As a matter of fact, I actually did read the law. And I found that it says it applies only to "aliens" (i.e., non-citizens). Can you cite a credible source that claims differently?
Also, can you cite a case where the gov't has prosecuted a citizen under this law? The gov't never has, and never will. Because the administration knows the law doesn't allow it.
No, he does not "fail[] to acknowledge [] that the Writ of habeus corpus is part of the common law". Elsewhere in the transcript, he specifically mentions that the writ of habeas corpus is established by statute. He is *not* arguing that the writ of habeus corpus has no foundation anywhere, he is simply arguing that its foundation is from someone other than the constitution. You've just agreed to the same thing -- you said the writ is not in the constitution, but rather from common law.
I'm curious about this common law writ of habeas corpus -- is it really true that there are no exceptions? For instance, the Geneva Conventions allow for POWs to be held without charge or trial for the duration of hostilities. Does the common law writ of habeas corpus really override the Geneva Conventions, and require that POWs be charged with crime(s) and tried (or else released)?
"The problem for US citizens is that habeas corpus has been suspended for them by recent unconstitutional legislation"
This is incorrect. The law in question applies only to alien [i.e., non-citizen] unlawful enemy combatants. (Now of course, many people claim that this law contains a loophole that the administration has cleverly and nefariously slipped into there to strip habeas corpus from citizens. This fails occam's razor for me -- if the administration is acting nefariously, why would it need a loophole? Why wouldn't it just ignore the law altogether? And if they do intend to use the loophole, under what circumstances would they ever base a legal case on this loophole, if they wanted to keep the loophole secret? Secret tribunals convened by the administration? But if there were secret tribunals convened by the administration, why would they need a loophole -- wouldn't they just rule however they want anyway?)
For me, at least, I have a clue what is going on; I can tell you generally what is in the constitution; and I have informed opinions on the specifics. Additionally, I disagree with you that we live in a police state. I'm just not seein' it. One example: If it were true that Bush believes he can snatch citizens off the streets of their hometowns and send them to overseas detention centers without charge or trial, then I would take that as very strong evidence of the Police State thesis. But I am as yet unconvinced that this is true. I'm more convinced that occam's razor applies, and an alternative is more likely -- that partisan rabble-rousers are imputing secret nefarious motives onto Bush where no such motives exist.
Perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree, and maybe I'm just a dupe. (Luckily for me, as long as I'm serving in this capacity of Useful Idiot, I'm sure I'll be one of the last with my back against the wall!)
Do you find that the principles emboded in the Geneva Conventions are compatible with the American conception of justice -- inalienable rights and all that? Specifcally, the Geneva Conventions allow for the indefinite detention of POWs, without charge or trial, for the duration of hostilities. Do you believe this to be unjust?
To answer your question, "Can you seriously argue that holding men indefinitely with no charges is right?" The answer is, "Well, yes, according to the Geneva Conventions, anyway." I believe the Geneva Conventions were constructed by serious, thoughtful people who knew what they were talking about. Do you think the Geneva Conventions are wrong in this matter?
"With the current administration changing the laws how would you ever know? Seriously."
If the current administration *wasn't* changing the laws, how would you ever know? If someone were to be disappeared by the government, whether or not the gov't was changing laws wouldn't matter a bit when it comes to people ever knowing about it. If anything, all of the law-changing would bring heightened scrutiny -- so a gov't desiring to disappear people would certainly seek to throw off suspicion by giving lip-service to the existing law. [and so the creeping paranoia of the conspiracy theorist begins...]
"Despite your tone, you've grasped the facts. That is a correct summary. The government is out of control, we can't stop it short of using force ourselves, and US citizens don't seem the least bit inclined to go to that extreme."
I think that "US citizens don't seem the least be inclined" to use force because the vast majority of them disagree with your assessment, that the "government is out of control" (well, at least not to the extent that calls for armed insurrection). I think that a goodly portion of the body politic is skeptical about all the nefarious motives that have been imputed on the current administration.
