[subego]

So, let's toss this around.

Habeas corpus - Wikipedia

Suspension in the United States during the War on Terrorism - Wikipedia

So far, I have two observations.

1) People who are complaining about this aren't putting much focus on this only relating to non-US citizens. I'm not saying this is the most important point, but I would say it is important enough to be addressed.

2) I can't think of a (the) scenario where suspending habeas corpus does anything but allow illegal detentions, even if it is only foreigners. In other words, how is suspending habeas corpus for these people helping? By suspending it, what exactly are we protecting against?

[subego]

Well, Olbermann, who's been on this for several days now, finally addressed #1, though he did so in a really prickish way.

The gist is that lacking the right to go before a judge, if you were in fact an American citizen, there wouldn't be a whole hell of a lot you could do about it.

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego 

So, let's toss this around.

Habeas corpus - Wikipedia

Suspension in the United States during the War on Terrorism - Wikipedia

So far, I have two observations.

1) People who are complaining about this aren't putting much focus on this only relating to non-US citizens. I'm not saying this is the most important point, but I would say it is important enough to be addressed.

2) I can't think of a (the) scenario where suspending habeas corpus does anything but allow illegal detentions, even if it is only foreigners. In other words, how is suspending habeas corpus for these people helping? By suspending it, what exactly are we protecting against?

We are protecting against these folks being released because of insufficient LEGAL testimony or evidence to mount a traditional prosecution.

Basically, you know they are guilty but you can't prove it.

But the danger of allowing them to go free is too much of a hazard to America's interests, our personnel and the interest of global peace and freedom.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by marden 

We are protecting against these folks being released because of insufficient LEGAL testimony or evidence to mount a traditional prosecution.

Basically, you know they are guilty but you can't prove it.

But the danger of allowing them to go free is too much of a hazard to America's interests, our personnel and the interest of global peace and freedom.

Yes, it's a basic tenant of our legal system and one of the most important aspects of our freedom that those accused of crimes are considered innocent until proven guilty.

If you can't prove that they're guilty, then you can't reasonably believe that they're a danger.

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden 

We are protecting against these folks being released because of insufficient LEGAL testimony or evidence to mount a traditional prosecution.

Basically, you know they are guilty but you can't prove it.

But the danger of allowing them to go free is too much of a hazard to America's interests, our personnel and the interest of global peace and freedom.

I'm not necessarily convinced this is a valid goal, but let's say for the sake of argument I am.

Aren't there ways of achieving this goal that are far less open to abuse?

[marden]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Yes, it's a basic tenant of our legal system and one of the most important aspects of our freedom that those accused of crimes are considered innocent until proven guilty.

If you can't prove that they're guilty, then you can't reasonably believe that they're a danger.

Do we and should we automatically assume that we will extend our rights to those who not only don't believe in those rights but who are fighting to do away with those very rights?

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not necessarily convinced this is a valid goal, but let's say for the sake of argument I am.

Aren't there ways of achieving this goal that are far less open to abuse?

What do you mean? What kind of abuse?

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden 

What do you mean? What kind of abuse?

Off the top of my head? Locking up a US citizen.

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego 

Off the top of my head? Locking up a US citizen.

Show me where that is allowed.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20061017.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0061017-1.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/nationalsecurity/

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden 

Show me where that is allowed.

If it was allowed it wouldn't be abuse, now would it?

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by marden 

Do we and should we automatically assume that we will extend our rights to those who not only don't believe in those rights but who are fighting to do away with those very rights?

Only if we want to go on believing that we are truly better people than the ones we're fighting against.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

Only if we want to go on believing that we are truly better people than the ones we're fighting against.

Point taken.

Here's a few lines from an Ann Coulter column:

Gen. George Washington tried Major John Andre, Benedict Arnold's British co-conspirator, by military tribunal and ordered Andre hanged within 10 days of his capture. Nazi saboteurs, including an American citizen, captured on U.S. soil during World War II were tried in secret by military commission and promptly executed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Nuremberg trials were a form of military tribunal.

But Democrats think military tribunals aren't good enough for the terrorists plotting to kill Americans today. Liberals are going to make the terrorists love us! What better way to start than with criminal trials in front of judges like John Koeltl?

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17608

[ghporter]

Ms. Coulter plays a bit fast and loose with her wording. FDR did not execute anyone; he signed the order confirming the tribunal's verdict and sentence of Nazi saboteurs. Those tribunals were secret for a very important reason: allowing anyone to know of the fact that the saboteurs actually got into the country and started their mission would have given aid to the Nazi government.

Nuremberg was a different matter. The Army worked very hard to produce a system that would be seen by the entire world as fair and unbiased, and a lot of military lawyers worked their butts off vigorously defending Nazis at those trials.

