so why all the groaning from the left about it?
Also, why is it a good idea to tie up our criminal justice system trying enemy combatants?
2006-11-18 04:39:38 · 12 answers · asked by why? 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
The ACLU. (sarcasm)
2006-11-18 05:47:01 · update #1
In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld the courts ruled that an enemy combatant, without uniform, is a war criminal, and could be detained indefinitely (until hostilities end, but until then, indefinitely), and that he could be tried by the US in whatever time frame the tribunal deems necessary. Next, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (Hamdi and Hamdan sound similar but are two very different cases) the courts struck down a few of Bush's initiatives but upheld many of the other ones. Afterwards, the MCA was passed (the military commission act) which allows for the Secretary of Defense to decide what is a war crime, it defines conspiracy as a war crime, and suspends habeous corpus for those caught as enemy combatants.
Now, with all that behind us, the libs feel they are threatened because someone will be showing up to their house and hauling them off to jail. Not so. They would have to be involved in conspiracy to commit a terrorist act or to fight against our own troops to be detained. If this is what they are doing, then yes, they should be upset about these laws. If they are just a normal American Joe, however, nothing in these laws will EVER affect them. Its just another way they want to weaken our national security. Good question
2006-11-18 07:30:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I haven't experienced trouble with the law,and I hope I never do. I've never had to go through anything with your first question. Our criminal justice system is "tied up" with a lot more things, in general, than enemy combatants. It's just part of the system and that's life.
2006-11-18 04:45:13 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Its not about if we have been denied it yet. They passed the law as a precident. When Social Security cards first became law the American people were told that they would never be used for Identification purposes, so no one groaned. If they set the precident and the American people stand for it, you are telling our government that its ok and 20 years down the line our kids will be able to be held without trial or bail for things like speeding. You really want our government to have that type of power?
Do I care because I think I will be denied trial? No, I care because 20 years down the line I don't want Marvin Bush using it on American citizens.
2006-11-18 04:58:50 · answer #3 · answered by Jared H 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Because the constitution guarantees it. Article I Section 9. Habeas corpus shall not be suspended. Over a century ago, the Supreme Court ruled that means as long as the federal courts are open for business, that relief is available.
The Supreme Court has repeated that in its 2006 ruling on the issue. But they made the choice very simple. Bush can set up new courts, as long as they have all the same due process safeguards and constitutional protections of other courts. So, as long as the new military tribunals follow constitutional requirements, the Supreme Court doesn't care what they are called. The problem is, Bush doesn't want to follow the constitution.
But look at it this way. If someone kills people or rapes children in the next town over from you, and you don't know the victims, why should you care? You personally are not being hurt. What does it matter if someone else is? Or that laws are being broken. That appears to be your argument. As long as it's not you or your family that is suffering govt abuse by unconstitutional action, what does it matter if the govt abuses its authority and violates the law?
It matters. Those are MY rights that are being taken away. And yours. Just because I've never needed to exercise them doesn't make them any less mine. And just because you haven't needed them yet doesn't make them any less yours.
We only have those rights we can defend. And once we lose those rights to govt abuse, they are gone. Once and for all of us.
2006-11-18 04:40:57 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 8⤊ 4⤋
lol, of course not. coragryaph can cry like the bed wetting leftist girl he is on as many on these questions as he wants, it will not change the FACT that no rights have been abriged for american citizens, and neither the constitution nor the bill of right holds any relevancy to non US citizens
2006-11-18 05:12:22 · answer #5 · answered by God of Fire 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Because it does not matter whether you are an American or not, you should still have the right of habeus corpus
2006-11-18 04:41:37 · answer #6 · answered by smartass 3 · 6⤊ 2⤋
They came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. They came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a trade unionist. They came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. They came for me, and there was no one left to speak up.
2006-11-18 05:07:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Great Question!!!
The Habe has NOT been suspended. It is still as USEFUL (sarcasm) as it ever was.
Get the ACLU to tell you how many have ever been won!!
2006-11-18 04:41:41 · answer #8 · answered by ? 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
is that necrophelia?bye,bye, miss american pie,drove my chevy to the levy but the levy was dry,and good old boys were drinking whiskey and rye,singing this will be the day that i die,this will be the day that i die,the day,the music died
2006-11-18 04:52:02 · answer #9 · answered by dale 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Do you really have any idea what heabus corpus is?
2006-11-18 05:01:19 · answer #10 · answered by firewomen 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