Oh well, I guess we'll know for sure when GWB refuses to vacate the White House in January '09, eh?
"Captured soldiers have all rights afforded under the constitution [...]"
"Every single person (citizen or otherwise) held prisoner (or restrained from leaving by any other name) by United States government (or any agent working on behalf of the US government), regardless of whether this imprisonment is taking place inside or outside the country, has the right to appear in front of a court, hear the reason the government gives for their imprisonment, and dispute it, with the government having to prove their claims are correct and a lawful justification for imprisonment, unless Congress has temporarily suspended habeas corpus under the circumstances they are allowed to do so."
I don't think this is correct. Do you perhaps have a citation or two I can examine, to enhance my understanding?
I can think of some counterexamples to your statement "Captured soldiers have all rights afforded under the constitution". For instance, they do not have the right to be secure in their papers and effects. They do not have the right to a trial by jury. They certainly don't have to be read their Miranda rights. Most notably, they don't have the right to a speedy and public trial -- POWs can be detained without charge or trial for the duration of hostilities.
Oh, well that certainly clears that up, then! Our very government is illegitimate, so all this talk of the rule of law is pointless anyway! Thanks for the clarification.
So let me redirect my question to a hypothetical situation. If we had a legitimate government, and if Afghanistan actually had attacked us and so we were legitimately waging a legitimate war of self-defense, how would Amendment VI apply to beligerents captured in the war with Afghanistan? (Especially the part about a jury of the state/district wherein the crime was committed.)
That's a noble idea. Unfortunately, it wouldn't work in certain cases. Let us say that we pass a law (or maybe an amendment) saying that everyone detained by the American military for any reason anywhere in the world is granted the right to a writ of habeas corpus in the American criminal justice system. Imagine if such a law was in place during World War II. I guarantee you that every German POW would file every legal document they possibly could, in order to clog our justice system and thereby continue to assist their war effort even while in a POW camp. (To employ a slashdot-ism, it would be a DDOS attack on our legal system.)
As it turns out, WWII German POWs did not have the right to a writ of habeas corpus. Neither would any modern POW's, either. And simply as a matter of law as it exists today, belligerents captured by the American military overseas do not have the right to a writ of habeas corpus. (The Supreme Court recently ruled that they do have the writ, but only because they are being held in America, where through some legal back-fliipping Gitmo is considered "in America". But if they were held somewhere not "in America", they wouldn't have the writ.)
Now, concerning the few hundred detainees currently held at Gitmo, there isn't enough of them where we really should be worried about that sort of DDOS attack on our legal system. So, we could, as a matter of policy, decide to grant the Gitmo detainees additional legal rights. But this would be a policy decision, and it would be our choice to do so or not, and to what extent. We are not compelled to do so by the Constitution, statue, treaty, or customary international law. We simply aren't. So the Bush adminstration just isn't trampling any of those things. So let's discuss: should we, or should we not? And to what extent? But please, all the police state and fascist talk rests on faulty premises, so let's just skip all that, shall we?
"However, the people-who-are-now-not-POWs are then either charged with a crime and, of course, given a trial, or released."
This is simply incorrect. An enemy combantant can be detained without charge even if they fail the POW requirements. (Additionally, they may be subject to prosecution for crimes they may have committed, such as, shooting at people or blowing stuff up. But the gov't is not compelled to bring charges, even to continue detention.)
An enemy combatant who qualifies for POW status can be detained without charge or trial. If an enemy combatant fails to qualify for POW status, they certainly do not suddenly get preferential legal treatment not given to POWs -- i.e., the right to a writ of habeas corpus that compels the gov't to charge or release them. An enemy combatant who fails to qualify for POW status has fewer legal rights than a POW, in all aspects.
I think the underlying flaw in your argument is this: a tribunal to determine POW status is not intended to determine whether or not "you are an enemy soldier", as you state. It is to determine whether or not you qualify as a POW. Being a POW is certainly not an equivalent legal status to being an enemy soldier. A person can be an enemy soldier without being a POW.
