The Road to hell...

It is poorly written and can be interpreted to mean something no one wants. You believe as you do based on faith. The way it's written it could easily be misused.
Click to expand...


Any law no matter how well written can be misused. That doesn't mean we shouldn't pass laws. As long as it is within the confines of the constitution, a law is valid. Courts don't judge laws on how they might be misused, they judge them on whether they are constitutional on their face.

This law doesn't infringe on anyones rights. Its that simple. The miltary courts and the suspension of habeas only apply to aliens. There is no possible way that you can read this any other way.

Since some of you apparently think I'm an idiot, please prove me wrong.
 
Well some laws can be misused more than others. The law creating FISA courts hasn't seemed to be to our detriment while some might say the PATRIOT Act can/will/has.

Another school of thought is that if you start depriving aliens of Habeus Corpus, it's only a matter of time before it's extended to us. Remember that whole "Treat others as you'd like to be treated" bs? Well, there's a reason for that.

So what if they were picked up off a battlefield somewhere while trying to shoot our boys. Either they should have been shot or detained somewhere until this war is over. But since there is no end to this war...
 
Last edited:
Stage 2,
The responses that you're getting here (including mine) are all following the same theme: There is nothing anywhere in this legislation that specifically precludes American citizens from being subject to it. There should have been.
Click to expand...

With respect to what. You are correct in that it doesn't say anything about a us citizen not being an unlawful enemy combatant. However there's nothing unconstitutional about declaring a us citizen an unlawful enemy combatant. Doing so doesn't invalidate their due process rights. As for the rest of the statute it only applies to aliens.


You interpret the word 'alien' as 'non-American' and I completely understand where you're coming from *but* legally, it's not that simple.
Click to expand...

I haven't interpreted anything. Verbatim from the statute...

ALIEN.—The term ‘alien’ means a person who is not a citizen of the United States

So tell me how this isn't that simple. Any time you see the word alien it means someone who is NOT a US citizen. The statute specifically says it only has jurisdiction over ALIEN combatants. Meaning it only has jurisdiction over people who are not US citizens. Maybe you would feel better if they wrote it out, but legally it makes no difference.

As I said in my first post, if this bill contained wording specifically excluding American citizens I would have no beef with it, constitutionally speaking. I think it's strategically inept, but not unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


Again, I'm not arguing about whether its inept or not. I quite honestly haven't made up my mind yet.

Look, by virtue of my job I deal with statutes, laws, and stuff like this every day. I should probably cut some of you some slack since most people don't ever come into contact with stuff like this.

This is the way laws are made. Most all start with definitions, statements of legislative authority, statements of intent and then the actual law itself. Lawmakers just don't write out stuff. Don't ask me why thats just the way they do it.

But for a law, this is about as clear as they come. You just aren't going to get a more straightforward definition.

Like it or not, this bill expressly states that us citizens are not within its paramaters for military tribunals and suspension of habeas.
 
Does anyone dispute this could have easily been written much better to specifically exempt American Citizens ?

If we all can't agree on that much ....
 
I feel like I’m banging my head against a wall, but...

ITEOTWAWKI,
You stated that somehow (and I’m not clear how) this law could be applied to a non-alien that meets the criteria of “unlawful enemy combatant”. I think I have the heart of your argument stated, if not, feel free to correct me. If, however, I have correctly stated your case, please be so kind as to show me the specific section of this law that provides military tribunal jurisdiction and suspension of habeas corpus to non-aliens.

As I explained in my previous post, defining “unlawful enemy combatant” doesn’t negate the specific criteria of “alien” that is stated in the law when it delineates over who the law has jurisdiction.
 
Petre,
Does anyone dispute this could have easily been written much better to specifically exempt American Citizens ?
Click to expand...
I dispute that the law as written doesn’t specifically exempt American citizens. An American citizen cannot belong to the category of “alien”. Since the law defines it’s jurisdiction to the category of people that are aliens, it cannot be the case that it’s jurisdiction would in any way be over American citizens. It doesn’t matter if an American citizen is an “unlawful enemy combatant” or not. Because that American citizen doesn’t also belong to the category of “alien” this law, as written and signed, would not apply to him. It really doesn't get much more simple than that.
 
An unlawful enemy combatant might be a us citizen, and might not. An alien unlawful enemy combatant cannot by definition in any way shape or form be a US citizen. This bill only deals with the latter.
Click to expand...
Citizen John Doe is arrested in Los Angeles after some informant/detainee identifies him as a conspirator in a plot to smuggle a nuke into the U.S. from the Port of Los Angeles. Authorities find circumstantial evidence (like a map of the Port) in his apartment, and maybe some books like How to Eat Soup with a Knife and a Koran. Maybe he has a degree in nuclear physics, too, and has travelled to the middle east.

The government argues that as a member of a terrorist conspiracy, John Doe has relinquished his U.S. citizenship.

We could end up in a situation where suspects have to beat the accusations of terrorism before they're afforded the extra rights of citizens... at which point they don't need those rights anymore.

Also, procedural civil rights in criminal proceedings have never been dependent on citizenship. Shouldn't resident aliens have the same rights that we have when accused of a crime?
 
tyme,
Here's your answer...
Amdt 5:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It doesn't say "citizen", it says "person". So in the specific case of an alien combatant on American soil I don't see how they are not covered.
I'm not saying it applies outside American territory, but once you bring somebody here or into our territory (such as Guantanamo Bay) it does.