Millenium is right; we cannot let anyone force us to alter our system significantly, particularly toward their own ideas. The real act that lets "the terrorists win" is to not treat all suspects as innocent unless proven guilty, to not allow all defendants access to vigorous and expert defense, to not allow defendants to face and question their accusers, etc. That is a depth we dare not plumb. We MUST hold to the ideals of justice that we have crafted over the years so that if and when we convict someone of an act, it is because OUR SYSTEM WORKED, not because we bent the rules "knowing they were guilty."

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Millenium is right; we cannot let anyone force us to alter our system significantly, particularly toward their own ideas. The real act that lets "the terrorists win" is to not treat all suspects as innocent unless proven guilty, to not allow all defendants access to vigorous and expert defense, to not allow defendants to face and question their accusers, etc. That is a depth we dare not plumb. We MUST hold to the ideals of justice that we have crafted over the years so that if and when we convict someone of an act, it is because OUR SYSTEM WORKED, not because we bent the rules "knowing they were guilty."

Quoted because maybe someone will listen when a conservative says it.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by marden 

Do we and should we automatically assume that we will extend our rights to those who not only don't believe in those rights but who are fighting to do away with those very rights?

Yes, we should.

Originally Posted by Matthew 25:40

Whatever you do unto the least of my brothers, you do it unto me.

[DBursey]

Originally Posted by marden 

What do you mean? What kind of abuse?

This kind:

Canadian Citizen Arrested and Sent by U.S. to face Syrian Torture

[subego]

[clears throat]

Originally Posted by subego 

If it was allowed it wouldn't be abuse, now would it?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Quoted because maybe someone will listen when a conservative says it.

It isn't that we don't understand the principle. It isn't that we don't agree with the principle. It isn't that we need a conservative to explain to us the principle.

It's just that with our having to fight the war on terror and the "useful idiots" among us, after awhile it begins to feel that we need to contest every inch and every point in the war.

If/when some of you ever have kids there will be a time when you NEED to convince the kid that you are really serious and that you mean business!

Remember the scene from "Unbreakable" when Bruce Willis had to convince his son not to shoot him and that he wasn't a superhero?

DAVID
You're right... If you shoot
me, that bullet is going to
bounce off me and I won't
get hurt... but then I'm
going to go upstairs and
pack. And then leave to New
York.

Beat.

JEREMY(crying)
-Why?

Jeremy's hands are trembling. He starts to close his eyes as he raises the gun
level with David's chest.

DAVID(loud)
Jeremy!

Jeremy's eyes open.

DAVID(loud)
You're about to get into big
trouble! I'm your father and
I'm telling you to put that
gun down right now God damn
it!
(beat)
One!...
(beat)
Two!...

Jeremy puts the gun down on the floor in front of him and stands up.

http://home.online.no/~bhundlan/scripts/Unbreakable.htm

I get that feeling about the opposition who don't believe the threat of global jihad is real and with each expression of contempt for the President or the war on terror or the measures used to keep us safe that they are pointing the gun at America itself and slowly squeezing the trigger with more and more and increasingly more pressure.

Contesting the principles of American style fairness for terrorist detainees isn't done because we object to the principle or that we don't understand it. It's done because it's illegal to strangle the useful idiots.

[Dakar²]

I gotta hope Fox News says it for you to listen.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

I gotta hope Fox News says it for you to listen.

You didn't read my post.

[Dakar²]

The gist I got was "if you believe [what I quoted by gh] you don't believe in terrorists'

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Millenium is right; we cannot let anyone force us to alter our system significantly, particularly toward their own ideas. The real act that lets "the terrorists win" is to not treat all suspects as innocent unless proven guilty, to not allow all defendants access to vigorous and expert defense, to not allow defendants to face and question their accusers, etc. That is a depth we dare not plumb. We MUST hold to the ideals of justice that we have crafted over the years so that if and when we convict someone of an act, it is because OUR SYSTEM WORKED, not because we bent the rules "knowing they were guilty."

Can we just get you and Millennium to run for office in 2008? Man, wouldn't that be a great country to live in then, rulers who were leaders first and politicians second. I would not agree with all of your decisions, not by a long shot, but they would be based on well-thought reasoning and a desire to uphold our best ideals as a nation. And I would ALWAYS be willing to support those practices even if I disagreed with the outcomes. What we need right now from our politicians is someone willing to put the ideals of "fairness and justice for all (in all circumstances)" above all else.
</derail>


<Added for Abermojarden>
I do NOT think doing away with Habeas Corpus in the War on Terror is based on "a desire to uphold our best ideals as a nation".

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden 

I get that feeling about the opposition who don't believe the threat of global jihad is real and with each expression of contempt for the President or the war on terror or the measures used to keep us safe that they are pointing the gun at America itself and slowly squeezing the trigger with more and more and increasingly more pressure.

For whatever reason you're having trouble even imagining how this law could be abused, are you sure you shouldn't recuse yourself from determining whether it's valid to express contempt?

You have no trouble imagining the abuses of Islam. Keep doing that, abuses of all types need to be rooted out.

Play to your strengths, let us play to ours.