Your final paragraph suffers fundamentally from this error:
"If they [the gov't] failed to demonstrate it [that you're an enemy soldier], they must release you or come up with some other lawful reason to imprison you. [...]"
It's not a matter of the government failing or succeeding to demonstrate you're an enemy soldier, and if they fail, they have to release you. It's a matter of the government determining whether or not it is obligated to grant you the additional protections given to POWs. If they "fail" to show that you qualify as a POW, then you simply are not given those additional protections. You don't have the right to a writ of habeas corpus prior to the tribunal, and you don't have it after, either, no matter which way the tribunal ruled. If you were determined to be a POW, you do not get the writ. If you failed to qualify as a POW, you do not get the writ. If a protection isn't granted to an enemy combatant that qualifies as a POW, it certainly isn't granted to an enemy combatant who fails to qualify as a POW.
Obviously, you'd like it to be different. And maybe it should be different. But at the moment, that's the way it is.
"He specifically says that the privilege is not granted by the Constitution and that the administration could therefore potentially ignore writs for citizens."
Well, he's certainly not saying that the administration can ignore writs that are granted by statute. He's making a distinction between a Constitutional Writ of Habeas Corpus and a statutory Writ of Habeas Corpus. So if a writ is granted by statute, the administration certainly would have to abide by it. If, on the other hand, there was no writ granted by statute for a certain sort of person in certain circumstances, the administration wouldn't have to grant such a writ.
So, you are definitely inferring something that the AG isn't implying. You're unwarranted inference is "that the administration could therefore potentionally ignore writs for citizens." If we asked the AG to clarify, I'm sure he would agree with this statement: "if a citizen is granted a writ by statute, the administration can not and would not ignore it". Likewise, he would agree with this statement: "if the Consitution was amended to grant 'every individual in the United States or citizen' the writ, then the administration would of course abide by it -- that's just not the way it is at the moment, especially that 'every individual' part".
To answer your question," What do you think it is saying, what meaning is it passing along? Now, what does habeas corpus mean?":
Among other things, I think it means that it only applies to crimes committed within the jurisdiction of the United States of America -- elsewise, how do we get "an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed"? (Hence, I don't think it applies to crimes committed by beligerents waging war contrary to the customary laws of war against American interests overseas.)
Er, well, I think you misunderstood my question. Let me restate.
You say that Amendment VI is essentially habeas corpus. Or heck, maybe you'd go all the way and say that Amendment VI is exactly habeas corpus.
Either way, here's my question:
Amendment VI says something about "an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed". If the crime was committed in Afghanistan, for instance, what does this clause mean? Does it mean that the jury shall be made up of residents of Afghanistan?
"By calling them enemy combatants, he deprives them of even the right of determination of POW status by refusing to permit any process whereby the government "proves" before a court or a tribunal that the person is an "enemy combatant", [...]"
This is incorrect. The detainees at Gitmo received a Combatant Status Review Tribunal. See:
And actually, the right to such a tribunal isn't even guaranteed -- the Geneva Conventions only require such a tribunal "if a doubt arises" as to a detainee's status.
"So, your claim that Gonzales meant that habeas corpus ehm "requires statutory implementation" and therefore is not a right is a red herring."
I disagree. Elsewhere in the transcript, Gonzales says that habeas corpus is a statutory grant. (I forget his exact wording.) So, looking at the context, it seems clear to me that Gonzales is referring to the fact that the Writ of Habeas Corpus requires statutory implementation, just like the grandparent stated.
Oh, it looks like I misinterpreted your initial comment. Stitching together the original post and your reply, I thought you meant:
"Because, those who suggest that [AG Gonzales, et al. should be impeached] have been imprisoned or executed."
Apparently, you were making some unrelated comment about extraordinary rendition, and you weren't actually saying anything about people who suggest that AG Gonzales ought to be impeached. My bad!
