Indefinite Military Detention in America

[GarfieldtheCat]

No one gets to ignore the law. Even illegals are not allowed to ignore it.

No one claimed they did not.

I am not.

O RLY? Did I misread this quote that you said?

If you are here illegally, then I do not care about your "rights". Want rights, come here legally.

So if you claim that no one ignores the law, why do you explicitly state that you don't care about their rights? Care to explain?

You specifically state that someone needs to be legal to have rights? Lie much?

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

They are just fear mongering. The Supreme Court already ruled that US Citizens get to put forth a Writ of Habeus Corpus and therefor get a trial by jury.

Is it their fund drive time again?

Let's see:

-On one hand , we have an anonymous internet troll claiming this isn't an issue.

-On the other hand, we have an experienced lawyer, who is a senior lawyer of the ACLU saying this could be a problem. And we also have two people that helped write the bill, who claim that US citizens get locked up without trial.

Now, who to believe? That sure is a tough question. /sarcasm

 

[cybrsage]

Read the actual law for yourself. It is posted in this thread for ease of reading and understanding. Arm yourself with knowledge instead of blindly believing what you are told.

Then go read about the US Supreme Court case of Padilla VS US to find out about US Citizens being allowed to invoke a Writ of Habeus Corpus. You will discover that citizens DO have this right.

With the US Supreme Court ruling (very recent, and very related I should add) as precident, it is obvious that any use of this law to arrest US Citizens and hold them indefinately cannot happen.

Now, there is nothing preventing the government from snatching people and taking them away illegally...but they can do that no matter how many laws are made...hence the illegal part.

 

[cybrsage]

O RLY? Did I misread this quote that you said?



So if you claim that no one ignores the law, why do you explicitly state that you don't care about their rights? Care to explain?

You specifically state that someone needs to be legal to have rights? Lie much?

You are reading a lot into it. I never claimed they do not have some (for example, the right to life unless removed by due process - cannot murder them), I simply claimed I do not care about them.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

You are reading a lot into it. I never claimed they do not have some (for example, the right to life unless removed by due process - cannot murder them), I simply claimed I do not care about them.

So again, why do you want to ignore the constitution and bill of rights?

You claim everyone follows the law but then you say you want to ignore it? LOL

You special or something? Another one of those the "laws apply to others, not to me" people? Can't have it both ways.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Read the actual law for yourself. It is posted in this thread for ease of reading and understanding. Arm yourself with knowledge instead of blindly believing what you are told.

Then go read about the US Supreme Court case of Padilla VS US to find out about US Citizens being allowed to invoke a Writ of Habeus Corpus. You will discover that citizens DO have this right.

With the US Supreme Court ruling (very recent, and very related I should add) as precident, it is obvious that any use of this law to arrest US Citizens and hold them indefinately cannot happen.

Now, there is nothing preventing the government from snatching people and taking them away illegally...but they can do that no matter how many laws are made...hence the illegal part.

L2Read? Are you a constitutional lawyer LOL? Didn't think so.

Did you read my post on who to believe? Anonymous troll or experienced lawyer? I'll go with a real person every time.

A senior lawyer of the ACLU, who has WAY more experience then you, feels this could be a problem. I certainly think a lawyer understands USSC rulings and federal law more then you. Secondly, two of the sponsors of the bill both believe that US citizens can and should be locked up with a trial.

So while we don't know for sure, those are some huge red flags being waved, with only an anonymous troll defending it. So I think I will believe the red flags from the people who actually know what they are talking about.

Can you provide any evidence that this isn't a problem? Any quotes from real lawyers saying it can't happen?

 

[Rainsford]

Read the actual law for yourself. It is posted in this thread for ease of reading and understanding. Arm yourself with knowledge instead of blindly believing what you are told.

Then go read about the US Supreme Court case of Padilla VS US to find out about US Citizens being allowed to invoke a Writ of Habeus Corpus. You will discover that citizens DO have this right.

