FISA Bill Up For a Vote Tomorrow

[/dev/null]

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/06/eff-o...g-telecom-immun

 

I don't remember hearing anything about floor debate from the most ethical Congress ever.

 

Will W hold a bipartisan signing ceremony with Nancy?

[Adam]

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/06/eff-o...g-telecom-immun

 

I don't remember hearing anything about floor debate from the most ethical Congress ever.

 

Will W hold a bipartisan signing ceremony with Nancy?

More ethical that the group that destroyed the system of checks and balances that has worked for a few hundred years?

[DC Tom]

More ethical that the group that destroyed the system of checks and balances that has worked for a few hundred years?

 

"Destroyed" is a bit of a strong, and inaccurate, word. "Pointedly ignored" is better.

[Adam]

"Destroyed" is a bit of a strong, and inaccurate, word. "Pointedly ignored" is better.

Fine, whichever.......the Constitution should not be ignored either.

[DC Tom]

Fine, whichever.......the Constitution should not be ignored either.

 

No...but don't think for a minute that anyone you elect to the White House, Congress, or is appointed to the Supreme Court gives a damn about that piece of parchment.

[Adam]

No...but don't think for a minute that anyone you elect to the White House, Congress, or is appointed to the Supreme Court gives a damn about that piece of parchment.

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not, but nobody should be able to suspend Habeus Corpus and hold a citizen indefinitely, with no interference from the other branches

[/dev/null]

More ethical that the group that destroyed the system of checks and balances that has worked for a few hundred years?

about the same. it's just the last group weren't talking about how ethical they would be or how they wouldn't pull the same tricks

[Adam]

about the same. it's just the last group weren't talking about how ethical they would be or how they wouldn't pull the same tricks

I don't care if they claim to be ethical or not- they BETTER be!

[DC Tom]

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not, but nobody should be able to suspend Habeus Corpus and hold a citizen indefinitely, with no interference from the other branches

 

No, I wasn't being sarcastic. The executive, legislative, and judicial branches have been shredding the Constitution for years.

 

But if you want to discuss habeas corpus...you're choosing an absolutely incorrect example. While the White House has tried to suspend habeas corpus for American citizens, the idea that there's been "no interference from the other branches" is so laughably incorrect it can only be willful ignorance on your part. Without straining, I can think of four Supreme Court decisions (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Padilla v. Rumsfeld, the recent Boumediene v. Bush) that directly and successfuly challenged the administration's presumed executive privilege in suspending habeas corpus.

 

And in two of those (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and Boumediene v. Bush), as well the court exceeded their constitutional powers in basing their decision not on any sort of accepted judicial standard but on the very questionable argument of "But it's a nice thing to do." - in other words, a true case of "legislating from the bench". In Hamdan, the Supremes very questionably overturned a legislative act of Congress on the debatable semantic argument that the words "in case of rebellion or invasion" in the Constitution has primacy over the clause "[as] the public safety requires" - in effect assuming themselves the responsibility for determining what "invasion" actually means, as well. In Boumediene, they took the absolutely ludicrous point of view that the Writ of Habeas Corpus extends to everyone on the goddamned planet, a position for which there is absolutely no judicial basis: given that there is not only no precedent in fact or principle, but that ALL precedent over the past several CENTURIES is completely contradictory to the Court's decision, Boumediene can only be characterized as a legislative act by the Supreme Court.

 

So I suggest you pick another example for demonizing the White House. Not only is your hypothesis that the executive is "unchallenged" in suspending the writ completely incorrect (to the point of being idiotic, actually), the Writ of Habeas Corpus has been pretty well abused over the past seven years by ALL the branches of the government, Congress and the Supreme Court included.

[Adam]

So I suggest you pick another example for demonizing the White House. Not only is your hypothesis that the executive is "unchallenged" in suspending the writ completely incorrect (to the point of being idiotic, actually), the Writ of Habeas Corpus has been pretty well abused over the past seven years by ALL the branches of the government, Congress and the Supreme Court included.

Check the language in the act that I mentioned it was written to consolidate power- and whether or not it was abused doesn't even matter. As for extending it to all non-citizens, no I don't agree with that- BUT, I don't condone holding them indefinitely without charges or torturing them either- we are supposed to be above that. If they committed terrorist acts, then charge them with something, execute them- we have no right to hold them indefinitely or torture them- that is something that is for terrorists to do, not for the United States.

