The death of Habeas Corpus

moultano

<!--quoteo(post=1569795:date=Oct 12 2006, 09:17 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Oct 12 2006, 09:17 PM) [snapback]1569795[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Question: WHY are they coming for the non-citizens?
Answer: Well, they aren't. Actually, most of the non-citizens are completely unaffected by this. But when they go after a Terrorist, if he happens to BE a non-citizen, then they have some extra tools to work with. But they're going after him because he's a Terrorist, not because he's a non-citizen.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And how do they know he is a terrorist? We're supposed to take their word on that?
<!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro--><b>MISTAKES HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE, AND AN INNOCENT MAN WAS ALREADY TORTURED AS A RESULT. </b><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/" target="_blank">http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/</a>

One of the founding principle of our government is the separation of powers, and this provides for nothing approaching it.

And incidentally, you are wrong about it only applying to non-citizens. It can legally be applied to US citizens as well.
<a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6167856" target="_blank">http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6167856</a>

Cxwf

I already posted the actual text of the bill itself above, and thats not what it says. You could be mis-interpreting the reporter, or the reporter could be mis-interpreting the bill, but I'm pretty sure citizens are safe.

Sure, a citizen can be considered to be an enemy combatant. After all, he might really BE an enemy combatant. But the special courts set up to deal with this wouldn't have jurisdiction over a citizen, and he would still enjoy all normal legal protections that citizens always have.

<!--quoteo(post=1569801:date=Oct 12 2006, 09:13 PM:name=ANeM)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ANeM @ Oct 12 2006, 09:13 PM) [snapback]1569801[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Also, I believe you're starting to step outside the bounds of Ethnocentrism and into the realm of racism with your previous post.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I consider that to be a completely unfounded ad-hominem attack. The only group of people I "discriminate" against is "the group of people that wants to kill me", with no prejudice as to who might or might not be IN that group. I challenge you to find anyone who would define that as racism. And if you can't, then I would politely ask you to withdraw that accusation.

<!--QuoteBegin-ANeM+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ANeM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, thats all good and fine, aside from the fact that they aren't going after Terrorists. They are going after people who they think might be terrorists. People who could just be a guy coming back from vacation.
What happens when they go after a Non-Citizen who happens to BE innocent?
I believe the saying was supposed to be "Innocent until proven guilty" not "Assume they are gulity and stop there." I may be wrong. Please feel free to correct me.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Ok, but on the other hand, when cops go after murderers, aren't they really going after "people they THINK are murderers"? The same point could be made for any crime you want to punish. And the same logic applies...yes, the assumption is Innocent until proven guilty. Yes, they are going to court to prove it. Just not the SAME court. They will be going to a special court set up for this purpose.

Will innocent people occasionally be falsely convicted? Probably. Innocent people are occassionally falsely convicted of other crimes too. But its pretty rare, and as long as all normal precautions are taken, it ought to be pretty rare here too. The mere possibility that you might make a mistake should not be a reason not to try in the first place. Its just a reason to take every possible precaution to make sure that only the real enemies are convicted, and innocents are found innocent and released.

Cxwf

<!--quoteo(post=1569803:date=Oct 12 2006, 09:44 PM:name=moultano)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(moultano @ Oct 12 2006, 09:44 PM) [snapback]1569803[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
And how do they know he is a terrorist? We're supposed to take their word on that?
<!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro--><b>MISTAKES HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE, AND AN INNOCENT MAN WAS ALREADY TORTURED AS A RESULT. </b><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/" target="_blank">http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/</a>
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

*reads the story*

Honestly, do you read your own links?

--Maher Arar was a Canadian/Syrian citizen (dual citizenship)
--Canada investigated him for possible links to terrorism
--Canada sent their info to the US FBI and INS, saying "we think this guys a terrorist"
--The next time Arar passed through the US, the INS picked him up, called Canada, and said, "we found him, want us to send him to you so you can charge him?" Canada said, "er...no".
--Syria asked for Arar to be deported to Syria to face totally unrelated charges. He WAS a Syrian Citizen, so the US sent him over, and Canada shared their intelligence info with the Syrians to help their prosecution against him.
--The Syrians don't do things the way we do, and many complaints were had all around at how the Syrians conducted their investigation. (Torture, for example)
--Eventually, Canada decided they had been wrong all along, and Arar wasnt really a terrorist, and asked Syria to send him back.