Err... Unless you're saying that you have examples of people who, having called for Gonzales' impeachment, were subsequently sent to offshore detention camps and subjected to torture?
"As a procedure it [the Writ of Habeas Corpus] is not self effectuating,. It requires statutory implementation. Over the years Congress has both limited and expanded the procedures governing granting a writ of habeas corpus. So have the courts."
Yes, finally! Someone who knows what they're talking about. All this other stuff, about creeping fascism and the AG trampling the Constitution and police states and so on, it's a whole lotta misinformed molehill-to-mountain transformations. (At least, as far as I can tell.) Some of it's probably just partisan rabble-rousing, too.
Ultimately, there is a legitimate debate to be had concerning the extent to which we should extend the Writ of Habeas Corpus to beligerents waging war against American interests overseas in ways that violate the customary laws of war. I think we should extend to them legal protections generally equivalent to those granted to spies and saboteurs catpured waging war.
I'd like to ask you a question about this clause of Amendment VI: "... the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed". If a particular person is held at Gitmo for crimes committed in Afghanistan, what sort of people will comprise the jury?
Ultimately, I don't think that Amendment VI applies to the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the manner you're suggesting.
I do believe you've all misunderstood what AG Gonzales was saying. I will describe for you my understanding of the AG's position on the Writ of Habeas Corpus:
There is not a Constitutional grant of the Writ of Habeas Corpus for every person in the country. [Here's an analogy to aid your understanding: the right to trial by jury is not secured by the Constitution for non-citizens in the country illegally.]
There is a statutory grant of the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
The Constitution explicitly guarantees that any such statutory grant cannot be suspended except in cases of insurrection or rebellion. This is the only thing that the Consitution has to say explictly about the Writ of Habeas Corpus. [Please note, on this point the AG is not actually implying what everyone is inferring. He is making a very limited point, and y'all are reading stuff into it.]
Ultimately, what he is saying is this: it is up to the legislative process to determine whether or not the Writ of Habeas Corpus ought to extend to non-citizens held as enemy combatants who fail to qualify for POW status. He is certainly not saying (or implying) that the Bush adminstration can ignore the Writ of Habeas Corpus for random citizens snatched of the street.
"Everyone, being held by the government, legally gets a trial, even POWs, no exceptions whatsoever."
This is simply incorrect. The only "trial" a POW is entitled to is a military tribunal to determine their POW status. The outcome of such a tribunal is a determination that they *are* or *are not* a POW, but either way, they remain in custody. They can then be held without charge until the cessation of hostilities.
Perhaps I'm wrong. In that case, please point me to a non-biased source that describes the right-to-trial of POWs. This is a very important point, and I want to make sure that my understanding is correct!
"Because, those who suggest that are imprisoned and executed for treason."
Are you trying to be funny, or is this a serious comment? If it is a serious comment, please cite a few examples. I'm especially interested in learning more about the execution(s).
"The very sad thing is that, it seems that whether we know about it or not, there is nothing we the people can do to stop this administration from going to war against Iran if they are determined to do so. It shouldn't be this way."
The people elected Democrats to Congress, who now can deny funding for such a thing, and make things much more difficult by *not* passing the Iran-equivalent of the "Authorization for Use of Military Force". And repeal the last one for good measure!
On an unrelated note, back to the original topic: I can see a useful distinction to be made for not censoring "random so-and-so's speculate that such-and-such happened", while censoring "fmr cia/nsc dude & the nyt confirm that such-and-such happened". So just because the "such-and-such" is available via other sources, it doesn't necessarily follow that the WH is doing something underhanded.
Oh, and finally, I certainly hope that the CIA can't operate indepdently from the president, running their own foreign policy and what-not. Goodness gracious, I remember when the CIA was the boogie man of the left, and now it's the protector of all that is good and true!
Slashdot Mirror
As a matter of fact, I actually did read the law. And I found that it says it applies only to "aliens" (i.e., non-citizens). Can you cite a credible source that claims differently?
