T Nation

Are We Rome?

When have enemy combatants EVER had right of habeas corpus? Can someone cite a case? I’ve never seen one.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
When have enemy combatants EVER had right of habeas corpus? Can someone cite a case? I’ve never seen one.[/quote]

A couple of these enemy combatants were American citizens. Ever heard of the Padilla case?

[quote]Ren wrote:

so we are being invaded? or is there a rebellion going on now? [/quote]

Wow. Use common sense - what do you call it when agents that would harm the people outside of a criminal capacity, acting uunder direction of a foreign, hostile entity, are hiding in your midst before they strike?

There would be no need for suspension of habeas if you had gunboats arriving on your shore with armed men - the point of suspending habeas is to get to those people among your citizenry using the veil of citizenry to lie in wait, because otherwise, ordinary civil liberties within criminal justice assumptions would give them cover until it was too late.

And, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

As an aside, I find it interesting that you are suddenly a rigid textualist on the habeas clause - “where is the Invasion???” - when the Left couldn’t care less about any fidelity to the language of the Constitution the rest of the time.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Ren wrote:

so we are being invaded? or is there a rebellion going on now?

Wow. Use common sense - what do you call it when agents that would harm the people outside of a criminal capacity, acting uunder direction of a foreign, hostile entity, are hiding in your midst before they strike?
[/quote]

Run of the mill espionage.

I iseth a concept well known now for about 5000 year or so and was probably also known to the people writing “invasion and/or rebellion” as a requirement for the suspension of habeas corpus.

[quote]orion wrote:

Run of the mill espionage.[/quote]

Nonsense - otherwise you would have terrorists planning to blow up cities suddenly claiming that they were “only engaging in espionage!” and in need of their civil liberties. for it was only the crime of espionage.

[quote]I iseth a concept well known now for about 5000 year or so and was probably also known to the people writing “invasion and/or rebellion” as a requirement for the suspension of habeas corpus.
[/quote]

You should consider stopping now before you embarrass yourself yet agaih by trying to opine on American constitutional law.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Ren wrote:

so we are being invaded? or is there a rebellion going on now?

Wow. Use common sense - what do you call it when agents that would harm the people outside of a criminal capacity, acting uunder direction of a foreign, hostile entity, are hiding in your midst before they strike?

There would be no need for suspension of habeas if you had gunboats arriving on your shore with armed men - the point of suspending habeas is to get to those people among your citizenry using the veil of citizenry to lie in wait, because otherwise, ordinary civil liberties within criminal justice assumptions would give them cover until it was too late.

And, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

As an aside, I find it interesting that you are suddenly a rigid textualist on the habeas clause - “where is the Invasion???” - when the Left couldn’t care less about any fidelity to the language of the Constitution the rest of the time.[/quote]

I consider myself to be somewhat of a centrist. It sounds like you have no problem letting citizens lose the right of habeas corpus, unless I read your “veil of citizenry” comment incorrectly.

For the record I do not have a problem with terrorists having no right to habeas corpus. What I do have a problem with is that the government can suspend that right to any non-citizen that they suspect of being a terrorist, that they label as a terrorist, or that they are waiting for a determination as a terrorist.

On my understanding this means that the government could suspend my right of habeas corpus (I am a green card holder), until they determine that I am either a terrorist or a non-terrorist, however long that may take. If I am wrong on this please explain it a little bit better to me and I will be happy to apologize.

Our Federal Gov’t can declare anyone a terrorist or engaged in rebellion. All rules are rubber and can be twisted any way we like. Our government is simply what ever it wants to be, and all civil liberties are suspended.

LOL!!

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
If we do become like Rome, the rest of the world should be terrified. Imagine a dictator with the military might of the United States; it probably would become a Thousand Year Reich.

Good call, given we’re having a little trouble controlling a country of 25 million.

The population would be drastically reduced by reprisals, the population cowed by massive bombings.

Oh Headhunter, please stop playing with yourself and wipe that drool of your chin.
[/quote]

The German people were NEVER cowed by fear of reprisals or concentration camps. Nor were the Poles, Czechs, French, …

Look, if we become what you gents were in the 30s and 40s, the world is fucked big time. How would the Nazis deal with Iraqis or Iranians or any other threat? Just sit back and take the suicide bombings and sawing off of heads? Uhhh…yeah…

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:

Run of the mill espionage.

Nonsense - otherwise you would have terrorists planning to blow up cities suddenly claiming that they were “only engaging in espionage!” and in need of their civil liberties. for it was only the crime of espionage.

I iseth a concept well known now for about 5000 year or so and was probably also known to the people writing “invasion and/or rebellion” as a requirement for the suspension of habeas corpus.

You should consider stopping now before you embarrass yourself yet agaih by trying to opine on American constitutional law.[/quote]

I see you need pictures.

This is an invasion.

What you describe is espionage and a little bit of sabotage in order to inflict terror, therefore “terrorism”.

I do know one thing about your founding fathers you are apparently not aware of; believing in a natural law and not in positivism they did NOT believe in clever word plays until the US were a democratic republic only in name.

