Jump to content


Habeas Corpus


Flying_Mollusk
 Share

Recommended Posts

A total suspension of habeas corpus is unconstitutional and would be the equivalent of a police state much like the one that lincoln presided over in the mid 1860s. However, an even more complex question is if non-citizens and non-residents are even entitled to a right of habeas corpus at all. The Supreme Court recently declared in Clark (2005) that holding a person within the U.S. such as a deportable alien for an indefinite period is unconstitutional. However they cited an earlier case in which the supreme court found that a person who was detained before reaching US soil could be held indefinitely. Ok, so that leans more towards due process of the 5th amendment, however, it is also pertinent here. Is a terrorist who is captured by the US outside of the US entitled to due process rights, and would they be entitled specifically to habeas corpus? The court has found that habeas challenges remain a viable option for even those detained outside the US, but the decisions have seemed to show that these challenges have not been won by aliens outside of the US territory. So in the end, suyspension of habeas inside US for all is illegal and wrong, but not to for those aliens outside the US. Because as non-residnet/noncitizen aliens they have no entitlement of habeas which can be suspended, you have to have the right first in order for it to be suspended

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just can't figure out why the presence of system that forces the executive to at the least say why they are holding someone would somehow benefit terrorists. The presence of a check against arbitrariness does not protect those who are being held for specific reasons. The only person who benefits from this is the person who is being held for absolutely no reason or a non-legitimate reason.

 

Legacy, would you not agree that the argument has become circular? We are holding terrorists because of their terrorist activities. We can't allow them to have us state to a court that that is why we are holding them even though we are telling you that they are terrorists.

 

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a terrorist. Fine. So how is he going to benefit if he is given the opportunity to invoke habeas corpus?

 

The problem is a lot of people don't even know what habeas corpus is. They just listen to the Bush administration and just claim that any attacks on their policy is not logical but political. They can't actually defense the rational.

 

Suffice it to say that we are talking about checks on the executive branch. The same problem arose with the NSA spying stuff. This administration attacks basic checks, the last line of defense against a tyranny, with the open ended concept of fighting terror. It's the old bait and switch.

 

Which is why I continue to ask the question to those people who support Bush on this. How would habeas corpus help terrorists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just can't figure out why the presence of system that forces the executive to at the least say why they are holding someone would somehow benefit terrorists. The presence of a check against arbitrariness does not protect those who are being held for specific reasons. The only person who benefits from this is the person who is being held for absolutely no reason or a non-legitimate reason.

 

Legacy, would you not agree that the argument has become circular? We are holding terrorists because of their terrorist activities. We can't allow them to have us state to a court that that is why we are holding them even though we are telling you that they are terrorists.

 

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a terrorist. Fine. So how is he going to benefit if he is given the opportunity to invoke habeas corpus?

 

The problem is a lot of people don't even know what habeas corpus is. They just listen to the Bush administration and just claim that any attacks on their policy is not logical but political. They can't actually defense the rational.

 

Suffice it to say that we are talking about checks on the executive branch. The same problem arose with the NSA spying stuff. This administration attacks basic checks, the last line of defense against a tyranny, with the open ended concept of fighting terror. It's the old bait and switch.

 

Which is why I continue to ask the question to those people who support Bush on this. How would habeas corpus help terrorists?

 

 

i dont disagree with any of this, my point is whether useful or not, alien captives such as the people from afghanistan may not legally be entitled to habeas at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...