> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Charlie Bell > Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 8:17 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: We Will Not Be Afraid > > > On 21/10/2006, at 8:10 AM, Dan Minette wrote: > > This would seem to exclude citizens. However, it actually doesn't, > because if you are declared a UEC because you have been deemed to > have provided material support to terrorists (say you'd rented an > apartment to the 9/11 hijackers), then you are one until you can > challenge it in a court... oh. Now you can't, until the Government > says you can.
Why not? Where in the law does it say that habeas corpus has been suspended? Now, if you can show me where it states that citizens lose their habeas corpus rights if they are declared an unlawful enemy combatant, then I'd get worried and upset. But, it's pretty clear from the actions of Bush and the Supreme Court that they don't. If Bush thought there was a real chance he could do this, he would have let the case reach the Supreme Court. > What I don't get is how preventing a person from exercising their > right to a hearing in court (a *human right*, not an American one) > helps anything at all. The example that is often used is the response of AQ to the trial of the first WTC bomber. They learned a great deal about the exact technique the US used to determine the involvement of AQ in that bombing from the court proceedings. As a result, a lot of intelligence dried up. In order to prove guilt, the government had to submit evidence, and make a copy of that evidence available to the defendant before the trial. It seems reasonable to me that there is a tradeoff between security and liberty. I'll give one example. Let's say the police didn't follow proper procedures in getting a warrant, and the warrant they received wasn't sufficient to cover the evidence they found. That evidence, even though it might be sufficient to prove someone guilty of murder...he might get off and be free to kill again because of the screw-up. But, if such evidence is allowed, then the police will be free to go on fishing expeditions, with a limited warrant serving as a basis for an unlimited search. This type of question is one of the tradeoffs that are brought to the Supreme Court. There is a tradeoff involved. > What I also don't get is how *any* erosion of the Bill of Rights > helps make Americans "safer". Well, I think that keeping the folks I know who are members of private militia from being able to buy any weapons they want is a very good idea, even thought they insist it erodes their 2nd Amendment rights. :-) > > > > It's the same in the UK (in fact more so, as there is no written > constitution) and many other places. It's not a subtlety, it's a > feature of most jurisprudence I'm aware of, and I'm sure someone as > politically savvy as Ritu is perfectly aware of it. Maybe so, but if so, how could the law of changed anything? Since the US does have a constitution and the powers of the Commander in Chief as they exist today were not clearly expressed in the Constitution, the interplay between precedent and the written Constitution is rather subtle. And, it's strongly debated. So, what I am saying is that, due to the nature of the Constitution and the precedent, the effect of the law is limited...it provides a legal framework for the military court system used to try alien unlawful combatants. The Supreme Court said that those courts Congress must be involved in setting up these courts. This law involves Congress. That's the only important new ground covered by this law. Let me ask a question about the UK legal system. Let's say Parliament passes a law that prohibits the criticism of the government during a war, and that the House of Lords approves it (IIRC, they can still reject a bill once by sending it back to the House of Commons, but I may be wrong about this.) Can the law be ruled null and void by the courts because it violates the precedence of court rulings? My understanding is that, if Parliament were to pass such a law, there would be no legal reason that courts could declare it null and void. In the US, they could. Further, they could, and often do, rely on precedence in interpreting the constitution to do so. That's the sort of subtle interplay that I didn't think was clear to non-Americans. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
