bye bye habeas corpus =,(

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
T

TROLL

Sicc OG
#1
Aug 8, 2003
5,360
22
0
42
#1

October 17, 2006, 135 years to the day after the last American President (Ulysses S. Grant) suspended habeas corpus, President Bush signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The legislation allows President Bush or Donald Rumsfeld to declare anyone — US citizen or not — an enemy combatant, lock them up for any period of time; without a chance to prove their innocence in a court of law; thus bypassing the writ of Habeas Corpus.


The death of habeas corpus::
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15220450/

what it was...
A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another's detention or imprisonment.
Click to expand...
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm

History
Blackstone cites the first recorded usage of habeas corpus in 1305, in the reign of King Edward I. However, other writs were issued with the same effect as early as the reign of Henry II in the 12th century. Winston Churchill, in his chapter on the English Common Law in The Birth of Britain, explains the process thus:

Only the King had a right to summon a jury. Henry accordingly did not grant it to private courts...But all this was only a first step. Henry also had to provide means whereby the litigant, eager for royal justice, could remove his case out of the court of his lord into the court of the King. The device which Henry used was the royal writ...and any man who could by some fiction fit his own case to the wording of one of the royal writs might claim the King's justice.
The procedure for the issuing of writs of habeas corpus was first codified by the Habeas Corpus Act 1679, following judicial rulings which had restricted the effectiveness of the writ. A previous act had been passed in 1640 to overturn a ruling that the command of the King was a sufficient answer to a petition of habeas corpus.

Then, as now, the writ of habeas corpus was issued by a superior court in the name of the Monarch, and commanded the addressee (a lower court, sheriff, or private subject) to produce the prisoner before the Royal courts of law. Petitions for habeas corpus could be made by the prisoner himself or by a third party on his behalf, and as a result of the Habeas Corpus Acts could be made regardless of whether the court was in session, by presenting the petition to a judge.

Since the 18th century the writ has also been used in cases of unlawful detention by private individuals, most famously in Somersett's Case (1771), where the black slave Somersett was ordered to be freed, the famous words being quoted from an earlier case: "The air of England has long been too pure for a slave, and every man is free who breathes it."

The right of habeas corpus has been suspended or restricted several times during English history, most recently during the 18th and 19th centuries. Although internment without trial has been authorised by statute since that time, for example during the two World Wars and the Troubles in Northern Ireland, the procedure of habeas corpus has in modern times always technically remained available to such internees. However, as habeas corpus is only a procedural device to examine the lawfulness of a prisoner's detention, so long as the detention was in accordance with an Act of Parliament, the petition for habeas corpus would be unsuccessful.

Since the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998, the courts have been able to declare an Act of Parliament to be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. However, such a declaration of incompatibility has no immediate legal effect until it is acted upon by the government.
Click to expand...

R.I.P our constitution...
 
T

TROLL

Sicc OG
#5
Aug 8, 2003
5,360
22
0
42
#5
^^
lol dont mind dogshit... he's lost the will to debate the truth i speak so he's resorted at the pathetic attempt of stereotyping me to discredit what i have to say... but its really helping me because by openly expressing his own ignorance he helps the person reading see the blatant attempt at mudslinging..

just look at his avatar and you can see why..
 
2

2-0-NINE

Sicc OG
#11
Mar 12, 2005
8,118
17
0
36
#11
mob shit said:
DAMN HOMEBOI DATS TREAL SPIT NOW DA ILLUMINATYZ GUNNA LOCK UP DA HOMEBOIS AND DA SKRAPZ GUNNA TAKE OVA. SPREAD DA WORD HOMEBOI TRUST NOBODY
Click to expand...
I bet you'd be one of the first people in line to suck George W. Bushs Dick! STILL NEED SOME ATTENTION?!
 
I AM

I AM

Some Random Asshole
#12
Apr 25, 2002
21,002
86
48
#12
I TOLD YA'LL WE'RE AAALLLLLLLLL FUUUUUUUUUUUUCKED.....Enjoy the freedom's you still have....and get some guns....and when the gov't tries to come knocking on your door, shoot those fucks in the face...

viva la revelucion!
 
Dirty Shoez

Dirty Shoez

Sicc OG
#14
Oct 28, 2005
2,980
25
0
40
www.myspace.com
#14
TO BE CLEAR:

IF YOU WERE BORN IN THE UNITED STATES, OR ARE A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, THIS BILL DOES NOT AND CANNOT AFFECT YOU.....PERIOD.

Why that was not clarified in the original poster's comments.....gee, I wonder why. Might have something to do with that election coming up, but hey, probably not. Troll isn't a Democrat, you see, so even if he made this thread to specifically trash Republicans (and only a minimal amount Democrats), he must be doing it for the general benefit of the forum.....not to scare you all.



Now...I feel like I've already done this before..............maybe because I already did.

From an ACTUAL NEWS ARTICLE, and not some stupid fuck TV transcript:

WASHINGTON - The military tribunals bill signed by President Bush on Tuesday marks the first time the right of habeas corpus has been curtailed by law for millions of people in the United States.