With the US Supreme Court ruling (very recent, and very related I should add) as precident, it is obvious that any use of this law to arrest US Citizens and hold them indefinately cannot happen.

Now, there is nothing preventing the government from snatching people and taking them away illegally...but they can do that no matter how many laws are made...hence the illegal part.

I don't see how the Supreme Court's rulings makes THIS law any better. The end result will almost certainly be that this particular law is unconstitutional, so we don't have to worry too much, but it's still troubling that it's being pushed at all, no? Our government wants the authority to have the military indefinitely detain anyone, anywhere, including US citizens. Should I really feel that much better if the Supreme Court says they're out of their minds?

 

[Nintendesert]

I don't see how the Supreme Court's rulings makes THIS law any better. The end result will almost certainly be that this particular law is unconstitutional, so we don't have to worry too much, but it's still troubling that it's being pushed at all, no? Our government wants the authority to have the military indefinitely detain anyone, anywhere, including US citizens. Should I really feel that much better if the Supreme Court says they're out of their minds?

And currently the Executive branch has the ability to kill as US citizen without a trial. I'd rather be detained by the US military then hit with a hellfire missile.

 

[Craig234]

What a disaster. It goes to show how easy it is for anti-freedom leaders to use 'battlefield' concessions on rights to expand them to 'the homeland'.

Only 7 Senators voted against the bill - a lot of disappointing votes for progressives.

Boxer will hear from me (I've given up on Feinstein).

Coburn (R-OK)
Harkin (D-IA)
Lee (R-UT)
Merkley (D-OR)
Paul (R-KY)
Sanders (I-VT)
Wyden (D-OR)

At least Obama says he'll veto it, though his reasons are dubious.

Thank goodness for the ACLU opposing it.

 

[Zebo]

How else are they going to round us up into FEMA death camps that are all over the country and gas us?

 

[cwjerome]

And currently the Executive branch has the ability to kill as US citizen without a trial. I'd rather be detained by the US military then hit with a hellfire missile.

Then don't wage war against the US overseas. Easy right?

Not so much for potential detainment from the military in our own country. Seems a lot more dangerous to freedom for me.

 

[Craig234]

Removing rights like this is only prevented by the Supreme Court.

What did I say is underestimated as a key issue in voting for President...

 

[Zebo]

Who supports imperial presidency more? Seems justices of both parties do.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

So again, why do you want to ignore the constitution and bill of rights?

You claim everyone follows the law but then you say you want to ignore it? LOL

You special or something? Another one of those the "laws apply to others, not to me" people? Can't have it both ways.

Still waiting on a response on this from cybrtroll....I mean cybrsage.

Come to think of it, we are still waiting on anything sort of evidence that supports his concept that the proposed bill isn't a problem as well. (other then himself, of course)

 

[cybrsage]

So again, why do you want to ignore the constitution and bill of rights?

I am not. You pretending I am does not magically make it so.

You claim everyone follows the law but then you say you want to ignore it? LOL

Never claimed that either. We have prisons full of people who do not follow the law.

You special or something? Another one of those the "laws apply to others, not to me" people? Can't have it both ways.

It is easy to argue against points you create all by yourself, isn't it?

 

[cybrsage]

I don't see how the Supreme Court's rulings makes THIS law any better. The end result will almost certainly be that this particular law is unconstitutional, so we don't have to worry too much, but it's still troubling that it's being pushed at all, no? Our government wants the authority to have the military indefinitely detain anyone, anywhere, including US citizens. Should I really feel that much better if the Supreme Court says they're out of their minds?

I am fairly certain that those crafting the bill remember Padilla vs US. I could be wrong, Congress could be surprisingly ignorant of that major case.

With this case so fresh, and the precident set by the case (will any lower court rule the opposite of a Surpreme Court precident?), we can rest assured that no US Person will be detained and denied the use of a Writ of Habeus Corpus.

Is it possible the government will do it? Sure, but it is also possible they will snatch someone out of their home, shoot them, and dump their body in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.

