> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Charlie Bell > Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 5:15 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: We Will Not Be Afraid > > > On 24/10/2006, at 2:21 AM, Dan Minette wrote: > > > > > But their "next friend" can...and this has happened in both cases > > where a > > citizen was declared an unlawful enemy combatant. Both cases have > > been > > reviewed by the courts. The potential hole in habeas corpus, someone > > rotting in prison has no chance to petition a court because he > > can't get to > > a court has been thought of and dealt with decades ago. > > Meanwhile, you spend 4 years in a jail, possibly in Syria, and get > tortured. Great. > > Charlie
Charlie, why are you mixing up cases of the treatment Syrian/Canadian citizen who was sent to Syria (under the well established legal precedent)? Was it a lousy thing to do? absolutely. Did they get the wrong man? probably, since he's now allowed in the US. Was it legal? That's well established. No country is required to admit the citizens of another country. This is not as troublesome as extraordinary renditions, which had been practiced for years by Clinton as well as Bush. I'm not defending it by saying worse has been happening on a regular basis, but merely indicating that it is not an example of something radically new. With respect to the time it would take for a writ of habeas corpus to be filed after a person was declared an enemy combatant, I think it is would be worthwhile to see how long it took for a writ of habeas corpus to be filed on behalf of Padilla: From http://cipp.gmu.edu/research/Padilla-0602Article.php <quote> On June 9, 2002 President Bush declared Padilla an enemy combatant and ordered him to be detained in a military brig in South Carolina....In June 2002, Donna Newman, Padilla's appointed attorney, filed a writ of habeas corpus on his behalf. <end quote> So, it took less than three weeks for the writ to be filed. The problem for Padilla was the 60+ year old Supreme Court precedent, not an inherent problem with habeas corpus. Given the precedent, it would be hard for a lower court judge to honor the writ...ignoring the Supreme court precedent establishing the Commander-in-Chief's right to assume this power. What I'm trying to argue is certainly not that Bush did the right thing in these cases. Rather, that he didn't break any new ground. In particular, the law we are discussing breaks no new ground. All the problems that could be posed by this law were already better established in precident. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
