Why Aren't People Outraged About Loss of Habeas Corpus?

Question

If you haven't heard, the Supreme Court just denied the right of habeas corpus to foreign detainees. This basically means that NOBODY has habeas corpus, because the government can now remove anyone from the country, claim that they are an enemy combatant, not a US citizen, and the person will never get a chance to demonstrate otherwise in a court of law. So an 800 year old right (Magna Carta, 1215 AD) just went down the drain. Isn't that horrifying? And, did you know, at least two senators said they only voted for the Military Commisions Act of 2006 because they assumed the Supreme Court would overturn it? Isn't that outrageous?

A lot of people are saying they have nothing to worry about, because you are non-enemy-combatants. You don't seem to realize that when it comes to legal disputes, you are NOTHING until a court of law says you are.

Oh, sorry. It was a federal court, but not the Supreme Court. It ain't quite over yet.

Answer 1

What most of these people don't seem to realize is that it already has happened to American citizens. They have been 'rendered' to foreign countries and tortured because they are Muslims. They have been held in jail for years without trial, charges, or lawyers. These are Americans arrested in America.

Answer 2

Damn right I'm outraged! Bush & Co. have systematically destroyed the Constitution during his regime and those who think it's only "enemy combatants" who can be thrown in a cell forever will be really surprised when they start coming for their friends and neighbors.

I just can't get over how Bush has gotten away with destroying what America has stood for for 250 years - particularly the right to be heard in court. I have no problem with an enemy being tried in court, with full evidence presented and found guilty - I will tolerate no one who is a threat to my country. So which Gitmo detainees have been tried and found guilty yet? NONE. They cannot be considered terrorists if they haven't been convicted of anything!

You all do know where these people in Gitmo came from, don't you? Many were SOLD to the U.S. by village chiefs on completely trumped up charges. Some poor bastard sheepherder might have looked at the chief's daughter for a second too long and the next thing he knows, he's on a one-way flight to Cuba.

American should hang its head in shame - we are not what Washington and Jefferson created and fought for.

Answer 3

Because I'm not an enemy combatant.

FYI, in all past wars, enemy combatants were never given habeas corpus privileges. So this is a following of precedence.

The military commissions act set up several levels of review boards to make sure that the detainee is, in fact, an enemy combatant.

Then they have the opportunity to go to military tribunal, including having a lawyer.

I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. People are not, nor will they be picked up off the street and declared enemy combatants for no reason. For one, the military would never put up with that type of crap. The conservative majority military is more hawkish about protecting the rights of Americans than any other group extant.

Answer 4

The very best courtroom overruled the argument that the structure or rights of habeas corpus do no longer prepare in Rasul v. Bush. Civil rights notwithstanding, would nicely be suspended in time of warfare, and Habeas corpus pertains to criminal proceedings and not at all to "enemy warring parties," who would nicely be detained for the period of "the warfare" See Padilla. Al Mari became no longer an enemy combatant because he became stuck interior the US and not at all absolutely fought. In Al Mari v. Wright The courtroom held that "because Congress has no longer empowered the President to subject civilian alien terrorists interior america to indefinite military detention... we favor no longer, and do not, make sure even if one of those provide of authority would violate the structure. truly, we in simple terms carry that the structure does no longer provide the President performing on my own with this authority". The regulation now grants sufficient relief for detainees and until eventually all provisions for judicial evaluation are exhausted, the talk isn't ripe for very best courtroom evaluation. yet see Justices Stevens and Kennedy's dissent in Boumedienne. thrilling subject, i am going to ought to study it extra later.

Answer 5

The only thing they did was say that the detainees are not allowed. They didn't say anything about American citizens. And, if everyone is honest and doesn't break the law...it doesn't affect them.

Our government has no reason to remove American citizens from this country..none. Why should we get up in arms and worry for nothing? No, it isn't outrageous...not really.

It's important you watch this video. It will help you understand why they are doing what they are doing. It's a 15 minute interview on CN8 in New Jersey, with 3 former terrorists who are practicing tolerance. It's gonna blow your socks off when you find out where they're being bred, and where the money is coming from.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=LK07B70&f=PW07B04&t=e

Answer 6

I don't understand it either. It is a fundamental right to have access to the legal system. Held for every without charges is something that happens in Russia. I wonder if we are becoming them. Maybe it is the attitude that it can't happen to me. Maybe it is because I am a repuglican and we have a repuglican president that it is ok, because a repuglican did it. For whatever reason I hope people wake up and smell the skunk in the wood shed before they get sprayed.

Edit: for the people that answer it isn't for Ameican citizens, wrong. The military act of 2006 says in effect anybody can have this happen to them.

Answer 7

Conservatives used to complain about the crumby U.S. educational system which they blamed on--you guessed it--liberals. I haven't heard much of that recently. They must have figured out that selfish, poorly educated people were their base.That explains most of the answers from the cons here...

Answer 8

In times of war, the law is silent" said Cicero, and believed by most Supreme Court Justices- except Renquist,

Answer 9

I'm not planning on being an enemy combatant anytime soon; so I'm safe.

At least the MCA: 2006 offers recognition to enemy combatants. No international treaty, including the Geneva Conventions, address the "rights" of enemy combatants. Prior to MCA: 2006 ununiformed combatants were afforded no rights and were subject to summary execution. The Geneva Conventions allow brutal methods to be used on spies, ununiformed comabatants were subject to similar treatment.

Answer 10

Amen brother. Preach on. Most people are clueless about legal issues.