 

Maybe people need to start abandoning the one-party system and we need to get a government that will uphold our Constitution. We were built on the Constitution, and we should fight for it

 

And I don't have to come up with reasons to demonize Bush- he's better at that than anyone else will ever be. He makes Carter look like a leader- and that is next to impossible

[RI Bills Fan]

No, I wasn't being sarcastic. The executive, legislative, and judicial branches have been shredding the Constitution for years.

 

But if you want to discuss habeas corpus...you're choosing an absolutely incorrect example. While the White House has tried to suspend habeas corpus for American citizens, the idea that there's been "no interference from the other branches" is so laughably incorrect it can only be willful ignorance on your part. Without straining, I can think of four Supreme Court decisions (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Padilla v. Rumsfeld, the recent Boumediene v. Bush) that directly and successfuly challenged the administration's presumed executive privilege in suspending habeas corpus.

 

And in two of those (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and Boumediene v. Bush), as well the court exceeded their constitutional powers in basing their decision not on any sort of accepted judicial standard but on the very questionable argument of "But it's a nice thing to do." - in other words, a true case of "legislating from the bench". In Hamdan, the Supremes very questionably overturned a legislative act of Congress on the debatable semantic argument that the words "in case of rebellion or invasion" in the Constitution has primacy over the clause "[as] the public safety requires" - in effect assuming themselves the responsibility for determining what "invasion" actually means, as well. In Boumediene, they took the absolutely ludicrous point of view that the Writ of Habeas Corpus extends to everyone on the goddamned planet, a position for which there is absolutely no judicial basis: given that there is not only no precedent in fact or principle, but that ALL precedent over the past several CENTURIES is completely contradictory to the Court's decision, Boumediene can only be characterized as a legislative act by the Supreme Court.

 

So I suggest you pick another example for demonizing the White House. Not only is your hypothesis that the executive is "unchallenged" in suspending the writ completely incorrect (to the point of being idiotic, actually), the Writ of Habeas Corpus has been pretty well abused over the past seven years by ALL the branches of the government, Congress and the Supreme Court included.

 

Tom, you continue to amaze me, your accomplishments are truely legion...

 

So now you're not only a lawyer, but a Lawyer with the gravitas to argue before and correct the Supreme Court of the United States?

 

Wow! Who Knew?

 

Or maybe, just maybe, you forgot to insert the phrase "Because I don't agree with the decision, in my (Supremely Qualified and Inarguably Correct) opinion" before each of the bolded parts of your quoted statement.

 

Obviously I disagree with you just slightly, but then again I also know that the SCOTUS is just slightly more qualified to decide important questions concerning constitutional law than I am, so I'm willing to defer to their judgement.

 

The fact that i agree with their decisions (in these cases) and disagree with the characterizations contained in your post not withstanding, please allow me to be the first person on these boards to congratulate you on your completion of law school (obviously first in your class) and your record setting score in passing the bar exam.

[DC Tom]

Or maybe, just maybe, you forgot to insert the phrase "Because I don't agree with the decision, in my (Supremely Qualified and Inarguably Correct) opinion" before each of the bolded parts of your quoted statement.

 

 

Of course, the decisions I disagree with were split 5-4...so is half the court unqualified to be on the court then?

 

And most of what you bolded isn't my opinion, but fact. It can be looked up rather easily. Ample precedent going back to before our country even existed established that habeas corpus does not apply to foreign nationals outside national soverignty, either the crown's or the Constitution's. My understanding of the law and precedent isn't based on my disagreement with the decisions, my disagreement is based on the law and precedent. And notably, if you could be bothered to read the Supreme Court's decisions, they state that their decisions aren't based on the law and precedent (when I have time, I'll provide you the direct quotes from Boumidiene and Hamdan.) You could look all this up, if you want.

 

Or you can indulge in attacking me. You seem to find it entertaining, and I honestly don't mind as you're rather good at it. Either way...

[RI Bills Fan]

Of course, the decisions I disagree with were split 5-4...so is half the court unqualified to be on the court then?

 

Tom, please try to remember this simple idea, Things that are different are not the same. The original question didn't concern the competency of the SCOTUS. The original question was more along the lines of; "Who is more competent in the area of constitutional law, the SCOTUS or DC Tom?"

 

You obviously believe you are the more competent of the two entities. So that settles it. Who am i to argue the opposite in the face of your obvious mental superiority?

