+- Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org)
+-- Forum: Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Lounge (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Did you know we don't have the right to Habeas Corpus? (/showthread.php?tid=5356)
Did you know we don't have the right to Habeas Corpus? - G.Irish - 01-24-2007
The Attorney General was testifying before Congress yesterday about Guantanamo detainees and said:
A.Gonzales Wrote:The fact that the Constitution -- again, there is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution. There's a prohibition against taking it away.
But it's never been the case. I'm not aware of a Supreme. . .
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/22/AR2007012201152.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01152.html</a><!-- m -->
Whoa I didn't know that. The Constitution says the right cannot be taken away... but it doesn't say we have it. Guess that means we don't have it right?
- CaptainHenreh - 01-24-2007
The constitution does not grant rights to the people.
- G.Irish - 01-24-2007
Sure it doesn't. People already have those rights and the Constitution prohibits the government from taking them.
- CaptainHenreh - 01-24-2007
G.Irish Wrote:Sure it doesn't. People already have those rights and the Constitution prohibits the government from taking them.
Which is why what Mr. Gonzales is saying is so ridiculous. That's why talking about the Constitution "granting" rights isn't correct. And Mr. Gonzales isn't correct.
And should be fired. Bravo to Sen. Specter.
edit: I belive Alexander "Ten Dolla" Hamilton said it best:
Quote:"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"
- JackoliciousLegs - 01-24-2007
Silly liberal banter if you ask me.
- white_2kgt - 01-24-2007
These people are in GitMo, they HAVE no rights.
- Andy - 01-24-2007
white_2kgt Wrote:These people are in GitMo, they HAVE no rights.
If we could confirm that these folks were Al Qaeda members or another confirmed belligerents, I would agree that we should be able to hold them until the conflict ceases. However, the concern I think folks have with Gitmo is that the detainees aren't all combatants. All it took for the US military to pickup folks in Afghanistan was for a neighbor to finger you and say that you were an AQ member or Taliban member.
Do you remember the case of the 4 Weegurs who were picked up and sent to Gitmo for 2-3 years?
I'm not saying that they should be let go but we should try our very best to:
1)confirm their identity
2)Prosecute them in front of a judge.
- G.Irish - 01-24-2007
Right. If they are prisoners of war then there are rules that go along with their detention. If they are illegal combatants guilty of some sort of crime then they should be tried and sent to jail.
- Evan - 01-24-2007
Are they US citizens? The constitution doesnt do jack for non citizens. (thus your "we" statement in the title doesnt hold true)
Although I agree with Andy, we need to figure out who they are and what they did, but we under no circumstances should let a bunch of them go just because a bunch of hippies start whining about them.
- white_2kgt - 01-24-2007
Evan Wrote:Are they US citizens? The constitution doesnt do jack for non citizens.
If they were do you think they'd be in GitMo? Um, no. The ACLU would be all over their ass so hard bush would off himself.
- Ginger - 01-24-2007
white_2kgt Wrote:Evan Wrote:Are they US citizens? The constitution doesnt do jack for non citizens.
If they were do you think they'd be in GitMo? Um, no. The ACLU would be all over their ass so hard bush would off himself.
Can't American servicemen be held there?
- white_2kgt - 01-24-2007
asteele2 Wrote:white_2kgt Wrote:Evan Wrote:Are they US citizens? The constitution doesnt do jack for non citizens.
If they were do you think they'd be in GitMo? Um, no. The ACLU would be all over their ass so hard bush would off himself.
Can't American servicemen be held there?
I'm not sure about that, but even if they were, military court is WORSE than criminal court. Servicemen have MUCH less freedom than the average citizen.
- Ginger - 01-24-2007
^
Oh, absolutely. I wouldn't want anything to do with a military tribunal... especially not at a Marine facility.