History repeats itself

[akarunway 1]

Will they ever learn? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/washington/23habeas.html?ei=5065&en=766197cd970eb337&ex=1198990800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[airdvr 200]

Hardly history repeating itself. You're comparing this to what? Gitmo?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

Hardly history repeating itself. You're comparing this to what? Gitmo?

Seems a fair comparison to me.

"After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush issued an order that effectively allowed the United States to hold suspects indefinitely without a hearing, a lawyer, or formal charges. In September 2006, Congress passed a law suspending habeas corpus for anyone deemed an “unlawful enemy combatant.”

But the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the right of American citizens to seek a writ of habeas corpus. This month the court heard arguments on whether about 300 foreigners held at Guantánamo Bay had the same rights. It is expected to rule by next summer."

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Amazon 7]

Why do I get the feeling that some of our not so friendly supporters of the Incompetent in Chief here in SC would be quite happy with American Gulags or "relocation camps" for those who do not agree with their political dogma... after all if we are not with them... we must by virtue of their mental disorder.. are against them.

[billvon 2,434]

> Hardly history repeating itself.

You're right. A government that suspends Habeas Corpus to make it possible to arrest, and hold without trial, people we are afraid will commit acts of terrorism has nothing to do with a government that suspends Habeas Corpus to make it possible to arrest, and hold without trial, people we are afraid will commit acts of terrorism.

I'm glad that we have nothing to learn from history. If we did, we'd have to read a LOT of history books!

[airdvr 200]

Quote

Quote

Hardly history repeating itself. You're comparing this to what? Gitmo?

Seems a fair comparison to me.

"After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush issued an order that effectively allowed the United States to hold suspects indefinitely without a hearing, a lawyer, or formal charges. In September 2006, Congress passed a law suspending habeas corpus for anyone deemed an “unlawful enemy combatant.”

But the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the right of American citizens to seek a writ of habeas corpus. This month the court heard arguments on whether about 300 foreigners held at Guantánamo Bay had the same rights. It is expected to rule by next summer."

Sorry. Not the same thing. I knew you'd try and make it a GWB thing but congress passed the law. You seem to keep forgetting about some 500 plus folks on Capital Hill. Finger pointing? You better get some help. You'll need alot of hands.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Sorry. Not the same thing. I knew you'd try and make it a GWB thing but congress passed the law. You seem to keep forgetting about some 500 plus folks on Capital Hill. Finger pointing? You better get some help. You'll need alot of hands.

WOW.. selective memory there.... but not surprising....

You yourself pointed out it was passed in SEPTEMBER 2006....By the INFAMOUS REPUBLICAN RUBBER STAMP CONGRESS...

Whatever King George II wanted... Congress would bend over and kiss and suck his ass just as fast as was needed to garner favor with the Incompetent in Charge.... the Great Decider.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

A government that suspends Habeas Corpus to make it possible to arrest, and hold without trial, people we are afraid will commit acts of terrorism has nothing to do with a government that suspends Habeas Corpus to make it possible to arrest, and hold without trial, people we are afraid will commit acts of terrorism.

See how easily subtle differences in cause can lead to drastic differences in effect?

[Andy9o8 0]

The only way to repeal certain provisions of the Constitution is by amendment. There are two ways in which an amendment of the Constitution can act to repeal a pre-existing provision: (a) expressly, and (b) by necessary implication.

"Habeas corpus" means to bring an arrested person before a court on some manner of formal charges for the court's initial review.

The prohibition against suspending habeas corpus "unless...in cases of rebellion or invasion" is set forth in Article I Section 9 of the original Constitution, which existed before any of the Amendments to the Constitution did (including the first 10 Amendments, a/k/a the "Bill of Rights").

The language is silent as to citizenship, meaning the right to habeas corpus applies equally to citizens and non-citizens alike.

Subsequently, the 6th Amendment Six was passed, which guaranteed the rights to speedy trial, and to confront witnesses at trial. Since the right to confront witnesses can only be exercised in person, trials in absentia are prohibited. That means that the 6th Amendment requires that arrested persons must be formally brought before a court, on specific charges, in person, speedily.

In my opinion, that means that when the 6th Amendment was passed, that effectively, by necessary implication, repealed the pre-existing "unless...in cases of rebellion or invasion" language, leaving intact only the prohibition against suspending habeas corpus, but without any exception.

In other words, once the 6th Amendment was passed over 200 years ago, ANY suspension of habeas corpus became, and is, unconstitutional.

That also means that whenever habeas corpus was suspended, at various times, by Lincoln, or Wilson, or FDR or by act of Congress, for ANY purpose, it was, and is, unconstitutional. So whether it's done by 1 President or 500+ members of Congress is irrelevant - it is ALWAYS unconstitutional.

