1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

connecticut senator to introduce bill to restore writ of habeas corpus

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by Herbert Anchovy, Nov 17, 2006.

Page 2 of 3
  1. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member

    Oh, let's.
     
    Ben_Hecht, Nov 17, 2006
    #13
  2. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I agree with Dodd that we are going about this wrong and I want to see changes... I don't think the U.S. should be secretly detaining people indefinitely in secrecy, even though I don't think enemy combatants should be afforded the rights of U.S. citizens.

    That said, at least frame your argument correctly. RESTORE writ of habeas corpus? The detainees never had habeas corpus rights. They are not U.S. citizens.

    It's also a nice piece of grandstanding by Dodd. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 was JUST passed and signed into law last month, and it specifically suspends habeas corpus for any noncitizen determined to be an "unlawful enemy combatant engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States."

    It passed overwhelmingly, although I am fairly certain Dodd voted against it. My question is, in order to overturn legislation that was just signed into law with legislation that is the exact opposite, at least a half dozen democrats are going to have to change their vote--flip-flop, to use Bush lingo. Is that happening?
     
    The Big Ragu, Nov 17, 2006
    #14
  3. Fenian_Bastard

    Fenian_Bastard Guest

    Ragu -- Politically, you're incorrect. As far as I know, all six of the new Demorcratic senators are opposed to the MCA, especially Tester and Webb. And, as you must know, there's nothing in the MCA or the supporting documents that limits the president's right to declare anyone, including an American citizen, an "enemy combatant." Basically, he gets to set the conditions unilaterally. All American citizens used to have the right of habeas corpus -- and let's not pretend it hasn't been a staple of Western jurisprudence since the 1100's. British citizens have the right in their courts, too.
    There is nothing in the threat we now face that is so dangerous that it requires this kind of authortiarian bullshit, and good on Dodd for trying to start rolling it back
     
    Fenian_Bastard, Nov 17, 2006
    #15
  4. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    Dodd is nothing if not pragmatic. I don't think he'd be putting it out there for show.
     
    cranberry, Nov 17, 2006
    #16
  5. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I pride myself on being politically incorrect, FB! :)

    Agree and agree, btw. This administration shouldn't be trusted with broad powers.

    Political correctness in this case is still going to mean at least a half dozen democrats (if not more) who voted for the MCA are going to have to now change their position. The MCA didn't just squeek by. It was passed by an overwhelming majority.
     
    The Big Ragu, Nov 17, 2006
    #17
  6. Fenian_Bastard

    Fenian_Bastard Guest

    Here's the Senate vote:
    http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?vote_id=3921
    All six new senators vote with Dodd, and he can pick up the rest of the votes he needs by pushing this as an adjustment of the previous bill.
    We'll see.
     
    Fenian_Bastard, Nov 17, 2006
    #18
  7. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    In other words, when they didn't want to be seen as soft on terror in the face of an upcoming election, they voted for the thing... Emboldened by the election, they've now suddenly found conviction... and it's just an "adjustment" not an about face? This is the kind of hypocrisy that really bugs me about the American political process.
     
    The Big Ragu, Nov 17, 2006
    #19
  8. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    Ragu --

    honest question. If the people affected in this bill never had habeas corpus rights, why did we need a law to suspend them?

    I'm admittedly confused.
     
    zeke12, Nov 17, 2006
    #20
  9. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    Well, let's see here ... the Bill of Rights has to do with citizens of the US. The Geneva Convention has to do with prisoners of war in a declared action fighting for a specific country's armed forced.

    The terrorists do not qualify on either front, so try again.
     
    old_tony, Nov 17, 2006
    #21
  10. Fenian_Bastard

    Fenian_Bastard Guest

    "In a democracy, the right things always get done for the wrong reasons."
    Drew Pearson.
    Always liked that one.
     
    Fenian_Bastard, Nov 17, 2006
    #22
  11. bigpern23

    bigpern23 Well-Known Member

    "... in taking away their legal rights, the rights first codified in our country’s Constitution, we’re taking away our own moral compass, as well.”

    Couldn't have said it better myself.

    We're supposed to be better than them. Period.
     
    bigpern23, Nov 17, 2006
    #23
  12. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    We are. By a lot. They try to kill innocent people and succeed with alarming regularity. We try to stop that. And your biggest complaint is that we hold them in jail too long while sorting out the charges.

    We ARE better than them. By a long shot. Period and exclamation point.
     
    old_tony, Nov 17, 2006
    #24
Page 2 of 3
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page