habeas corpus

[expat]

In declaring that Guantanamo detainees who are not citizens of the USA no longer have the right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the Bush administration has turned this ancient principle, bedrock of liberty in all common law societies, and core of Article 1 of the US Constitution, from a human right into a citizen's privilege.

I can not think of a harder blow to the idea that the US Constitution is a beacon of liberty to the world (if indeed there are still any Americans who think that).

[wendigo100]

That is bad, isn't it?

[spongebob]

I don't reckon the congregation understand what your on about expat. Probably all that latin.

Might be different if you said a fair trial is no longer a human right but a citizen's privilege (so it can be taken away if the goverment sees fit).

Which is what it amounts to. Land of the free huh?

[Mailman]

Actually to save all you tree huggin lesbo commie homo's from losing valuable hours of sleep they should just shoot the f8ckers

Mailman

[Paddy]

In declaring that Guantanamo detainees who are not citizens of the USA no longer have the right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the Bush administration has turned this ancient principle, bedrock of liberty in all common law societies, and core of Article 1 of the US Constitution, from a human right into a citizen's privilege.

I can not think of a harder blow to the idea that the US Constitution is a beacon of liberty to the world (if indeed there are still any Americans who think that).

"habeas corpus", give up the body. I think they are keeping to the literal meaning.

[zathras]

In declaring that Guantanamo detainees who are not citizens of the USA no longer have the right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the Bush administration has turned this ancient principle, bedrock of liberty in all common law societies, and core of Article 1 of the US Constitution, from a human right into a citizen's privilege.

I can not think of a harder blow to the idea that the US Constitution is a beacon of liberty to the world (if indeed there are still any Americans who think that).

The US has always been a land of contridictions; after all this is the country which enshrines free speech in it's constitution an still went through the Communist Witch hunts under Senator McCarthy.

In addition despite the wording of the Declaration of Independence ie

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—

However, Blacks were excluded from certain areas during the sixties, but if all men are created equal why were Blacks excluded from certain areas?

The writ of Habeus Corpus is however is not actually an absolute right under the US Constitution and it can be suspended when public safety is requires it; see http://www.constitutionfacts.com/con...nstitution.htm for details.

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.

[darmstadt]

Among other things, the Military Commissions Act will:

• Strip the US courts of jurisdiction to hear or consider habeas corpus appeals challenging the lawfulness or conditions of detention of anyone held in US custody as an "enemy combatant". Judicial review of cases would be severely limited. The law would apply retroactively, and thus could result in more than 200 pending appeals filed on behalf of Guantánamo detainees being thrown out of court.
• Prohibit any person from invoking the Geneva Conventions or their protocols as a source of rights in any action in any US court.
• Permit the executive to convene military commissions to try "alien unlawful enemy combatants", as determined by the executive under a dangerously broad definition, in trials that would provide foreign nationals so labeled with a lower standard of justice than US citizens accused of the same crimes. This would violate the prohibition on the discriminatoryapplication of fair trial rights.
• Permit civilians captured far from any battlefield to be tried by military commission rather than civilian courts, contradicting international standards and case law.
• Establish military commissions whose impartiality, independence and competence would be in doubt, due to the overarching role that the executive, primarily the Secretary of Defense, would play in their procedures and in the appointments of military judges and military officers to sit on the commissions.
• Permit, in violation of international law, the use of evidence extracted under cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or as a result of "outrages upon personal dignity, particularly humiliating or degrading treatment", as defined under international law.
• Permit the use of classified evidence against a defendant, without the defendant necessarily being able effectively to challenge the "sources, methods or activities" by which the government acquired the evidence. This is of particular concern in light of the high level of secrecy and resort to national security arguments employed by the administration in the "war on terror", which have been widely criticized, including by the UN Committee against Torture and the Human Rights Committee. Amnesty International is concerned that the administration appears on occasion to have resorted to classification to prevent independent scrutiny of human rights violations.
• Give the military commissions the power to hand down death sentences, in contravention of international standards which only permit capital punishment after trials affording "all possible safeguards to ensure a fair trial". The clemency authority would be the President. President Bush has led a pattern of official public commentary on the presumed guilt of the detainees, and has overseen a system that has systematically denied the rights of detainees.
• Limit the right of charged detainees to be represented by counsel of their choosing.
• Fail to provide any guarantee that trials will be conducted within a reasonable time.
• Permit the executive to determine who is an "enemy combatant" under any "competent tribunal" established by the executive, and endorse the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT), the wholly inadequate administrative procedure that has been employed in Guantánamo to review individual detentions.
• Narrow the scope of the War Crimes Act by not expressly criminalizing acts that constitute "outrages upon personal dignity, particularly humiliating and degrading treatment" banned under Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions. Amnesty International believes that the USA has routinely failed to respect the human dignity of detainees in the "war on terror".
• Prohibit the US courts from using "foreign or international law" to inform their decisions in relation to the War Crimes Act. The President has the authority to "interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions". Under President Bush, the USA has shown a selective disregard for the Geneva Conventions and the absolute prohibition of torture or other ill-treatment.
• Endorse the administration’s "war paradigm" – under which the USA has selectively applied the laws of war and rejected international human rights law. The legislation would backdate the "war on terror" to before the 11 September 2001 in order to be able to try individuals in front of military commissions for "war crimes" committed before that date.