Also, can you cite a case where the gov't has prosecuted a citizen under this law? The gov't never has, and never will. Because the administration knows the law doesn't allow it.
No, he does not "fail[] to acknowledge [] that the Writ of habeus corpus is part of the common law". Elsewhere in the transcript, he specifically mentions that the writ of habeas corpus is established by statute. He is *not* arguing that the writ of habeus corpus has no foundation anywhere, he is simply arguing that its foundation is from someone other than the constitution. You've just agreed to the same thing -- you said the writ is not in the constitution, but rather from common law.
I'm curious about this common law writ of habeas corpus -- is it really true that there are no exceptions? For instance, the Geneva Conventions allow for POWs to be held without charge or trial for the duration of hostilities. Does the common law writ of habeas corpus really override the Geneva Conventions, and require that POWs be charged with crime(s) and tried (or else released)?
"The problem for US citizens is that habeas corpus has been suspended for them by recent unconstitutional legislation"
This is incorrect. The law in question applies only to alien [i.e., non-citizen] unlawful enemy combatants. (Now of course, many people claim that this law contains a loophole that the administration has cleverly and nefariously slipped into there to strip habeas corpus from citizens. This fails occam's razor for me -- if the administration is acting nefariously, why would it need a loophole? Why wouldn't it just ignore the law altogether? And if they do intend to use the loophole, under what circumstances would they ever base a legal case on this loophole, if they wanted to keep the loophole secret? Secret tribunals convened by the administration? But if there were secret tribunals convened by the administration, why would they need a loophole -- wouldn't they just rule however they want anyway?)
For me, at least, I have a clue what is going on; I can tell you generally what is in the constitution; and I have informed opinions on the specifics. Additionally, I disagree with you that we live in a police state. I'm just not seein' it. One example: If it were true that Bush believes he can snatch citizens off the streets of their hometowns and send them to overseas detention centers without charge or trial, then I would take that as very strong evidence of the Police State thesis. But I am as yet unconvinced that this is true. I'm more convinced that occam's razor applies, and an alternative is more likely -- that partisan rabble-rousers are imputing secret nefarious motives onto Bush where no such motives exist.
Perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree, and maybe I'm just a dupe. (Luckily for me, as long as I'm serving in this capacity of Useful Idiot, I'm sure I'll be one of the last with my back against the wall!)
Do you find that the principles emboded in the Geneva Conventions are compatible with the American conception of justice -- inalienable rights and all that? Specifcally, the Geneva Conventions allow for the indefinite detention of POWs, without charge or trial, for the duration of hostilities. Do you believe this to be unjust?
To answer your question, "Can you seriously argue that holding men indefinitely with no charges is right?" The answer is, "Well, yes, according to the Geneva Conventions, anyway." I believe the Geneva Conventions were constructed by serious, thoughtful people who knew what they were talking about. Do you think the Geneva Conventions are wrong in this matter?
"With the current administration changing the laws how would you ever know? Seriously."
...]
If the current administration *wasn't* changing the laws, how would you ever know? If someone were to be disappeared by the government, whether or not the gov't was changing laws wouldn't matter a bit when it comes to people ever knowing about it. If anything, all of the law-changing would bring heightened scrutiny -- so a gov't desiring to disappear people would certainly seek to throw off suspicion by giving lip-service to the existing law. [and so the creeping paranoia of the conspiracy theorist begins
"Despite your tone, you've grasped the facts. That is a correct summary. The government is out of control, we can't stop it short of using force ourselves, and US citizens don't seem the least bit inclined to go to that extreme."
I think that "US citizens don't seem the least be inclined" to use force because the vast majority of them disagree with your assessment, that the "government is out of control" (well, at least not to the extent that calls for armed insurrection). I think that a goodly portion of the body politic is skeptical about all the nefarious motives that have been imputed on the current administration.
Oh well, I guess we'll know for sure when GWB refuses to vacate the White House in January '09, eh?