 

And most of what you bolded isn't my opinion, but fact. It can be looked up rather easily. Ample precedent going back to before our country even existed established that habeas corpus does not apply to foreign nationals outside national soverignty, either the crown's or the Constitution's. My understanding of the law and precedent isn't based on my disagreement with the decisions, my disagreement is based on the law and precedent. And notably, if you could be bothered to read the Supreme Court's decisions, they state that their decisions aren't based on the law and precedent (when I have time, I'll provide you the direct quotes from Boumidiene and Hamdan.) You could look all this up, if you want.

 

Again, why should I set myself up for failure? You have pronounced these decisions by the SCOTUS to be lacking precedent, and contrary to established law, Therefore I am eagerly awaiting the SCOTUS's announcement that they have unanimously decided to reverse themselves based on your review of their split decision.

 

 

Or you can indulge in attacking me. You seem to find it entertaining, and I honestly don't mind as you're rather good at it. Either way...

 

Where and when did I attack you? I have complimented and congratulated you on your amazing accomplishments. I have deferred to your obviously superior knowledge of everything under the sun, moon, and stars. Why I've even briefly considered revising my opinion on the merits of the SCOTUS decisions under discussion here, based solely on your obviously superior understanding of the facts. How could any of those things be considered an attack on you?

[Adam]

Of course, the decisions I disagree with were split 5-4...so is half the court unqualified to be on the court then?

 

And most of what you bolded isn't my opinion, but fact. It can be looked up rather easily. Ample precedent going back to before our country even existed established that habeas corpus does not apply to foreign nationals outside national soverignty, either the crown's or the Constitution's. My understanding of the law and precedent isn't based on my disagreement with the decisions, my disagreement is based on the law and precedent. And notably, if you could be bothered to read the Supreme Court's decisions, they state that their decisions aren't based on the law and precedent (when I have time, I'll provide you the direct quotes from Boumidiene and Hamdan.) You could look all this up, if you want.

 

Or you can indulge in attacking me. You seem to find it entertaining, and I honestly don't mind as you're rather good at it. Either way...

I just want to clarify whether you think it is ok to hold a non-citizen indefinitely without charging them with anything- Habeus Corpus or not.

[DC Tom]

I just want to clarify whether you think it is ok to hold a non-citizen indefinitely without charging them with anything- Habeus Corpus or not.

 

Do you want to know if I think it's okay, or if I think it's legal?

 

And either way, the answer is "It depends". Are we talking about POWs under the Geneva Convention? Or people arrested and detained under the criminal justice system? Or foreign nationals covered with no standing under international or US domestic law such as...extra-national terrorists captured in military actions in Afghanistan?

 

I know the answer to that is likely to be accusing me of dodging the question...but the distinctions are important. To give a straight "no, I don't think it's okay" answer to such a blanket question would be to say that Constitutional protections apply, in violation of the Geneva Convention, to POWs, which I do not believe. To give a straight "yes" answer, on the other hand, would be to say that I believe a foreign national arrested within the US can be remanded to military custody, which I ALSO do not believe. If it were as simple as your question, the three branches of the government wouldn't have spent the past five years making !@#$ed-up decisions about it.

[DC Tom]

Tom, please try to remember this simple idea, Things that are different are not the same. The original question didn't concern the competency of the SCOTUS. The original question was more along the lines of; "Who is more competent in the area of constitutional law, the SCOTUS or DC Tom?"

 

You obviously believe you are the more competent of the two entities. So that settles it. Who am i to argue the opposite in the face of your obvious mental superiority?

 

 

 

Again, why should I set myself up for failure? You have pronounced these decisions by the SCOTUS to be lacking precedent, and contrary to established law, Therefore I am eagerly awaiting the SCOTUS's announcement that they have unanimously decided to reverse themselves based on your review of their split decision.

 

 

 

 

Where and when did I attack you? I have complimented and congratulated you on your amazing accomplishments. I have deferred to your obviously superior knowledge of everything under the sun, moon, and stars. Why I've even briefly considered revising my opinion on the merits of the SCOTUS decisions under discussion here, based solely on your obviously superior understanding of the facts. How could any of those things be considered an attack on you?

 

 

Like I said, you ARE good at it...

[Adam]

Do you want to know if I think it's okay, or if I think it's legal?

 

And either way, the answer is "It depends". Are we talking about POWs under the Geneva Convention? Or people arrested and detained under the criminal justice system? Or foreign nationals covered with no standing under international or US domestic law such as...extra-national terrorists captured in military actions in Afghanistan?