[darmstadt]

That ain't the only one either, you can also get done way up there

[DimPrawn]

Among other things, the Military Commissions Act will:

• Strip the US courts of jurisdiction to hear or consider habeas corpus appeals challenging the lawfulness or conditions of detention of anyone held in US custody as an "enemy combatant". Judicial review of cases would be severely limited. The law would apply retroactively, and thus could result in more than 200 pending appeals filed on behalf of Guantánamo detainees being thrown out of court.
• Prohibit any person from invoking the Geneva Conventions or their protocols as a source of rights in any action in any US court.
• Permit the executive to convene military commissions to try "alien unlawful enemy combatants", as determined by the executive under a dangerously broad definition, in trials that would provide foreign nationals so labeled with a lower standard of justice than US citizens accused of the same crimes. This would violate the prohibition on the discriminatoryapplication of fair trial rights.
• Permit civilians captured far from any battlefield to be tried by military commission rather than civilian courts, contradicting international standards and case law.
• Establish military commissions whose impartiality, independence and competence would be in doubt, due to the overarching role that the executive, primarily the Secretary of Defense, would play in their procedures and in the appointments of military judges and military officers to sit on the commissions.
• Permit, in violation of international law, the use of evidence extracted under cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or as a result of "outrages upon personal dignity, particularly humiliating or degrading treatment", as defined under international law.
• Permit the use of classified evidence against a defendant, without the defendant necessarily being able effectively to challenge the "sources, methods or activities" by which the government acquired the evidence. This is of particular concern in light of the high level of secrecy and resort to national security arguments employed by the administration in the "war on terror", which have been widely criticized, including by the UN Committee against Torture and the Human Rights Committee. Amnesty International is concerned that the administration appears on occasion to have resorted to classification to prevent independent scrutiny of human rights violations.
• Give the military commissions the power to hand down death sentences, in contravention of international standards which only permit capital punishment after trials affording "all possible safeguards to ensure a fair trial". The clemency authority would be the President. President Bush has led a pattern of official public commentary on the presumed guilt of the detainees, and has overseen a system that has systematically denied the rights of detainees.
• Limit the right of charged detainees to be represented by counsel of their choosing.
• Fail to provide any guarantee that trials will be conducted within a reasonable time.
• Permit the executive to determine who is an "enemy combatant" under any "competent tribunal" established by the executive, and endorse the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT), the wholly inadequate administrative procedure that has been employed in Guantánamo to review individual detentions.
• Narrow the scope of the War Crimes Act by not expressly criminalizing acts that constitute "outrages upon personal dignity, particularly humiliating and degrading treatment" banned under Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions. Amnesty International believes that the USA has routinely failed to respect the human dignity of detainees in the "war on terror".
• Prohibit the US courts from using "foreign or international law" to inform their decisions in relation to the War Crimes Act. The President has the authority to "interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions". Under President Bush, the USA has shown a selective disregard for the Geneva Conventions and the absolute prohibition of torture or other ill-treatment.
• Endorse the administration’s "war paradigm" – under which the USA has selectively applied the laws of war and rejected international human rights law. The legislation would backdate the "war on terror" to before the 11 September 2001 in order to be able to try individuals in front of military commissions for "war crimes" committed before that date.

Sounds fair enough to me. Shoot the feckers.

[Gonzo]

In addition despite the wording of the Declaration of Independence ie

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—

However, Blacks were excluded from certain areas during the sixties, but if all men are created equal why were Blacks excluded from certain areas?

I believe that the original wording referred to "all free men" thereby excluding slaves, traditions which took a long time to shake off in the south.

Disclaimer - most of my knowledge of US politics comes from watching The West Wing.