"Captured soldiers have all rights afforded under the constitution [...]"
"Every single person (citizen or otherwise) held prisoner (or restrained from leaving by any other name) by United States government (or any agent working on behalf of the US government), regardless of whether this imprisonment is taking place inside or outside the country, has the right to appear in front of a court, hear the reason the government gives for their imprisonment, and dispute it, with the government having to prove their claims are correct and a lawful justification for imprisonment, unless Congress has temporarily suspended habeas corpus under the circumstances they are allowed to do so."
I don't think this is correct. Do you perhaps have a citation or two I can examine, to enhance my understanding?
I can think of some counterexamples to your statement "Captured soldiers have all rights afforded under the constitution". For instance, they do not have the right to be secure in their papers and effects. They do not have the right to a trial by jury. They certainly don't have to be read their Miranda rights. Most notably, they don't have the right to a speedy and public trial -- POWs can be detained without charge or trial for the duration of hostilities.
Oh, well that certainly clears that up, then! Our very government is illegitimate, so all this talk of the rule of law is pointless anyway! Thanks for the clarification.
So let me redirect my question to a hypothetical situation. If we had a legitimate government, and if Afghanistan actually had attacked us and so we were legitimately waging a legitimate war of self-defense, how would Amendment VI apply to beligerents captured in the war with Afghanistan? (Especially the part about a jury of the state/district wherein the crime was committed.)
That's a noble idea. Unfortunately, it wouldn't work in certain cases. Let us say that we pass a law (or maybe an amendment) saying that everyone detained by the American military for any reason anywhere in the world is granted the right to a writ of habeas corpus in the American criminal justice system. Imagine if such a law was in place during World War II. I guarantee you that every German POW would file every legal document they possibly could, in order to clog our justice system and thereby continue to assist their war effort even while in a POW camp. (To employ a slashdot-ism, it would be a DDOS attack on our legal system.)
As it turns out, WWII German POWs did not have the right to a writ of habeas corpus. Neither would any modern POW's, either. And simply as a matter of law as it exists today, belligerents captured by the American military overseas do not have the right to a writ of habeas corpus. (The Supreme Court recently ruled that they do have the writ, but only because they are being held in America, where through some legal back-fliipping Gitmo is considered "in America". But if they were held somewhere not "in America", they wouldn't have the writ.)
Now, concerning the few hundred detainees currently held at Gitmo, there isn't enough of them where we really should be worried about that sort of DDOS attack on our legal system. So, we could, as a matter of policy, decide to grant the Gitmo detainees additional legal rights. But this would be a policy decision, and it would be our choice to do so or not, and to what extent. We are not compelled to do so by the Constitution, statue, treaty, or customary international law. We simply aren't. So the Bush adminstration just isn't trampling any of those things. So let's discuss: should we, or should we not? And to what extent? But please, all the police state and fascist talk rests on faulty premises, so let's just skip all that, shall we?
"However, the people-who-are-now-not-POWs are then either charged with a crime and, of course, given a trial, or released."
This is simply incorrect. An enemy combantant can be detained without charge even if they fail the POW requirements. (Additionally, they may be subject to prosecution for crimes they may have committed, such as, shooting at people or blowing stuff up. But the gov't is not compelled to bring charges, even to continue detention.)
An enemy combatant who qualifies for POW status can be detained without charge or trial. If an enemy combatant fails to qualify for POW status, they certainly do not suddenly get preferential legal treatment not given to POWs -- i.e., the right to a writ of habeas corpus that compels the gov't to charge or release them. An enemy combatant who fails to qualify for POW status has fewer legal rights than a POW, in all aspects.
I think the underlying flaw in your argument is this: a tribunal to determine POW status is not intended to determine whether or not "you are an enemy soldier", as you state. It is to determine whether or not you qualify as a POW. Being a POW is certainly not an equivalent legal status to being an enemy soldier. A person can be an enemy soldier without being a POW.
