Does anyone care? Or have we Americans allowed ourselves to become so ignorant, uninformed, and complacent that most of us don't even know what habeas corpus is?
2006-09-30 02:37:22 · 10 answers · asked by gatheringplace2002 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Actually it applies to ANY alien, including legal aliens who have lived here peacefully for years.
AND the same bill allows the president to decide what qualifies as torturing these people who are being held without charges, and what doesn't.
WAKE UP!
2006-09-30 03:04:19 · update #1
Hey Bambi Slayer - how about the fact that the White House just rewrote the laws on wiretapping to suit Bush's spy program. Does that infringe on your rights as an American Citizen?
2006-09-30 03:26:04 · update #2
Most of these sheep have no clue about this. I will bet they might think differently if after being wrongly arrested on the basis of false secret evidence, AND after not being able to legally challenge their detention...it may dawn on them then.
This has to head to the USSC.
2006-09-30 02:53:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
NO it is not true, prisioners of war have never had habeus corpus. There was not a single German or Japanese prisioner in WWII allowed those rights and the world did not end and the President at that time was not a dictator but actually declared one of our better presidents.
When they government did violate citizens rights by rounding up all Japanese Americans, they were not given Habeus corpus rights and they even lost all of thier property, but yet in the time of war the President was praised for this during a war by citizens that knew that War meant killing and defeating an emeny at what ever the cost.
But after the war, there were no loss of rights, the President did not become a dictator.
What is very scarey is trying to give rights to POW that is not required by any treaty and that would destroy a governments power to fight a war and win it.
So habeus corpus was not taken away, since the people that are POW never had it to start with.
2006-09-30 02:38:41 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
The astonishing courtroom overruled the argument that the form or rights of habeas corpus do not practice in Rasul v. Bush. Civil rights in spite of the undeniable fact that, could be suspended in time of conflict, and Habeas corpus pertains to criminal complaints and to not "enemy fighters," who could be detained for the dimensions of "the conflict" See Padilla. Al Mari became not an enemy combatant because of the fact he became caught in the U. S. and in no way easily fought. In Al Mari v. Wright The courtroom held that "because of the fact Congress has not empowered the President to concern civilian alien terrorists in the united states to indefinite protection rigidity detention... we desire not, and don't, be certain despite if this way of grant of authority might violate the form. quite, we only carry that the form would not grant the President appearing on my own with this authority". The regulation now provides adequate relief for detainees and till all provisions for judicial assessment are exhausted, the communicate isn't ripe for astonishing courtroom assessment. yet see Justices Stevens and Kennedy's dissent in Boumedienne. thrilling subject, i'm going to would desire to study it extra later.
2016-10-18 06:08:50 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Writ of Habeas Corpus has NOT been "gutted". The denial of Habeas Corpus applies only to enemy combatants (foreign nationals who are identified as terrorists).
You right of Habeas Corpus is still in place and still available to you.
2006-09-30 02:46:29 · answer #4 · answered by Albannach 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes I am aware of this. I would go even further and predict that soon the citizenship of Americans will not protect you from being prosecuted under this law. There will come a time when there will be warrantless arrests of citizens. We will see the rise of "disappeareds". And of course the establishment of camps which will contain both citizens and non-citizens.
2006-09-30 03:11:41 · answer #5 · answered by Edward K 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
ha·be·as corpus
1.One of a variety of writs that may be issued to bring a party before a
court or judge, having as its function the release of the party from
unlawful restraint.
2. The right of a citizen to obtain such a writ.
Seeing that the terrorists are not citizens then they should not be treated as such. The military should handle them in the way they see fit.
PLEASE GET POLITICS OUT OF THIS WAR OR WE WILL BE IN ANOTHER VIETNAM
2006-09-30 02:43:18 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Feel free to stop ranting like a fool and post explicit details on how any current law has reduced my rights as anAmerican. I never see that stuff, just tinfoilhat ranting from braindead teens and dimocrats.
2006-09-30 03:15:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
We know enough, that Terrorist don't have the rights the Liberals
are trying to grant them.
2006-09-30 02:41:42 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Only for the military courts for terrorism suspects. Coming soon to US criminal courts? Perhaps, if we keep electing Republicans.
2006-09-30 02:40:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
If you mean for terrorists who wish to cause death and destructiion in our country, you have no case.
2006-09-30 02:41:03 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