 

I know the answer to that is likely to be accusing me of dodging the question...but the distinctions are important. To give a straight "no, I don't think it's okay" answer to such a blanket question would be to say that Constitutional protections apply, in violation of the Geneva Convention, to POWs, which I do not believe. To give a straight "yes" answer, on the other hand, would be to say that I believe a foreign national arrested within the US can be remanded to military custody, which I ALSO do not believe. If it were as simple as your question, the three branches of the government wouldn't have spent the past five years making !@#$ed-up decisions about it.

Ok, how about this. We catch a terrorist and hold him for 70 years without charging him for anything. Now, thats a VERY extreme case, but this is what I am getting at.

[GG]

Ok, how about this. We catch a terrorist and hold him for 70 years without charging him for anything. Now, thats a VERY extreme case, but this is what I am getting at.

 

How about coming up with a probable example of someone getting caught & held, instead of inventing ridiculous strawmen?

 

Don't know how this thread turned into the discussion on the SCOTUS decision, but the biggest thing the court did was basically tell Congress that it needs to go back and clarify the laws, because 5 members of the court thought that the "invasion & rebellion" carveouts did not provide enough instruction to interpret the law.

[Adam]

How about coming up with a probable example of someone getting caught & held, instead of inventing ridiculous strawmen?

Because the notion of our country torturing captives is just as ridiculous.

[Chilly]

House passes compromise surveillance bill.

[DC Tom]

Ok, how about this. We catch a terrorist and hold him for 70 years without charging him for anything. Now, thats a VERY extreme case, but this is what I am getting at.

 

Again, catch him where and how?

 

If you want to know what I think should happen: anyone arrested within the US has full constitutional protection. Anyone captured in battle who was under the authority of a soverign national government (which includes the Taliban) should have full protection of the Geneva Convention. The grey area in between - trans-national terrorists - should be addressed through international law, an updated Geneva Convention, basically. Until then, an Act of Congress should be passed saying in effect that although such prisoners have no legal standing under domestic or international law, they will be entitled to certain rights enumerated by the current Geneva Convention until such time as a new Geneva Convention is created that grants them legal status and accepted by the Senate, at which time the new international law will supercede said Act.

 

Because everything that's been discussed and complained about - the military tribunals, Congress' MCA, Boudemiene v. Bush, all comes down to half-assed - and usually incorrect and unconstitutional - attempts by individual branches of the government to determine the legal status of such captives. Fundamentally, the correct legal answer right now is "They don't have any legal status, and we can do to them whatever we want", which while legal is not something I believe. But the military tribunals (even were we to presume they're benign), the cowardly acts of Congress passed so far, and the court decisions passed down are all fundamentally insufficient solutions as long as the fundamental issue - the legal status of prisoners - remains insufficiently addressed...and realistically, it has to be addressed by international law, not domestic.

[K-9]

Again, catch him where and how?

 

If you want to know what I think should happen: anyone arrested within the US has full constitutional protection. Anyone captured in battle who was under the authority of a soverign national government (which includes the Taliban) should have full protection of the Geneva Convention. The grey area in between - trans-national terrorists - should be addressed through international law, an updated Geneva Convention, basically. Until then, an Act of Congress should be passed saying in effect that although such prisoners have no legal standing under domestic or international law, they will be entitled to certain rights enumerated by the current Geneva Convention until such time as a new Geneva Convention is created that grants them legal status and accepted by the Senate, at which time the new international law will supercede said Act.

 

Because everything that's been discussed and complained about - the military tribunals, Congress' MCA, Boudemiene v. Bush, all comes down to half-assed - and usually incorrect and unconstitutional - attempts by individual branches of the government to determine the legal status of such captives. Fundamentally, the correct legal answer right now is "They don't have any legal status, and we can do to them whatever we want", which while legal is not something I believe. But the military tribunals (even were we to presume they're benign), the cowardly acts of Congress passed so far, and the court decisions passed down are all fundamentally insufficient solutions as long as the fundamental issue - the legal status of prisoners - remains insufficiently addressed...and realistically, it has to be addressed by international law, not domestic.

 

The most erudite summation of the issue I've read; here or anywhere else.

 

Until the legal status is addressed, I suggest we abide by our own time-honored American code of honor regarding prisoners.

[Adam]

Again, catch him where and how?