Your final paragraph suffers fundamentally from this error:
"If they [the gov't] failed to demonstrate it [that you're an enemy soldier], they must release you or come up with some other lawful reason to imprison you. [...]"
It's not a matter of the government failing or succeeding to demonstrate you're an enemy soldier, and if they fail, they have to release you. It's a matter of the government determining whether or not it is obligated to grant you the additional protections given to POWs. If they "fail" to show that you qualify as a POW, then you simply are not given those additional protections. You don't have the right to a writ of habeas corpus prior to the tribunal, and you don't have it after, either, no matter which way the tribunal ruled. If you were determined to be a POW, you do not get the writ. If you failed to qualify as a POW, you do not get the writ. If a protection isn't granted to an enemy combatant that qualifies as a POW, it certainly isn't granted to an enemy combatant who fails to qualify as a POW.
Obviously, you'd like it to be different. And maybe it should be different. But at the moment, that's the way it is.
"He specifically says that the privilege is not granted by the Constitution and that the administration could therefore potentially ignore writs for citizens."
Well, he's certainly not saying that the administration can ignore writs that are granted by statute. He's making a distinction between a Constitutional Writ of Habeas Corpus and a statutory Writ of Habeas Corpus. So if a writ is granted by statute, the administration certainly would have to abide by it. If, on the other hand, there was no writ granted by statute for a certain sort of person in certain circumstances, the administration wouldn't have to grant such a writ.
So, you are definitely inferring something that the AG isn't implying. You're unwarranted inference is "that the administration could therefore potentionally ignore writs for citizens." If we asked the AG to clarify, I'm sure he would agree with this statement: "if a citizen is granted a writ by statute, the administration can not and would not ignore it". Likewise, he would agree with this statement: "if the Consitution was amended to grant 'every individual in the United States or citizen' the writ, then the administration would of course abide by it -- that's just not the way it is at the moment, especially that 'every individual' part".
To answer your question," What do you think it is saying, what meaning is it passing along? Now, what does habeas corpus mean?":
Among other things, I think it means that it only applies to crimes committed within the jurisdiction of the United States of America -- elsewise, how do we get "an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed"? (Hence, I don't think it applies to crimes committed by beligerents waging war contrary to the customary laws of war against American interests overseas.)
Er, well, I think you misunderstood my question. Let me restate.
You say that Amendment VI is essentially habeas corpus. Or heck, maybe you'd go all the way and say that Amendment VI is exactly habeas corpus.
Either way, here's my question:
Amendment VI says something about "an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed". If the crime was committed in Afghanistan, for instance, what does this clause mean? Does it mean that the jury shall be made up of residents of Afghanistan?
"By calling them enemy combatants, he deprives them of even the right of determination of POW status by refusing to permit any process whereby the government "proves" before a court or a tribunal that the person is an "enemy combatant", [...]"
i ew_Tribunal
This is incorrect. The detainees at Gitmo received a Combatant Status Review Tribunal. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant_Status_Rev
And actually, the right to such a tribunal isn't even guaranteed -- the Geneva Conventions only require such a tribunal "if a doubt arises" as to a detainee's status.
"So, your claim that Gonzales meant that habeas corpus ehm "requires statutory implementation" and therefore is not a right is a red herring."
I disagree. Elsewhere in the transcript, Gonzales says that habeas corpus is a statutory grant. (I forget his exact wording.) So, looking at the context, it seems clear to me that Gonzales is referring to the fact that the Writ of Habeas Corpus requires statutory implementation, just like the grandparent stated.
Oh, it looks like I misinterpreted your initial comment. Stitching together the original post and your reply, I thought you meant:
... Unless you're saying that you have examples of people who, having called for Gonzales' impeachment, were subsequently sent to offshore detention camps and subjected to torture?
"Because, those who suggest that [AG Gonzales, et al. should be impeached] have been imprisoned or executed."
Apparently, you were making some unrelated comment about extraordinary rendition, and you weren't actually saying anything about people who suggest that AG Gonzales ought to be impeached. My bad!