Although the debate about the law focused on trials at Guantanamo Bay, it also takes away the right to go to court for immigrants and noncitizens in the United States -- including more than 12 million permanent residents -- if they are declared "unlawful enemy combatants."
Click to expand...

Once again.......Thomas...Loc...Gov. http://thomas.loc.gov

From the bill ITSELF:


`Sec. 948a. Definitions

`In this chapter:

`(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--

`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or

`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

`(B) CO-BELLIGERENT- In this paragraph, the term `co-belligerent', with respect to the United States, means any State or armed force joining and directly engaged with the United States in hostilities or directly supporting hostilities against a common enemy.

`(2) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- The term `lawful enemy combatant' means a person who is--

`(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;

`(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or

`(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.

`(3) ALIEN- The term `alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.

`(4) CLASSIFIED INFORMATION- The term `classified information' means the following:

`(A) Any information or material that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to statute, Executive order, or regulation to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security.

`(B) Any restricted data, as that term is defined in section 11 y. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014(y)).

`(5) GENEVA CONVENTIONS- The term `Geneva Conventions' means the international conventions signed at Geneva on August 12, 1949.
Click to expand...

`Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions

`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine)


U.S. Citizens ARE NOT subject to military tribunals under this law. Period. Habeas corpus is something that has ALWAYS been reserved for United States Citizens...Period. This whole topic makes no sense.
 
I <3 The Cock

I <3 The Cock

My Dead Grandmother Was A Whore
#15
Mar 5, 2006
445
0
0
35
#15
Dirty Shoez said:
TO BE CLEAR:

IF YOU WERE BORN IN THE UNITED STATES, OR ARE A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, THIS BILL DOES NOT AND CANNOT AFFECT YOU.....PERIOD.

Why that was not clarified in the original poster's comments.....gee, I wonder why. Might have something to do with that election coming up, but hey, probably not. Troll isn't a Democrat, you see, so even if he made this thread to specifically trash Republicans (and only a minimal amount Democrats), he must be doing it for the general benefit of the forum.....not to scare you all.



Now...I feel like I've already done this before..............maybe because I already did.

From an ACTUAL NEWS ARTICLE, and not some stupid fuck TV transcript:




Once again.......Thomas...Loc...Gov. http://thomas.loc.gov

From the bill ITSELF:





(emphasis mine)


U.S. Citizens ARE NOT subject to military tribunals under this law. Period. Habeas corpus is something that has ALWAYS been reserved for United States Citizens...Period. This whole topic makes no sense.
Click to expand...
/thread
 
T

TROLL

Sicc OG
#18
Aug 8, 2003
5,360
22
0
42
#18
Dirty Shoez said:
TO BE CLEAR:

IF YOU WERE BORN IN THE UNITED STATES, OR ARE A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, THIS BILL DOES NOT AND CANNOT AFFECT YOU.....PERIOD.
Click to expand...
sorry harry.. i did my research..

let me ask you then about jose padilla... a u.s citizen.. where is his trial?? hes been locked up for a while now... OH thats right hes being held..

or.

Yaser Esam Hamdi, he's been held too without a trial.. gee i wonder why

:dead:
Dirty Shoez said:
Why that was not clarified in the original poster's comments.....gee, I wonder why. Might have something to do with that election coming up, but hey, probably not. Troll isn't a Democrat, you see, so even if he made this thread to specifically trash Republicans (and only a minimal amount Democrats), he must be doing it for the general benefit of the forum.....not to scare you all.
Click to expand...
wow harry.. your short sightedness is ever more apparent because this goes beyond any political football game you like to cheer for..democrats voted for this also, im not praising anybody, yet, 'i must be bashin dem dam republicans"

GET OVER YOURSELF AND OFF THE RIGHT WING DICK AND LOOK AT A SITUATION EFFECTING EVERYBODY FOR ONCE YOU CUNT!!..
vvvv


Moreover, the Constitution does not distinguish between the protections extended to ordinary citizens on one hand and unlawful-combatant citizens on the other.
Click to expand...
http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-01-02.html
The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States.
Click to expand...
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ackerman28sep28,0,619852.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
Although the debate about the law focused on trials at Guantanamo Bay, it also takes away the right to go to court for immigrants and non-citizens in the United States, including more than 12 million permanent residents, if they are declared "unlawful enemy combatants."
Click to expand...
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1018detainees-legal1018.html
he term "unlawful enemy combatant" means: (i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al-Qaeda, or associated forces); or (ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the president or the secretary of defense.

Notice that this definition contains no exception for Americans; it throws the blanket over citizen and alien alike by using the word "person" rather than "alien." Jose Padilla found this out firsthand.
Click to expand...
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_4269.shtml
Another nasty piece of the legislation authorizes the President, on his own authority, to detain anyone, citizen or noncitizen, anywhere in the world, whom he deems to be an "unlawful enemy combatant." The definition of that term is broadly worded and would allow the President to imprison almost anyone.
Click to expand...
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061016/ratner

OH BUT DONT WORRY PEOPLE.. harry thinks that even tho the term is blanketed and that there have been americans already detained without trials that "they cant" detain american citizens.. im sure he took a lot of time in searching for that one article that was vague enough to support his claim, when all it took me was a few seconds to search "habeas corpus/U.S citzen" and found these...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom