Regarding a Denver Post editorial
As we might expect, the Denver Post editorial is once again defending habeas corpus for terrorist suspects. Yet, this is hardly surprising. The Post has been a vigorous supporter of terrorist suspects, while at the same time, failing to defend our own troops on the field. It is, in essence, nothing less than a blatant attempt to excoriate the Bush administration for its own political gain. Hats off to Sen. Wayne Allard for his vote to defeat this defeatist scheme!
This letter has not been edited.
What part of the following don't you understand?
Many of the legal features attributed to habeas corpus are delineated in a positive way in the Sixth Amendment, which reads:
“In all criminal prosecutions, 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 … and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; [and] to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses.”
Bush can declare any non-citizen an “unlawful enemy combatant” and put the person into a system of military tribunals that give defendants only limited rights. Critics have called the tribunals “kangaroo courts” because the rules are heavily weighted in favor of the prosecution.
Some language in the new law also suggests that “any person,” presumably including American citizens, could be swept up into indefinite detention if they are suspected of having aided and abetted terrorists.
“Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter who commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission,” according to the law, passed by the Republican-controlled Congress in September and signed by Bush on Oct. 17, 2006.
Another provision in the law seems to target American citizens by stating that “any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States ... shall be punished as a military commission … may direct.”
Who has “an allegiance or duty to the United States” if not an American citizen? That provision would not presumably apply to Osama bin Laden or al-Qaeda, nor would it apply generally to foreign citizens. This section of the law appears to be singling out American citizens.
Besides allowing “any person” to be swallowed up by Bush’s system, the law prohibits detainees once inside from appealing to the traditional American courts until after prosecution and sentencing, which could translate into an indefinite imprisonment since there are no timetables for Bush’s tribunal process to play out.
The law states that once a person is detained, “no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever … relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions.”
That court-stripping provision – barring “any claim or cause of action whatsoever” – would seem to deny American citizens habeas corpus rights just as it does for non-citizens. If a person can’t file a motion with a court, he can’t assert any constitutional rights, including habeas corpus.
Other constitutional protections in the Bill of Rights – such as a speedy trial, the right to reasonable bail and the ban on “cruel and unusual punishment” – would seem to be beyond a detainee’s reach as well.
You can hunt, hound, prosecute and otherwise pursue and punish those who have either conspired to, or done actual, harm to our country. But do it legally, not under cover in the dark. Demonstrate that true probable cause exists or let them go - it's the American way.
Posted by on October 1, 2007 02:41 PMYour right Stuckey.
Posted by on October 1, 2007 02:43 PMDarn habeus corpus. It has no place in the world of Nazi coward Brian.
Posted by on October 1, 2007 02:50 PM02:41 PM,
Aren't you forgetting something that is rather essential here?
For the Stuckeys, et..al., by way of their Great Decider, the Constitution is nothing more than a "god-damned piece of paper". And the guarantees therein are as totally meaningless as . . . well . . . let's say anything that has been said to date by Bush himself.
Only those of us who are regarded as "cowards", "traitors", and such like nasty and insulting epithets from the pens of the principal spokes-persons for Republicanism/"conservatism" - and we all know who they are - actually care anything about such things as Habeus Corpus, and/or the reality of the Constitution as our framework and bulwark of freedoms.
And we even use identifying screen names to say so - "Liberal trash" as one individual repeatedly says we are.
Which might be a bit odd, at that; especially since one of those principal Republican/"conservative" spokes-persons is found all over the website screaming, whining, and crying about how it is the "liberals" who are trying to do away with his idea of Constitutional rights when it comes to his own little hobby-horse, guns.
But, that's all right! No one ever said there needed to be - or was - either sense or consistency in Republican/"conservative" presentations anyway.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 1, 2007 05:10 PMOl' Steno Stuckey at his best/worst.
At least he called them "terrorist suspects. Let's bask in the rays of hope where they shine..
Posted by Charles B. on October 1, 2007 05:17 PMFirst off, I would think that an appropriate place to send letters to the editor about the Denver Post would be the Denver Post. Second, all persons on U.S. soil get the benefits of the U.S. Constitution. That includes people the administration doesn't like who are accused of terrorism. I know that President Lincoln once suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, but the last person I want doing that is the President of the United States by fiat, regardless of who he or she is.
Posted by peterpi on October 1, 2007 05:18 PMWoohoo. Another week another Stinky letter gets published with all of his vapid vitriol uncensored. How can we be so lucky to get a new Stinky letter every week? Only in America or the pages of that liberal rag the Rocky Mountain News.
Posted by Wes on October 2, 2007 01:07 PMI think I'm understanding better what a commie leaning, terrorist supporting newspaper the RMN really is. In a fiendish plot that would do George Soros proud, the RMN continually prints Stinky's letters not because the RMN editorial staff agrees with these Neanderthal thoughts. They are such sneaky lefties that they will brazenly publish Stinky's letter and let everyone else assume that this is the kind of brain rot that is the defining characteristic of conservatives. Let them hang themselves with their own words. "We don need no stinkin Habeas Corpus or liberties. We will gladly surrender our rights as citizens because we is afraid. Those there foreigner make us afraid day and night".
Posted by Wes on October 2, 2007 10:25 PM