Basically, since it is illegal to do hold a US Person indefinately, even if this bill becomes law, we do not have to worry about it. If the government is going to do illegal things, they will do them regardless of the laws in place (hence it being an illegal act).

 

[woolfe9999]

I am fairly certain that those crafting the bill remember Padilla vs US. I could be wrong, Congress could be surprisingly ignorant of that major case.

Unless you're thinking about a different Padilla, I'm afraid you're mistaken. Jose Padilla did indeed file for a writ of habeas corpus and the Second Circuit ruled that the POTUS had no authority to detain an American citizen without trial. However, the SCOTUS subsequently threw out Padilla's petition on technical grounds, declining to reach the issue of the Constitutionality of the detention. Padilla then filed a second petition, correcting the procedural errors he made in the first petition. However, while that petition was pending, he was formally indicted and put on trial, which mooted the petition. In sum, the issue was never resolved by the SCOTUS, and there is no binding precedent on it.

If you know of a SCOTUS ruling that I am unaware of, please provide a link.

 

[Zebo]

Read the actual law for yourself. It is posted in this thread for ease of reading and understanding. Arm yourself with knowledge instead of blindly believing what you are told.

Then go read about the US Supreme Court case of Padilla VS US to find out about US Citizens being allowed to invoke a Writ of Habeus Corpus. You will discover that citizens DO have this right.

With the US Supreme Court ruling (very recent, and very related I should add) as precident, it is obvious that any use of this law to arrest US Citizens and hold them indefinately cannot happen.

Now, there is nothing preventing the government from snatching people and taking them away illegally...but they can do that no matter how many laws are made...hence the illegal part.

Don't be fooled by that section 1032 of the bill, because section 1031 nullifies that with authorization clause. The end result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.

You don't have to believe me, listen to what one of the bill’s authors says - “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.” http://www.c-spanvideo.org/appearance/600840428

Everyone should understand what's going on here too. With wars winding down, terror down, what ever for? Why now? I'll tell you what for. As the USA descends into economic abyss and a total meltdown I've been warning of for years, the Govt will be interning millions of Americans and needs the power to do so.

 

[cybrsage]

Unless you're thinking about a different Padilla, I'm afraid you're mistaken. Jose Padilla did indeed file for a writ of habeas corpus and the Second Circuit ruled that the POTUS had no authority to detain an American citizen without trial. However, the SCOTUS subsequently threw out Padilla's petition on technical grounds, declining to reach the issue of the Constitutionality of the detention. Padilla then filed a second petition, correcting the procedural errors he made in the first petition. However, while that petition was pending, he was formally indicted and put on trial, which mooted the petition. In sum, the issue was never resolved by the SCOTUS, and there is no binding precedent on it.

If you know of a SCOTUS ruling that I am unaware of, please provide a link.

Ah, sorry. I was thinking of Hamdi:

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) was a U.S. Supreme Court decision reversing the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition brought on behalf of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen being detained indefinitely as an "illegal enemy combatant." The Court recognized the power of the government to detain enemy combatants, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial judge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld

Hamdi is the precident. There is also Rasul, but with opposite effect due to not being a citizen:

Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision establishing that the U.S. court system has the authority to decide whether foreign nationals (non-U.S. citizens) held in Guantanamo Bay were wrongfully imprisoned. The 6-3 ruling on June 28, 2004, reversed a District Court decision, which held that the Judiciary had no jurisdiction to handle wrongful imprisonment cases involving foreign nationals who are held in Guantanamo Bay.

Question of jurisdiction
The sole question before the Supreme Court in this case is whether foreign nationals in Guantanamo Bay may invoke habeas corpus (wrongful detainment) at all. Either U.S. citizenship or court jurisdiction is necessary for this invocation, and since the detainees are not citizens, U.S. court jurisdiction over Guantanamo Bay was at issue. According to the U.S. treaty with Cuba over Guantanamo Bay, the U.S. has "complete jurisdiction" over the base, but Cuba has "ultimate sovereignty." The government alleges that the fact that the treaty says this implies that the courts have no jurisdiction; the detainees argue that regardless of what the treaty says, the U.S. has full legal control in the area and should have jurisdiction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasul_v._Bush

US citizens are safe, there is a Supreme Court ruling which set precident. Non-citizens are NOT safe, as there is a Supreme Court ruling which set that precident as well.

