Morphy Institute of Reason Thought & Humor

Sunday, October 01, 2006

Constitution Subverted, Work begins on Magna Charter

As best I can tell, this new law lets the president detain anyone he wants indefinitely without a trial, and lets him decide what treatment this prisoner receives. I probably don't know my habeaus from my corpus, but this seems to be more excess in this WoT. Arlen Specter (I always thought that name sounded like a comic book character of some sort) and many others seem to think this cancels some old and very basic rights from the Magna Charter.

From the Christian Science Monitor: In fog of war on terror, some rules set

And The Austin American Statesman (commentary): Sarasohn: After 800 years, habeas corpus is compromised

posted by Dr. Steven Morphy-Godchaux III at 8:36 PM

7 Comments:

  • You're all missing a huge point. These aren't criminals under arrest. They aren't being held pending a trial. These are unlawful enemy combatants. We're fighting a war and these are the guys we pick up off the battlefield. We're holding them because we don't want them shooting at us later (figuratively and literally). We aren't holding them to criminally prosecute them. Therefore, they don't enjoy the rights of common criminals, they don't get access to our criminal courts, and they don't get other protections afforded to citizens because 1)they're not citizens, and 2) they're military detainees. You can't think of these guys as shoplifters. When are we going to let them go? When we militarily decide they are no longer a threat.

    By Blogger Murphy "Mac" Morphy, at Mon Oct 02, 09:58:00 PM CDT  

  • Granted for the sake of argument, they are not criminals. Then what are they? Unlawful enemy combatants? What is that? What are the terms and conditions of that status? Up until recently, I had never heard of the term. Either, these guys are criminals, in which case, one set of rules apply. Or, these guys are prisoners of war, in which case another set of rules applies.

    By the way, the administration did try to apply the no habeas rule to US citizens. If that were the case, then under the rights claimed by the administration it could grab any US citizen, give them the status of unlawful enemy combatant and throw them in jail without any due process.

    It is called the Rule of Law. And it means something.

    By Blogger Philip Seymour Morphy, at Tue Oct 03, 05:29:00 AM CDT  

  • There are long and detailed arguments that can be made, but in a nutshell I don't think this is "the American Way" to do things. On a practical front, grabbing people like this just creates new anti-Anerican sentiment (and dare I say it?) new terrorists. I'd be pissed if any of my friends / family were jacked like this and I could not rule out what sort of actions my protests would take.

    By Blogger Dr. Steven Morphy-Godchaux III, at Tue Oct 03, 08:31:00 AM CDT  

  • The government is going around plucking Americans off of the street in Kansas City. These guys are in Iraq and Afghanistan trying to kill our military. They don’t get to be called POWs because THEY aren’t following the rules of war that earn them POW status. They aren’t members of an established military, they don’t wear uniforms, they hide and attack among civilians and in mosques, and they don’t have a single authority under whose command they act and with whom negotiations can proceed.
    The whole idea of not doing anything to irritate people who will want to come and attack us is suicide. Who were we fighting with in November 1995 when our base in Riyadh was attacked? August 1998 embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? October 2000 USS Cole in Yemen? And finally on September 11th, 2001? If anybody ought to be afraid of irritating someone, it’s the terrorists who should be afraid of us. I’d like to see the fair and compassionate detainee policies in place that Al Qaeda uses. Oops! They don’t have any.

    By Blogger Murphy "Mac" Morphy, at Tue Oct 03, 02:10:00 PM CDT  

  • Mac, I'll keep this simple so that even a good Republican like Bush can understand. I think we all agree that Al Qaeda and others of their ilk are “bad guys”. And if America wants to be the “good guys” then we have to act like “good guys”. The USA has to take the high road and behave more ethically than the “bad guys” who have no moral code other than death and destruction by whatever means possible. Nobody’s saying we should stop intervening to protect the country and our interests (whatever that means) but we can’t act like the thugs we are trying to stop. We have to play fair even though the other team doesn’t. That’s what the “better” side does. It makes the game harder to be sure. But you sleep better at night and have a lot less explaining to do to the deity of your choice on judgment day.

    Can you imagine our response if – for a wild example - North Korean secret operatives infiltrated the US and started making U.S. nuclear physicists “disappear” because Korea wanted to stop the perceived “nuclear threat” against their country from the USA? That’s correct!!! We would not like it one bit. We’d say it was unethical and transgressed international law and a bunch of other legal gibberish to state in no uncertain terms that the other team was not “playing fair”.

    Want to apprehend a suspected “bad guy”? Do it. But be up front about it. Don’t take him to a “secret prison” – announce to every news agency in the world that we’ve “got another one”. Give him due process. It’s not like he’ll be right back on the streets again anytime soon. Hell, due process for a traffic ticket can take years. For allegedly plotting to wreak death and mayhem against the USA I think we can safely assume “terrorist guy” isn’t getting bailed out anytime soon. Let all those thinking about such destruction and mayhem know that the USA will apprehend anyone who is legitimately under suspicion of plotting “evil”. Maybe these “bad guys” aren’t so keen on sitting in jail awaiting trial for decades. Maybe the rest of the world says “well, we don’t agree with the USA but at least they act in a civilized manner unlike the way the “bad guys” who behead reporters and other such “evil acts”. Maybe we gain friends and allies that way. Maybe we don’t look amazingly like the punks we’re trying to catch. Maybe we just feel like the side that’s fighting a just and ethical and legitimate battle. Maybe the rest of the world will feel like WE’RE the “”Good Guys” and help us out!

    By Blogger Thurston J Morphy III, at Tue Oct 03, 04:08:00 PM CDT  

  • I don't care who they are or how they came into US custody (although our record of getting the 'right' guys is notably bad). You treat them the same way we treat our own citizen criminals. I still see no argument to do otherwise. Except perhaps the 'punishment ethic' that I gave up after so many years of Catholic school. And I'm not for appeasing people who don't like the US. But I'm not for antogonizing them either. This just leads to the senseless death of innocent Americans.

    By Blogger Dr. Steven Morphy-Godchaux III, at Wed Oct 04, 07:36:00 AM CDT  

  • They are not criminals (First Mac Post) and they are not POWs (Second Mac Post). Under what legal regime do they fall under? What set of laws apply?

    By Blogger Philip Seymour Morphy, at Wed Oct 04, 10:17:00 AM CDT  

Post a Comment

<< Home