This doesn't give us much room to fight enemy combatants who are not operating on behalf of a foreign power, so the question becomes how do you fix it legally instead of pretending it's not there?
 
The government argues that as a member of a terrorist conspiracy, John Doe has relinquished his U.S. citizenship.
Click to expand...

Thats not going to fly. In order for a person to lose their citizenship, they must perform one of several listed acts with the specific intent of relinquishing their citizenship.

It is well settled case law that the only way of proving intent is by the persons own admission. Meaning, if the guy gets up on the stand and says, "yes I was trying to blow up the whitehouse, but no I wasnt trying to abandon my citizenship" then the government has no.... I repeat zero argument. Look at section 349 of the INA.

If the guy was trying to expatriate himself then he isn't a us citizen and he will be subject to the provisions of this bill. But only if he himself freely admits to abandoning his citizenship.

Bottom line, your scenario is not remotely possible.
 
Also, procedural civil rights in criminal proceedings have never been dependent on citizenship. Shouldn't resident aliens have the same rights that we have when accused of a crime?
Click to expand...


Not that this really pertains to the issue here, but resident aliens do share some of the constitutional protections. However they do so because of statute and not because of the constitution. As a result if congress decided to change its mind, they could deny resident aliens and LPR's these rights tomorrow.
 
I have a question, for those of you who are complaining about the interpretations of "liberal law professors" on this:

Who do you think will be sitting on the bench overseeing these types of trials, and ruling who is (or is not) protected by Habeas Corpus, when President H. Clinton is in office?

Give you a hint ... it won't be strict constructionists. Who are rare birds even now.

pax
 
ahenry Petre,

Quote:
Does anyone dispute this could have easily been written much better to specifically exempt American Citizens ?

I dispute that the law as written doesn’t specifically exempt American citizens. An American citizen cannot belong to the category of “alien”. Since the law defines it’s jurisdiction to the category of people that are aliens, it cannot be the case that it’s jurisdiction would in any way be over American citizens. It doesn’t matter if an American citizen is an “unlawful enemy combatant” or not. Because that American citizen doesn’t also belong to the category of “alien” this law, as written and signed, would not apply to him. It really doesn't get much more simple than that.
Click to expand...

"Any man woman child can be labeled an enemy combatant."

Gramatically speaking this sentence is correct as written. So what's wrong with it. (Don't believe me ? Type that sentence into Microsoft Word and do a grammar check)

This new law is written the same way. Would you distinguish between a man woman and child.

It (the new law) is cleverly written to be non-conclusive and ambiguous. You can fly on faith if you want.

It should have been written specifically exempting American citizens.


If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. - Thomas Jefferson





.
 
Who do you think will be sitting on the bench overseeing these types of trials, and ruling who is (or is not) protected by Habeas Corpus, when President H. Clinton is in office?
Click to expand...
Ummm, I don't think you follow SCOTUS decisions very carefully, pax. It's the Conservative Appointees that have been giving the benefit of the doubt to the Exec Branch and FedGov in case after case; not the Ginsburgs or the Souters.
Rich
 
Who do you think will be sitting on the bench overseeing these types of trials, and ruling who is (or is not) protected by Habeas Corpus, when President H. Clinton is in office?
Click to expand...


I really don't care. Because I am a strict constructionist I don't bend my principles to what might happen one day maybe. If the law is valid on its face then its constitutional.

This law is completely constitutional, and I'm not going to engage in the behavior of the other side simply because it might be advantageous for me.
 
It should have been written specifically exempting American citizens.
Click to expand...


I don't quite know what to say to this. Several people here have pointed out a couple of times that it is literally impossible to use this bill to do anything to an american citizen.

This bill specifically exempts american citizens from the authority of the military courts. I can't say it any plainer than that. Either you don't want to admit it for whatever reason, or you simply can't read.

It amazes me the degree people will go to when they have developed preconcieved notions about things.
 
Thats not going to fly. In order for a person to lose their citizenship, they must perform one of several listed acts with the specific intent of relinquishing their citizenship.
Click to expand...
Maybe so.

The government indefinitely imprisoned Hamdi and Padilla before this bill was passed. I just find it hard to believe that the Bush Administration really views this new legislation as a compromise. I suspect they see it as giving them more power, and the next time they want to detain a U.S. citizen indefinitely, I very much doubt that the lack of authority in this legislation will stop them.

Ultimately, it is up to the courts, but the courts haven't done very much in the way of stomping on the executive for its behavior in the Hamdi and Padilla cases. Come on... I don't care where Hamdi was picked up. He was a U.S. citizen, but he was forced to relinquish his U.S. citizenship and be deported to Saudi Arabia, or he would have been held longer while the Executive wrangled with the courts some more. That is not right.
 
Rich ~

You're probably right. I don't follow them nearly as closely as I should.

My only point was that it won't be long before the country puts a liberal in office (which it will -- that pendulum always swings), and gives her all the same "terrorism-fighting" tools and unchecked powers that President Bush has lobbied for and received.

When that happens, the folks who're complaining about the "liberal law professors" now, will then be complaining about "judicial activism" and the erasure of all the checks and balances that are supposed to prevent those abuses -- and will sound, then, amusingly like the liberal law professors sound right now.

And, of course, those "liberal law professors" will swap sides, too, and as judges will uphold the very laws they're decrying now -- in fact, they'll walk straight through the very loopholes and ambiguities they are pointing out now.

The arguments will be the same, only the people making them will switch places.

pax

The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield. -- Thomas Jefferson
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top