Comment What do you expect, swift boating? (Score 1) 6
pudge writes in the SeatlePI:
". ...Claiming that any American lacks any habeas corpus. It is absolutely false. There is no truth to that claim whatsoever. ...Every single American citizen has full habeas corpus rights, as much so as they did before Bush became President. Period, end of story... ...The habeas rights taken from the AUECs are not the rights mentioned in the Constitution, but additional rights passed by the Congress much later."
Not only is this purely inaccurate its exactly what "seasalt" wrote:
"...people in places like Singapore, Iran and China, (I would add Egypt, Russia, MyanMar, and even the USA) ...they keep their heads down, do their jobs, raise their families, ....and pretend to pay no attention to their countrymen being locked up for years on no charges, or executed on trumped up charges, or simply "disappearing". "
The most glaring inaccuracy of what you wrote in your difficult post, is: Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld
the BUSH ADMINISTRATION ARGUED MANY MANY TIMES OVER AND OVER AND OVER TO DENY USA CITIZENS, like HAMDI, the RIGHT to a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Bush denied the basic right to show the body and prove the validity of incarceration of a USA citizen Hamdi (and others), period end of story.
The Bush administration said those rights did not exist for people they deemed to be so called terrorist for some reason.
Hamdi a USA citizen held in Gitmo was later LET GO completely because he had broke no laws and the USA government could not find any ties to terrorism at all.
In fact the Honorable Robert G. Doumar ruled that Hamdi (a USA citizen) deserved a public defender, denied by the Bush Administration, and later that the government's evidence supporting Hamdi's detention woefully inadequate, and based predominantly on hearsay and bare assertions.
Not to mention that the USA supreme court including the right wing parts of it, said the Bush Administration violated the USA constitution when it denied not only Hamdi a USA citizen, but all so called "unlawful combatants" I should point out that many are minors held in Gitmo and later released on their own for having broken no laws and have no ties to terrorists.
In fact Scalia, the most conservative had the most extreme rebuke of the Bush Administration, said ONLY congress can deny Habeas Corpus, and not the Bush Administration, and rejected the Bush Administration arguments, and shot down Bush's attempt to deny Hamdi Habeas Corpus. However, Rehnquist, OConner and others said Habeas Corpus must happen for USA citizens like HAMDI and the other so called "combatants held indefinitely" in Gitmo.
Another very public case, is Jose Padilla, a USA citizen from New York/Illinois was arrested on USA soil and held without the right to see his lawyer or have any charges leveled against this USA citizen for over (i.e. on March 3, 2004, Lawyers for Padilla meet with him for the first time since his incarceration at a naval brig in June 2002, over two years without charges or even the right to see a lawyer).
Your odd argument, as much as I could understand, about the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (i.e. not the "...AUECs.." as you called it) was rejected by a many of the highest law court in our land (SC). Justice Souter, Ginsburg, etc. said the the AUMF DID NOT authorize people (USA citizens like HAMDI, PADILLA, etc.) to be denied the basic right of a writ of Habeas Corpus. Habeas Corpus DOES go back to the Magna Carta, and demands the government must prove the validity of incarceration. Habeas Corpus prevents government from being allowed to "disappear" people as "Seasalt" mentioned. The point being AUMF does not mean the constitution can NOT be violated and disgarded for some "so called bad guy".
I recommend all Americans read Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and its clear to me that Bush Administration argued and attempted many times to deny (a USA citizen in this case) the basic rights laid out in the USA constitution.
In the USA citizen Hamdi case, it is clear to me that both sides of the political spectrum agree, that the Bush Administration violated the USA constitution, and sought to deny the basic right of Habeas Corpus.
".
Not only is this purely inaccurate its exactly what "seasalt" wrote:
"...people in places like Singapore, Iran and China, (I would add Egypt, Russia, MyanMar, and even the USA)
The most glaring inaccuracy of what you wrote in your difficult post, is: Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld
the BUSH ADMINISTRATION ARGUED MANY MANY TIMES OVER AND OVER AND OVER TO DENY USA CITIZENS, like HAMDI, the RIGHT to a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Bush denied the basic right to show the body and prove the validity of incarceration of a USA citizen Hamdi (and others), period end of story.
The Bush administration said those rights did not exist for people they deemed to be so called terrorist for some reason.
Hamdi a USA citizen held in Gitmo was later LET GO completely because he had broke no laws and the USA government could not find any ties to terrorism at all.
In fact the Honorable Robert G. Doumar ruled that Hamdi (a USA citizen) deserved a public defender, denied by the Bush Administration, and later that the government's evidence supporting Hamdi's detention woefully inadequate, and based predominantly on hearsay and bare assertions.
Not to mention that the USA supreme court including the right wing parts of it, said the Bush Administration violated the USA constitution when it denied not only Hamdi a USA citizen, but all so called "unlawful combatants" I should point out that many are minors held in Gitmo and later released on their own for having broken no laws and have no ties to terrorists.
In fact Scalia, the most conservative had the most extreme rebuke of the Bush Administration, said ONLY congress can deny Habeas Corpus, and not the Bush Administration, and rejected the Bush Administration arguments, and shot down Bush's attempt to deny Hamdi Habeas Corpus. However, Rehnquist, OConner and others said Habeas Corpus must happen for USA citizens like HAMDI and the other so called "combatants held indefinitely" in Gitmo.
Another very public case, is Jose Padilla, a USA citizen from New York/Illinois was arrested on USA soil and held without the right to see his lawyer or have any charges leveled against this USA citizen for over (i.e. on March 3, 2004, Lawyers for Padilla meet with him for the first time since his incarceration at a naval brig in June 2002, over two years without charges or even the right to see a lawyer).
Your odd argument, as much as I could understand, about the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (i.e. not the "...AUECs.." as you called it) was rejected by a many of the highest law court in our land (SC). Justice Souter, Ginsburg, etc. said the the AUMF DID NOT authorize people (USA citizens like HAMDI, PADILLA, etc.) to be denied the basic right of a writ of Habeas Corpus. Habeas Corpus DOES go back to the Magna Carta, and demands the government must prove the validity of incarceration. Habeas Corpus prevents government from being allowed to "disappear" people as "Seasalt" mentioned. The point being AUMF does not mean the constitution can NOT be violated and disgarded for some "so called bad guy".
I recommend all Americans read Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and its clear to me that Bush Administration argued and attempted many times to deny (a USA citizen in this case) the basic rights laid out in the USA constitution.
In the USA citizen Hamdi case, it is clear to me that both sides of the political spectrum agree, that the Bush Administration violated the USA constitution, and sought to deny the basic right of Habeas Corpus.
