding which politician you back for you is who gives the most money to Israel.

[signamax.livejournal.com]

wrong

I said nothing about israel

check what i said

[signamax.livejournal.com]

you know like you a lot (personally)
however, I would really like to ask you not to turn discussion subject into personal issue with me.
or
just don't bother enter the conversation.

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

I fail to see how human rights violations shouldn't be a personal issue for everyone.

[signamax.livejournal.com]

just wrong

[signamax.livejournal.com]

there is no connection that we might have different opinions and that you go through ancestry

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

ancestry has nothing to do with it, it's about cultural values, and how they play out in the way that the Jewish immigrant diaspora (especially from the former USSR) positions itself in the political landscape, what issues they care about and vote on.

I can't find the comment I am thinking of right now--maybe you said it in person? About caring about which candidate supports Israel more (financially).

[signamax.livejournal.com]

nothing even close
i am telling you - you are missing my point
i've never told you anything about financial or any other kind support to israel



you do not know my political view - obviously - at all
which do not correlate to former ussr stream at all

what we are talking about
me talking to your assumptions?

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

you know, it just makes you look bad to say that this thing doesn't matter much to you. I am sure that puts you in the majority of people, but really, it reflects badly on you.

so if I am misremembering w/r/t your position on Israel, please correct me.

[signamax.livejournal.com]

i care about human right
you may ask anya - she will confirm that I am very much PRO this in any form

however, a couple of matters
- first of all, again, you turn the subject into that I AM PERSONALLY BAD;
- second, that I think along wiht majority of people, strange enough, you don;t even know what I think
- third, you judge me and my opinion not on what you know but on what you misremembered

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

my last comment was based entirely on your own words that this thing doesn't matter much to you.

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

oh, I know, the entire Jewish half of my family are all over here, and THEY ARE ALL LIKE THAT. And their friends.

[signamax.livejournal.com]

The United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in the Suspension Clause, located in Article One, Section 9. It states:
“ The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it. ”

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

I didn't realize there was a rebellion or an invasion in 2006.

[flintultrasparc.livejournal.com]

Well... not in the territorial U.S. ;)

[mcfnord.livejournal.com]

America believes HC is a human right, as it deters tyranny.

[rezendi.livejournal.com]

Oh, come on. That is the dumbest thing I have read so far this month, and I spend more time than I should on the Internet.

A: false dichotomy between "terrorists" and "americans". B: false "treated as americans" straw man, an stance that no one is taking (except possibly Jose Padilla). C: false assumption that the people in question are terrorists, when the whole issue here is that no one has ever been allowed to judge that untested claim. D: hilarious claim that "it is too complicated", which is both false and moronic. I could go on.

It's possible to have a meaningful disagreement here, but you're clearly not even trying.

[signamax.livejournal.com]

are you trying to be polite here?

[cos]

That's not so "simple" - It is completely undisputed that hundreds of people who have been detained at Guantanamo were not terrorists or dangerous. It is very likely that many more who are there now are also neither terrorists nor dangerous. So the question is whether people (some of whom are almost certainly innocent of wrongdoing) should have their basic rights protected by our legal system or not.

[signamax.livejournal.com]

cos,
with all due respect, i was talking to the *author* whom I know personally. that is the only reason I am here.
I don't know you, I don't know the way you usually think and talk.
i disagree with very way you start the conversation "It is completely undisputed ...." after this phrase i did not bother read any further.
nothing is undisputed. everything is a matter for discussion and opinion.
if you are trying to tell me (using mentoring) about smth that is undisputed, you rather spare your time.
so, don;t bother answering.

PS
and yes, i am not a native speaker. do you know any language that you've started to speak after 30 on the level I know english?

[cos]

Interesting how "with all due respect" means "I have absolutely no respect for whatever anyone I don't know says". You won't even go so far as to actually assert that you believe that everyone who has been detained in Guantanamo has been a terrorist (which is very obviously and flatly false, it's a statement not even George Bush or Dick Cheney would say "yes" to in public). You go no further than "I don't know you so what you say doesn't matter".

I'm rather impressed by your idiocy but I'll leave you alone now.

[signamax.livejournal.com]

thank you, dude,
do you actually teach?

[mjmj.livejournal.com]

it's a shame that habeas corpus is the short-hand way to refer to this because it lets people respond with "well, that's just you and your lawyerin' ways." and that it is directed toward individuals instead of toward people with power.

people with political power do not have the right to throw individuals into prison without a (legal) reason. (no, "i don't like his face" is not a reason. or, redundantly, not a legal reason.)

that is the "right" being discussed here -- the constraint on governments to act with dictatorial power.

if shrubco thinks these people should be imprisoned, then they are required to present reasons for doing so. this can only be objectionable to shrubco for three reasons:

1. as usual, they are incompetent in this area, as in all others. they will lose nearly all cases. they have already had to release hundreds of "the worst of the worst". this will be yet again embarrassing to them.

2. they lose another political tool for scaring up votes and don't have anything to show for seven years of "sleuthing." where is bin laden? cue video of shrub joking about not being able to find wmd at the white house "correspondents" dinner.

3. torture on display. put the prisoners in a non-kangaroo court and the world will see and hear about how they have been tortured for the past six years.

[cos]

Almost all of the rights protected by the US Constitution are the rights of "people" not "citizens". The only part of the constitution which applies specifically to citizens is eligibility for certain federal offices (US Representative, US Senator, and President). The US Constitution does not address a right to vote (unfortunately), so that is left entirely up to the states, whose constitutions generally protect that right for citizens only (though AFAIK non of them prohibit allowing noncitizens to vote, and that practice used to be very common).

The founders very clearly intended for constitutional rights to apply to all people, and never intended for "citizenship" status to have anything to do with it. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld that view. It is not in any question, legally speaking, at all.

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

I know *sigh*

[jellomarx.livejournal.com]

Excuse me for interrupting, but as an Attorney I was attracted to your post. I found it compelling until you felt the necessity to bring the Jewish issue into the discussion. Why did you feel it necessary to inject this into the discussion?

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

because I know signamax personally, and I was alluding to an exchange I remembered us having that he remembered differently.

[jellomarx.livejournal.com]

In that case, I apologize for interrupting.

BTW I agree with your arguments regarding H. C..

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

no problem, I am sure it seemed out of left field, without context.

[cascadianista.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure what I'm going to do if he 'wins' in November. Buy stock in ammo companies, I guess.

Whoever wins is probably going to be a one term president. People are not going to deal well with continuing high fuel costs, and nobody is going to remember Cedar Rapids when corn and soy is 3x higher this winter, but they will connect it to ${president}.

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

yeah, things are kind of fucked.

[cos]

I was sure that whoever won in 2000 was going to be a one term president. Then we got 9/11.

[nearly-there.livejournal.com]

oh GOOD LORD.
Politics trumps good sense. As usual.

Yeah, we're fucked.

[mjmj.livejournal.com]

the other quote is shrub's "we'll abide by the decision", as if it is up to him to decide. i would have liked to have heard him say, "we're not going to abide by this decision. i'm the decider, and i'll decide what's best."

that would have been grounds for impeachment, but we know that despite there already being ample grounds for impeachment (and eventually imprisonment), nothing would be done. but the dictatorship would be laid bare.

it is not enough for obama to take office. pelosi, reid, hoyer and the other mouthpieces and obstructionists need to be removed.