PDA

View Full Version : How does one respond?




MrTwisted
10-05-2012, 04:37 PM
Jane:

Obama Signed the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) section 1021 of this act allows for the President to detain anyone he wants, for any reason, without a trial or a lawyer to be held anywhere in the world for any period of time.

Dick:

this has kinda been around for a while, and essentially written in the constitution. its the right of the president, under times of defense to suspend habeus corpus. lincoln did it during the civil war.

'Habeas corpus', Latin for "you [shall] have the body," is the name of a legal action or writ by means of which detainees can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment. The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which demands that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." so new format, but it technically already existed in the constitution.

singe22
10-05-2012, 05:03 PM
Lincoln was only able to do that because America was the battlefield. These assholes have declared a war on terror which makes any country a battlefield at all times. They declared war on a tactic, not a country or group.

sailingaway
10-05-2012, 05:22 PM
That is entirely circular. the meaning of 'insurrection' to suspend habeus corpus was the sort of civil disturbance at home which might prevent the proper function of the judiciary and civilian police force. That does NOT exist today and part of the heinous nature of Section 1021 is that it pretends that state DOES exist, permitting suspending of civil rights for citizens in many contexts, including suspension of habeas corpus. That is WORSE not better than just a bill saying 'pick them up without a trial' which might suggest the legislature didn't realize this violated the constitution. This is a clear and intentional end run around the Constitution by pretending a loophole applies which clearly is not the case.

MrTwisted
10-05-2012, 05:46 PM
Thank you

jcannon98188
10-05-2012, 05:59 PM
Further, the Supreme Court has the authority to overturn the suspension of Habeous Corpus. This happened during Lincoln's time. The Supreme Court has no such power under NDAA. That being said, I stand opposed to the ability to suspend Habeous Corpus. I believe that it is against the very principle of Liberty, and a tool used by tyrants and dictators. In the future, if I decide to seek public office, I would support and push for a constitutional amendment that would scratch that power from Article 1 Section 9.

sailingaway
10-05-2012, 06:02 PM
Further, the Supreme Court has the authority to overturn the suspension of Habeous Corpus. This happened during Lincoln's time. The Supreme Court has no such power under NDAA. That being said, I stand opposed to the ability to suspend Habeous Corpus. I believe that it is against the very principle of Liberty, and a tool used by tyrants and dictators. In the future, if I decide to seek public office, I would support and push for a constitutional amendment that would scratch that power from Article 1 Section 9.

If courts can't be called, they can't be called. That was why it was written. It just needs to be strictly interpreted that way.

In modern days I find it hard to think a court couldn't be called SOMEWHERE, but 'speedy trial' might have been difficult in the few days after Katrina, for example.

That is a DELAY, not a discharge, of the right however.

Okie RP fan
10-05-2012, 06:26 PM
Even if Lincoln did it, does it make it right today? Did it make it right then?

eleganz
10-05-2012, 06:55 PM
Horrible logic, he is saying NDAA is ok because Lincoln did it before and its technically 'in' the Constitution.

Well then why did Obama desire the specific wording? If according to your friend, the president already has the right, why does he want it again?

sailingaway
10-05-2012, 06:58 PM
because the conditions where he would have the 'right' don't exist, so they had to be legally deemed to exist by statute.

eleganz
10-05-2012, 06:59 PM
because the conditions where he would have the 'right' don't exist, so they had to be legally deemed to exist by statute.

I think the OP now has his final rebuttal. :D