Still No Habeas Rights for You

[Dracos]

Excerpt:
Despite assurances from the major U.S. news media that American citizens retain their habeas corpus rights
to a fair trial – even if non-citizens don’t – Justice Department lawyers have reasserted their claim that Bush
has the power to lock up anyone he chooses as an “enemy combatant” and effectively throw away the key.

“A citizen, no less than an alien, can be an enemy combatant,” administration lawyer David B. Salmons told
a federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, on Feb. 1, adding that on such issues, the courts cannot
interfere with the President’s wartime judgments.

Salmons did pledge that the Executive Branch will use care in deciding who is designated an “enemy combatant.”
In response to one judge’s question about the President applying the tag to an activist from PETA, Salmons joked,
“the representative of PETA can sleep well at night.”

Nevertheless, Salmons argued that the judgment on who is deemed an “enemy combatant”
is solely the discretion of President Bush.

consortiumnews.com

[Hosnon]

1. The MCA does not take away the right of habeas corpus

from citizen-enemy-combatants.

The MCA does take it away from alien-enemy-combatants.

[Deja Q]

3. Once 'enemy combatant' is defined should we actually worry.

Right now it's just being a terrorist or incite to terrorism, which none of us is doing.

[Igel]

4. Shh. Don't go irritating people by showing that you've

actually gone and read it.

Don't you know, the newspaper defines reality and the law, if the newspapers say something what difference does the actual language passed by Congress and signed by * make?

[Hosnon]

5. We beat this to death a few months back.

The only avenue left completely belabored was the effect a series of cases had on the issue.

[Cerridwen]

11. And don't presume that those of us with a different view of the issue

haven't bothered to read the text or are so ignorant as to accept corporate media spin on anything.

This administration has shown a flagrant disregard to what's written in the text of several notable documents; for example, FISA and the U.S. Constitution. Saying something is in writing and protects us because it's in writing as though that will protect us from the interpretation of said writing disregards many of this instances in which that is exactly what has occurred during this administration's occupation of the WH.

gonzales has already asserted that the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly give U.S. citizens the right of habeas corpus. Now U.S. citizens can be labeled enemy combatants by this same administration. How do you think gonzales would interpret a citizen's rights of habeas corpus were said citizen labeled enemy combatant?

I hope no one has to put that dueling interpretation to the test.

[Hosnon]

17. In the end, words only provide as much protection as those who are

interpreting decide they do. That has, and always will be, a problem.

Luckily, those who write the words and enforce the words are not the same that interpret the words. So long as one can make it to a court (which, again, is always a problem: Bush can make anyone "disappear") the protections guaranteed by our rights will most likely be themselves protected.

The Bush Administration can claim all day long that X really means Y but they also have to convince the judiciary branch of that fact. And that is not so easy a task.

[Igel]

22. If the administration is going to ignore the text of

the law, it doesn't matter what the law says, now does it? If * decides to ignore parts of this particular law, there's nothing constraining him from ignoring the other legal constraints on arresting and indefinitely detaining citizens with no reason in the first place. It makes debating this particular law moot, a trivial diversion not worth our time or worth DU's bandwidth.

But I read the thing. As written it has sufficient verbiage defining the necessary terms, and is internally self-consistent; most newspaper reports selectively quote to show that the law says something it doesn't--and this is a point that needs to be made in the interest of intellectual honesty.

Now, courts may decide to adopt readings so forced and strained that interpreting "is" as entailing "could not possibly exist" looks reasonable. But I can't operate on the assumption that the executive and judicial branches--in cahoots with the legislative branch--are conspiring to impose an anti-Democratic (much less anti-democratic) regime.

[mmonk]

7. .

"Further, the MCA dramatically expands the President's powers in an array of profoundly troubling ways, including permitting him to determine what constitutes torture and who may be labeled an "unlawful enemy combatant" and therefore detained indefinitely. Such scope means that non-citizens, such as those unjustifiably rounded up in sweeps after 9/11 in the U.S., could be held without charge or trial. U.S. citizens deemed to have "materially supported" hostilities against the United States could be held as enemy combatants as well."

http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/report.asp?ObjID=b5stDu9ZOb&Content=871

[Hosnon]

8. What does the "." mean?

I've always wondered that.

Yes, the MCA is troubling in many ways. However, it does not deny the right of habeas corpus to U.S. citizens. It is unclear whether existing case law denies the right to all enemy combatants, however.

[mmonk]

12. Undefined terms and only determinable

by the executive branch. No written or established definition. The quotation marks are from the Center for Constitutional Rights, not me. If you are talking about the period, I didn't know what to put in the subject line. Just wanted to post the info.

[Cerridwen]

14. "." - you can't post a post without a subject line...

sometimes a poster doesn't put a subject line, for whatever reason, and the "." in the subject line allows the post to post.

/public service announcement :D

edit to add: if I understood your question correctly. LOL

[Hosnon]

16. Thanks. You understood my question correctly. nt.

[mmonk]

18. It also states citizens can be held as the legally indeterminable nor

written down term "enemy combatant" if they are deemed guilty of having "materially supported" the undefined "enemy combatant". So yes, habeas corpus can be denied a citizen under their scenario. The government's lawyers have already said in court that it could be something like giving to a charity that they determine may have given money to a terrorist organization (you could go to Gitmo). But beyond all that, it's all unconstitutional on it's face so that should bother you.

[Hosnon]

20. Yes, citizens can be enemy combatants.

But citizen-enemy combatants retain their right to the writ of habeas corpus. Only alien-enemy combatants lose that right under the MCA.

A U.S. citizen could be held as an alien without a chance to challenge his or her status as such but that brings up a bigger problem. As we all know, this Administration could do just about anything with an individual. They don't even have to acknowledge that they have you.

If the problem with the MCA is the above problem, it is not specific to the MCA but is a flaw in our entire judicial system.

[Cerridwen]

9. Fortunately for the current administration...ag gonzales has made

it clear that citizens are not explicitly guaranteed habeas corpus in the Constitution either. A nice one two punch.

How long do you think someone labeled an enemy combatant by this administration will retain their 'not explicitly guaranteed' rights of habeas corpus?

As I said before, this administration has a rather casual outlook on interpretation of text.

[Hosnon]

10. A right can be granted either explicitly or implicitly. Gonzales may

make the argument that it is not granted explicitly but he would have a hard time convincing anyone that it is simply not granted.

[Cerridwen]

13. Very true and I hope that an argument such as that would be laughed

out of any of our courts. Though I'm no longer convinced that is the case.

During the libby trial, the judge used the argument that libby's right to a fair trial trumped a potential witness' First Amendment rights. With the various interpretations and precedents currently being set in court rooms, whose rights will trump whose rights? Which rights can we, as U.S. citizens, take for granted will be there should we have need of them? And who the hell gets to decide? The text? The interpreter of the text?

[muntrv]

2. Salmons doesn't believe in the system of checks and balances.

Why doesn't Salmons just say HEIL HITLER?

[YellowRubberDuckie]

6. More like Heil Bush.

Oh, I'm convinced we're THISCLOSE to all hell breaking loose and martial law being declared.
Duckie

[Generic Brad]

15. No habeas corpus for you!

[mmonk]

19. Lol

[mmonk]

21. A study of those held at Guantanamo Bay

(unrelated to citizen's habeas corpus rights) determined that 55% had neither taken up arms against the US nor belonged to a terrorist organization. Many had been handed over for bounty when the US was paying for "suspects". This even included children as young as 7 years old (held at Camp Iguana at Gitmo). That is a war crime by any definition.