Err
"As a procedure it [the Writ of Habeas Corpus] is not self effectuating,. It requires statutory implementation. Over the years Congress has both limited and expanded the procedures governing granting a writ of habeas corpus. So have the courts."
Yes, finally! Someone who knows what they're talking about. All this other stuff, about creeping fascism and the AG trampling the Constitution and police states and so on, it's a whole lotta misinformed molehill-to-mountain transformations. (At least, as far as I can tell.) Some of it's probably just partisan rabble-rousing, too.
Ultimately, there is a legitimate debate to be had concerning the extent to which we should extend the Writ of Habeas Corpus to beligerents waging war against American interests overseas in ways that violate the customary laws of war. I think we should extend to them legal protections generally equivalent to those granted to spies and saboteurs catpured waging war.
I'd like to ask you a question about this clause of Amendment VI: "... the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed". If a particular person is held at Gitmo for crimes committed in Afghanistan, what sort of people will comprise the jury?
Ultimately, I don't think that Amendment VI applies to the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the manner you're suggesting.
I do believe you've all misunderstood what AG Gonzales was saying. I will describe for you my understanding of the AG's position on the Writ of Habeas Corpus:
There is not a Constitutional grant of the Writ of Habeas Corpus for every person in the country. [Here's an analogy to aid your understanding: the right to trial by jury is not secured by the Constitution for non-citizens in the country illegally.]
There is a statutory grant of the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
The Constitution explicitly guarantees that any such statutory grant cannot be suspended except in cases of insurrection or rebellion. This is the only thing that the Consitution has to say explictly about the Writ of Habeas Corpus. [Please note, on this point the AG is not actually implying what everyone is inferring. He is making a very limited point, and y'all are reading stuff into it.]
Ultimately, what he is saying is this: it is up to the legislative process to determine whether or not the Writ of Habeas Corpus ought to extend to non-citizens held as enemy combatants who fail to qualify for POW status. He is certainly not saying (or implying) that the Bush adminstration can ignore the Writ of Habeas Corpus for random citizens snatched of the street.
"Everyone, being held by the government, legally gets a trial, even POWs, no exceptions whatsoever."
This is simply incorrect. The only "trial" a POW is entitled to is a military tribunal to determine their POW status. The outcome of such a tribunal is a determination that they *are* or *are not* a POW, but either way, they remain in custody. They can then be held without charge until the cessation of hostilities.
Perhaps I'm wrong. In that case, please point me to a non-biased source that describes the right-to-trial of POWs. This is a very important point, and I want to make sure that my understanding is correct!
"Because, those who suggest that are imprisoned and executed for treason."
Are you trying to be funny, or is this a serious comment? If it is a serious comment, please cite a few examples. I'm especially interested in learning more about the execution(s).
How 'bout a compromise: you have to start spelling it "meter". And why do you need to tack those extra letters onto "kilogram"?
Once you guys start using base-10 time measurements, then we'll talk. Until then, Go Imperial Measurements! Woo hoo!
"The very sad thing is that, it seems that whether we know about it or not, there is nothing we the people can do to stop this administration from going to war against Iran if they are determined to do so. It shouldn't be this way."
The people elected Democrats to Congress, who now can deny funding for such a thing, and make things much more difficult by *not* passing the Iran-equivalent of the "Authorization for Use of Military Force". And repeal the last one for good measure!
On an unrelated note, back to the original topic: I can see a useful distinction to be made for not censoring "random so-and-so's speculate that such-and-such happened", while censoring "fmr cia/nsc dude & the nyt confirm that such-and-such happened". So just because the "such-and-such" is available via other sources, it doesn't necessarily follow that the WH is doing something underhanded.
Oh, and finally, I certainly hope that the CIA can't operate indepdently from the president, running their own foreign policy and what-not. Goodness gracious, I remember when the CIA was the boogie man of the left, and now it's the protector of all that is good and true!