Now...admittedly, this is a horrible story. But where in all this do you see the US doing anything wrong? It seems to me it was Canada who decided he was a terrorist, and Syria that was conducting unethical interrogations. Keep in mind Arar was a joint Canadian/Syrian citizen. The US had no part in this other than making the arrest...on a warrant provided by Canada.

moultano

<!--quoteo(post=1569813:date=Oct 13 2006, 01:43 AM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Oct 13 2006, 01:43 AM) [snapback]1569813[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I already posted the actual text of the bill itself above, and thats not what it says. You could be mis-interpreting the reporter, or the reporter could be mis-interpreting the bill, but I'm pretty sure citizens are safe.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's not a reporter, that's a lawyer, and I think the headline is pretty hard to misinterpret: <b>"Bill Lets U.S. Citizens Be Held as Enemy Combatants."</b> The definition of Enemy combatant does not mention that it only applies to aliens. You quoted the definition of alien, which indeed means someone from another country. The courts ruled in 2003 that the term Enemy Combatant could apply to a US Citizen. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/08/enemy.combatants/" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/08/enemy.combatants/</a>

<!--quoteo(post=1569814:date=Oct 13 2006, 02:01 AM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Oct 13 2006, 02:01 AM) [snapback]1569814[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Honestly, do you read your own links?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course I do, I've been reading about it in horror since the news first broke. What you are missing is that in this country we do not seize people and deport them to a foreign country without a trial. That's exactly what we did here. It doesn't matter what the evidence was, or which government told us what, or even what country he's a citizen of. The man is a human being and in a free society that means he should get a trial.

Edit: Unless of course we have an extradition treaty with Syria, which I'm not sure of. I'll have to go check that.
Edit: Just checked. According to Wikipedia we don't: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_law_in_the_United_States" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_l...e_United_States</a>

moultano

<!--quoteo(post=1569813:date=Oct 13 2006, 01:43 AM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Oct 13 2006, 01:43 AM) [snapback]1569813[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ok, but on the other hand, when cops go after murderers, aren't they really going after "people they THINK are murderers"? The same point could be made for any crime you want to punish. And the same logic applies...yes, the assumption is Innocent until proven guilty. Yes, they are going to court to prove it. Just not the SAME court. They will be going to a special court set up for this purpose.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem with this is that now the police, judge, jury, and executioner are all in the same branch of government.

lolfighter

<!--quoteo(post=1569795:date=Oct 13 2006, 03:17 AM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Oct 13 2006, 03:17 AM) [snapback]1569795[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Question: WHY did they come for the Jews?
Answer: Because they were Jews.
Question: WHY did they come for the Communists?
Answer: Because they were Communists.
Question: WHY did they come for the Trade Unionists?
Answer: Because they were Trade Unionists.

Question: WHY are they coming for the non-citizens?
Answer: Well, they aren't. Actually, most of the non-citizens are completely unaffected by this. But when they go after a Terrorist, if he happens to BE a non-citizen, then they have some extra tools to work with. But they're going after him because he's a Terrorist, not because he's a non-citizen.

Nice parallels there, really. If you like being blind.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And when they go after a non-citizen, it will be because he is a terrorist. Because there really is no distinction, right? Buy the propaganda, party boy. Swallow it whole.
Why will they come for you next? Because you're homosexual. Or wear glasses. Or go to a private school. Or wear designer clothes. Or don't. Or because of your skin colour. Because you don't subscribe to their religion. Because you're not a member of their party. Because you drive a foreign car, thus robbing your country of revenue. For any reason, or for no reason at all. If you're not afraid, if they haven't already scared you into inaction (and it seems like they have done exactly that), they will do it. In the name of power and money.
You act like you're exempt, like you're safe. But the more you let them get away with, the more they will try to get away with. And like any slippery slope, the further you head down it, the harder it is to turn around.

Edit: You should thank me for not insulting you. It took a lot of restraint, you know.

Rob

<!--coloro:yellow--><span style="color:yellow"><!--/coloro-->This ain't goin anywhere happy, so...


***Locked***<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->