[jakee 1,259]

Quote

Sorry. Not the same thing.

Explain. Apart from the fact that Hoover's proposal didn't actually get implemented, what is the difference between suspending Habeus Corpus for suspected enemies of the state and suspending Habeus Corpus for suspected enemies of the state?

Quote

Not the same thing. I knew you'd try and make it a GWB thing but congress passed the law. You seem to keep forgetting about some 500 plus folks on Capital Hill.

Capitol Hill. And what are you talking about? Kallend merely pasted a quote. A quote that makes it quie clear that congress passed a law in 2006.

Now that you've brought it up though, what about the 5 years that elapsed between Bush's order and Congress' law?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[airdvr 200]

Quote

Quote

Sorry. Not the same thing. I knew you'd try and make it a GWB thing but congress passed the law. You seem to keep forgetting about some 500 plus folks on Capital Hill. Finger pointing? You better get some help. You'll need alot of hands.

WOW.. selective memory there.... but not surprising....

You yourself pointed out it was passed in SEPTEMBER 2006....By the INFAMOUS REPUBLICAN RUBBER STAMP CONGRESS...

Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---65 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00259
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Carper (D-DE)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)



20% Democratic Yea vote...sounds like a rubber stamp job to me.

Whatever King George II wanted... Congress would bend over and kiss and suck his ass just as fast as was needed to garner favor with the Incompetent in Charge.... the Great Decider.

So what you're really saying is congress has no backbone?

Everyone is so quick to jump on GWB He's not the King. In reality nothing much happens without congressional approval. Where's the attacks on congress?


Amazon...you speak in absolutes. No room for possibilities? Open your mind...see that nothing is perfect or absolute.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[airdvr 200]

Quote

Quote

Sorry. Not the same thing.

Explain. Apart from the fact that Hoover's proposal didn't actually get implemented,

You need to actually read the entire article.

In September 1950, Congress passed and the president signed a law authorizing the detention of “dangerous radicals” if the president declared a national emergency. Truman did declare such an emergency in December 1950, after China entered the Korean War. But no known evidence suggests he or any other president approved any part of Hoover’s proposal.

Hoover just proposed something so stupid anyone could have seen through it.

Quote

Not the same thing. I knew you'd try and make it a GWB thing but congress passed the law. You seem to keep forgetting about some 500 plus folks on Capital Hill.

Capitol Hill. And what are you talking about? Kallend merely pasted a quote. A quote that makes it quie clear that congress passed a law in 2006.

Sorry about my misspelling. Guess that makes me stupid and insignificant. I seriously doubt Mr. Kallend has ever merely done anything. I am talking about Kallend's inability to see past his contempt for GWB and pass the blame around equally. If he feels so strongly about it he really needs to take a hard look at congress too.

Now that you've brought it up though, what about the 5 years that elapsed between Bush's order and Congress' law?

There was already precidence for a sitting president to make such an order. I guess it just took 5 years for congress to make a new law for one that already existed. What difference does it make?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Amazon 7]

PSSSST you left out the HOUSE members.... want to show us how many R's on BOTH lists.. voted NO....

That congress will go down in History as the most pliable and ready to give George the II any ane everthing he could have wet dreamed for

NO ONE ever deserves to be given so much in so short of a time to change our country so radically

[airdvr 200]

Quote

PSSSST you left out the HOUSE members.... want to show us how many R's on BOTH lists.. voted NO....

That congress will go down in History as the most pliable and ready to give George the II any ane everthing he could have wet dreamed for

NO ONE ever deserves to be given so much in so short of a time to change our country so radically

So you agree. It really is a spineless congress who goes along.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Amazon 7]

Quote

So you agree. It really is a spineless congress who goes along.

Most went along because they BELIEVED in it... the wallowed in it.. and almost all of them had a great big R after their name.

True believers are like that.

[jakee 1,259]

Quote

There was already precidence for a sitting president to make such an order. I guess it just took 5 years for congress to make a new law for one that already existed. What difference does it make?

Precedent. It means that it was a GWB thing - it was happening solely on his say-so for five years.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[tbrown 26]

In other words, once the 6th Amendment was passed over 200 years ago, ANY suspension of habeas corpus became, and is, unconstitutional.

That also means that whenever habeas corpus was suspended, at various times, by Lincoln, or Wilson, or FDR or by act of Congress, for ANY purpose, it was, and is, unconstitutional. So whether it's done by 1 President or 500+ members of Congress is irrelevant - it is ALWAYS unconstitutional.