I cannot say what the ruling for a US Person would be, since that has yet to be tried.

 

[cybrsage]

You forgot about bail, and prosecutors' obligation to make a case against the defendant in a court of law to a jury of their peers. the accused need to prove nothing, as the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.

Minor technical matters relating to a piece of paper some old dudes came up with a coupla hundred years ago, that's all. Nothing of importance.

Bail can be denied...and it routinely is. So unless you are saying the US purposefully puts innocent people in jail, you have to say we are treating the people as guilty until they go to court and convince a jury they are not guilty...at which point they get to go home again.

 

[cybrsage]

Don't be fooled by that section 1032 of the bill, because section 1031 nullifies that with authorization clause. The end result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.

You don't have to believe me, listen to what one of the bill’s authors says - “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.” http://www.c-spanvideo.org/appearance/600840428

Everyone should understand what's going on here too. With wars winding down, terror down, what ever for? Why now? I'll tell you what for. As the USA descends into economic abyss and a total meltdown I've been warning of for years, the Govt will be interning millions of Americans and needs the power to do so.

It does not matter who says what about it, with the exception of the Supreme Court. They have already ruled in the matter for both citizens and non-citizens.

 

[Onceler]

Notice that was FDR's crap. Since it was a leftist who did it they don't dcream bloody murder.

 

[woolfe9999]

Ah, sorry. I was thinking of Hamdi:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld

Hamdi is the precident. There is also Rasul, but with opposite effect due to not being a citizen:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasul_v._Bush

US citizens are safe, there is a Supreme Court ruling which set precident. Non-citizens are NOT safe, as there is a Supreme Court ruling which set that precident as well.

I cannot say what the ruling for a US Person would be, since that has yet to be tried.

I appreciate the links as I had not read either case. Unfortunately, under Hamdi, U.S. Citizens who are detained as "enemy combatants" have only very limited rights. They can have a military tribunal to determine whether they are "enemy combatants," in which the military need not prove its allegations beyond reasonable doubt and there are essentially no formal rules of evidence. This is more like a probable cause hearing than a trial. This isn't a trial to determine guilt or innocence which would result either in acquittal or conviction with a specific punishment. Rather, if the tribunal finds that the miliitary has met its minimal burden to prove you are an "enemy combatant," then you can be held indefinitely without a trial, meaning the state need not ever be held to the standard of proof required in criminal trials. While the Hamdi ruling is better than nothing, it falls far short of what it should be. Only Scalia and Stevens got it right on that one.

This kind of erosion of our civil liberties is perhaps the most tragic casualty of 911. Clearly the terrorists - dead or incarcerated as most of them now are - nontheless achieved their objective.


- wolf

 

[Zebo]

It does not matter who says what about it, with the exception of the Supreme Court. They have already ruled in the matter for both citizens and non-citizens.

What is the SC gonna do? break down the FEMA compounds with their old selves? Enforcing the law is up to the president not SC justices and when SHTF President will ignore them anyway and has before in American History.

 

[cybrsage]

Currently, the punishment for being an illegal combatant is being held until the war (or whatever one wants to call the combat) is over. I think we should create a punishment guideline for those who are labeled as illegal combatants. That way citizens can be turned over to civilian courts after being labeled as such.

At least citizens are allowed to get a review by a judge. Not enough protection, imo, but it is something. My problem is after they are labeled.

Personally, I think we need to revamp both domestic and international rules on what should be done with illegal enemy combatants. I want a new Geneva Convention agreement on how to deal with them. Having this many, this often, was never forseen by anyone.