 

If you want to know what I think should happen: anyone arrested within the US has full constitutional protection. Anyone captured in battle who was under the authority of a soverign national government (which includes the Taliban) should have full protection of the Geneva Convention. The grey area in between - trans-national terrorists - should be addressed through international law, an updated Geneva Convention, basically. Until then, an Act of Congress should be passed saying in effect that although such prisoners have no legal standing under domestic or international law, they will be entitled to certain rights enumerated by the current Geneva Convention until such time as a new Geneva Convention is created that grants them legal status and accepted by the Senate, at which time the new international law will supercede said Act.

 

Because everything that's been discussed and complained about - the military tribunals, Congress' MCA, Boudemiene v. Bush, all comes down to half-assed - and usually incorrect and unconstitutional - attempts by individual branches of the government to determine the legal status of such captives. Fundamentally, the correct legal answer right now is "They don't have any legal status, and we can do to them whatever we want", which while legal is not something I believe. But the military tribunals (even were we to presume they're benign), the cowardly acts of Congress passed so far, and the court decisions passed down are all fundamentally insufficient solutions as long as the fundamental issue - the legal status of prisoners - remains insufficiently addressed...and realistically, it has to be addressed by international law, not domestic.

Can't find anything in there I disagree with at all.

[GG]

Because the notion of our country torturing captives is just as ridiculous.

 

That's quite the leap from indefinite detention to torture.

 

Just wondering if you're really concerned about the laws, the image or what actually happens to the detainees. Or just upset because you read something that just sounds wrong.

 

As is often the case, the criticism misses the solution component, nor the actual ramifications of the act. There is one thing that is worse than a bad law, it's an ambiguous law - and that's precisely what SCOTUS just left the DoD with. The ruling did not clarify the treatment of all detainees, just Guantanamo and opens a big question of what to do with similar detainees held in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. This now presents the battlefield commanders with a bigger dilemma of what to do with potential prisoners, introducing the real element of taking no prisoners to eliminate any doubt. Bravo for the human rights crowd.

 

The other logical alternative is for the US not to take anyone into custody, and immediately render the captives to local authorities or other jurisdictions, because as Tom points out, they are not subject to any legal authority, so the commanders' act to render can also be viewed as perfectly legal. Another huzzah for human rights.

[Adam]

That's quite the leap from indefinite detention to torture.

 

Just wondering if you're really concerned about the laws, the image or what actually happens to the detainees. Or just upset because you read something that just sounds wrong.

 

As is often the case, the criticism misses the solution component, nor the actual ramifications of the act. There is one thing that is worse than a bad law, it's an ambiguous law - and that's precisely what SCOTUS just left the DoD with. The ruling did not clarify the treatment of all detainees, just Guantanamo and opens a big question of what to do with similar detainees held in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. This now presents the battlefield commanders with a bigger dilemma of what to do with potential prisoners, introducing the real element of taking no prisoners to eliminate any doubt. Bravo for the human rights crowd.

 

The other logical alternative is for the US not to take anyone into custody, and immediately render the captives to local authorities or other jurisdictions, because as Tom points out, they are not subject to any legal authority, so the commanders' act to render can also be viewed as perfectly legal. Another huzzah for human rights.

What I am saying is that we should keep things we do within reason- I don't care how it appears. Torture is not an effective interrogation method- it just gets them to say something- anything to make it stop. I would prefer execution to that.

 

As far as holding indefinitely- I just mean don't hold them a ridiculous amount of time and just leave them sitting there.

[GG]

What I am saying is that we should keep things we do within reason- I don't care how it appears. Torture is not an effective interrogation method- it just gets them to say something- anything to make it stop. I would prefer execution to that.

 

As far as holding indefinitely- I just mean don't hold them a ridiculous amount of time and just leave them sitting there.

 

Your "reason" could be different from someone else's definition of "reason" and the resulting ambiguity that unclear laws carry and have the potential for much graver damage. Nice to see that you prefer execution to torture. How about execution to a long term detention, which is the most likely outcome?

[Adam]

Your "reason" could be different from someone else's definition of "reason" and the resulting ambiguity that unclear laws carry and have the potential for much graver damage. Nice to see that you prefer execution to torture. How about execution to a long term detention, which is the most likely outcome?

OK, let me further define what I meant by that- I am not for an unjust execution, but if it were me, I would rather be executed than suffer for a long time.

 

I understand that defining such things isn't an easy task, but they are supposed to get elected for a reason

[Chilly]

Looks like only one Republican voted no, some guy from Minnesota. I'm disappointed in Ron Paul not voting.

[BillsFanNC]

 

[BillsFanNC]