Invasion, my ass…

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
If we do become like Rome, the rest of the world should be terrified. Imagine a dictator with the military might of the United States; it probably would become a Thousand Year Reich.

Good call, given we’re having a little trouble controlling a country of 25 million.

The population would be drastically reduced by reprisals, the population cowed by massive bombings.

Oh Headhunter, please stop playing with yourself and wipe that drool of your chin.

The German people were NEVER cowed by fear of reprisals or concentration camps. Nor were the Poles, Czechs, French, …

Look, if we become what you gents were in the 30s and 40s, the world is fucked big time. How would the Nazis deal with Iraqis or Iranians or any other threat? Just sit back and take the suicide bombings and sawing off of heads? Uhhh…yeah…

[/quote]

No, they killed 10 to 100 civilians for every killed soldier.

They still lost.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
When have enemy combatants EVER had right of habeas corpus? Can someone cite a case? I’ve never seen one.

A couple of these enemy combatants were American citizens. Ever heard of the Padilla case?[/quote]

Who had been transfered to the jurisdiction of civilian trial. The Military Commissions act clarified who the definition of unlawful enemy combatants can apply to. The question is, when have enemy combatants ever had the right to HC?

[quote]orion wrote:

I see you need pictures.

This is an invasion.

What you describe is espionage and a little bit of sabotage in order to inflict terror, therefore “terrorism”.

I do know one thing about your founding fathers you are apparently not aware of; believing in a natural law and not in positivism they did NOT believe in clever word plays until the US were a democratic republic only in name.

Invasion, my ass… [/quote]

You continue to underwhelm.

Suspension of habeas under an invasion in which you describe it would be completely pointless - when an army marches in, you don’t suspend habeas and arrest them to stop them - you take guns and you shoot at them to stop them.

Flatly stupid.

Suspension is needed when you need to arrest people who haven’t committed an act of war yet and allowing ordinary civil liberties within the criminal law context would provide them with too much cover.

The point is to revoke the civil liberties of those that would use the civil liberties as a sword to attack and a shield from having their attack thwarted before it happens.

Of course, that is what we have today - except terror elements prefer to engage in asymmetric warfare for the advantages it affords over conventional military approaches.

So the enemy’s style of invasion has changed - terror cells of terrorists posing as citizens, and they are certainly “invading” by any defintion of the word - and we are to sit around and say “well, we would love to use government power to prevent them from blowing up the White House, but they aren’t marching down the street in matching uniforms, so we aren’t allowed to under the Constitution?”

Hilarious.

And, let’s see what a Founding Father had to say:

“The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.”

-Thomas Jefferson

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:

I see you need pictures.

This is an invasion.

What you describe is espionage and a little bit of sabotage in order to inflict terror, therefore “terrorism”.

I do know one thing about your founding fathers you are apparently not aware of; believing in a natural law and not in positivism they did NOT believe in clever word plays until the US were a democratic republic only in name.

Invasion, my ass…

You continue to underwhelm.

Suspension of habeas under an invasion in which you describe it would be completely pointless - when an army marches in, you don’t suspend habeas and arrest them to stop them - you take guns and you shoot at them to stop them.

Flatly stupid.

Suspension is needed when you need to arrest people who haven’t committed an act of war yet and allowing ordinary civil liberties within the criminal law context would provide them with too much cover.

The point is to revoke the civil liberties of those that would use the civil liberties as a sword to attack and a shield from having their attack thwarted before it happens.

Of course, that is what we have today - except terror elements prefer to engage in asymmetric warfare for the advantages it affords over conventional military approaches.

So the enemy’s style of invasion has changed - terror cells of terrorists posing as citizens, and they are certainly “invading” by any defintion of the word - and we are to sit around and say “well, we would love to use government power to prevent them from blowing up the White House, but they aren’t marching down the street in matching uniforms, so we aren’t allowed to under the Constitution?”

Hilarious.

And, let’s see what a Founding Father had to say:

“The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.”

-Thomas Jefferson[/quote]

What you would like to be the law and what you think should be the law
and what is the law is not necessarily the same.

If the Supreme Court does not get to re-interpret or re-define laws, neither do you.

So far, a mans home is meant to be his castle.

You do not like that?

Work within the system.

To simply re-write Webster is a road that is open to everybody.

If you are not prepared to bow to THEM (Imagine the worst), do not even try…

[quote]orion wrote:

What you would like to be the law and what you think should be the law
and what is the law is not necessarily the same.[/quote]

That paragraph nicely sums up you relationship and knowledge of American law. Good advice to be giving - yourself. We don’t have an Austrian school libertarian Constitution no matter how hard you wish for one.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:

What you would like to be the law and what you think should be the law
and what is the law is not necessarily the same.

That paragraph nicely sums up you relationship and knowledge of American law. Good advice to be giving - yourself. We don’t have an Austrian school libertarian Constitution no matter how hard you wish for one.[/quote]

Yup.

Good luck trying to live with your non-Austrian school libertarian constitution.

Or to me more precise, your non- Austrian school libertarian interpretation of it.

Is this actually a good thing?

Still does not mean that you get to re-interpret the law, just because bombs scare you…