|
|
| |||||||
| From | Message | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Center for Constitutional Rights Argues to Court That Military Commissions Act is UnconstitutionalNEW YORK - November 3 - The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) joined attorneys in filing a brief yesterday in Al Odah v. United States of America, together with Boumediene v. Bush the two cases representing men held at Guantánamo Bay that have reached the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The briefs were the first written arguments to challenge the Military Commissions Act (MCA) in court and argue that either the retroactive suspension of the detainees' right of habeas corpus does not apply to pending cases, or that it is flatly unconstitutional. CCR represents Australian citizen David Hicks, one of the petitioners in Al Odah, as well as hundreds of other detainees at the island prison and coordinates their representation by hundreds of pro bono attorneys. The brief states: "The Court should promptly affirm [the Lower Court's] denial of the Government's motion to dismiss these cases and, at long last, allow the district court to decide 'the merits of the petitioners' claims' as mandated by the Supreme Court" in CCR's landmark victory Rasul v. Bush. The brief goes on to argue that the Suspension Clause of the Constitution-which states that "the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless. cases of rebellion or invasion. require it"- bars Congress from suspending that right, except under very particular circumstances. "This is the first opportunity we have had to challenge the constitutionality of the MCA in court," said CCR senior attorney Barbara Olshansky, "and the Constitution is quite explicit on this point: No rebellion, no invasion, no suspension. It's that simple. We at CCR are confident that the court will find in favor of our clients, and in favor of the Constitution." The government must now file a response to the brief, which is due by November 13. The written briefs will then be followed by oral arguments, on a date to be determined by the court. Until the court issues its decision, all pending habeas corpus cases will not move forward. CCR Legal Director Bill Goodman said, "The Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that the hundreds of men detained at Guantánamo Bay have the right to their day in court. President Bush and the Congress have done their best to delay justice for these men; now the courts must insure that justice is not denied." www.commondreams.org" target="_blank">-> www.commondreams.org |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
bobbynox 05-Nov-06, 17:40 |
There is a wider picture here, I think it is necessary to point out that the ECs held on the Island are not our friends. They can not be re-trained, and are doomed to repeat their infractions against humanity. They are the BAD guys, no? |
||||||
|
bobbynox 05-Nov-06, 17:41 |
|
||||||
|
bobby |
||||||
|
jdh71... |
||||||
|
Independence, the Constitution and its Bill of Rights wrong? Rights are granted by Bush and the congress? |
||||||
|
good point they ought to be though : ) |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
bobbynox 07-Nov-06, 13:56 |
Enemy combatants don't have US constitutional rights. Human rights are not in our constitution. |
||||||
|
bobby Constituion grants not a single right - that bears repeating: the Constitution grants not a single right. The Constitution protects *ALREADY EXISTING* natural rights from an over-reaching government. Natural rights are not given by any government and apply to all men - all men have the right to life, liberty, and property, inclduing the natural rights outlined in the BOR. It's interesting Madison did not want a BOR for this exact reason, because then people would think that those were granted rights and not natural. Since natural rights are the same for all men, then even our terror suspects have the same Constitutional rights the same as every man. Therefore, enumerated rights are not a "citizen only" phenomenon. The fact that through force or fraud there are governemnts or men that would restrict or even forbid these rights does not make them any less. Right is right and wrong is wrong. HUMAN RIGHTS *ARE* THE CONSTITUTION! |
||||||
|
jdh71 It seems that you say we must provide or grant certain rights to enemy combatants, simply because all men are granted these "natural rights". Yet, it seems to me there is no "governemental entity" with jurisdiction to actually grant those "natural rights" (other than God possibly). The U.S. grants certain enumerated rights to its' citizens and has the jurisdiction to grant those rights and see that they are enforced properly, but the U.S. has no obligation, right, or jurisdiction to grant (enforce) those rights on non-U.S. citizens. We certainly do not have the jurisdiction to grant or enforce our enumerated rights on citizens of another country. The fact that the "natural rights" and our "enumerated rights" are similar does not mean we can enforce the "natural rights" while we can enforce the "enumerated rights" for our citizens. I hope that was clear... I feel like I'm having problems explaining what I mean. |
||||||
|
softaire all men are granted these "natural rights"*** Softaire, my friend, do not be afraid to enter this discussion - be bold! - I would hope that my words would more than "seem" to say enemy combatants are entitled to certain rights because they are human and entitled to natural rights - because that is *exactly* what I am saying. ***Yet, it seems to me there is no "governemental entity" with jurisdiction to actually grant those "natural rights" (other than God possibly).*** You are right there is no governmetal entity with jurisdiction to grant those natural rights, because natural rights cannot be granted by any government. Natural rights exist because man does - God-given - and governments properly exist not to restrict these rights but rather to protect them. A government properlly following natural law - a moral government - does not restrict the natural rights of those within it's borders or control without due process - due process also being a natural right. ***The U.S. grants certain enumerated rights to its' citizens and has the jurisdiction to grant those rights and see that they are enforced properly, but the U.S. has no obligation, right, or jurisdiction to grant (enforce) those rights on non-U.S. citizens.*** Like I said before, the government and the Constitution have *NO* authority to grant rights. The government cannot grant a single right - rights exist because man does - that's why those rights are inalienable and natural - God-given. Therefore, the goverment does not have the authority to to restrict those rights without due process. The government exists to protect those rights, no restrict those rights. ***We certainly do not have the jurisdiction to grant or enforce our enumerated rights on citizens of another country. *** Irrelevant to this discussion. It's like your kid telling you that Billy's parents let him go to the party. Doesn't matter. What matter is what happens in *your* house. ***The fact that the "natural rights" and our "enumerated rights" are similar does not mean we can enforce the "natural rights" while we can enforce the "enumerated rights" for our citizens.*** Enumerated rights and natural rights are one and the same. I cannot emphasize this enough - the Constitution did *NOT* grant a single right. The Constitution "enumerated" specific natural rights to protect those natural rights should an overreaching government forget about natural rights. This concept is quite clearly stated in the preamble to the DOI: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident: that *ALL MEN* are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." As a country that understand these principles it is a moral imperitive that we respect the natural of all men - citizen and non-citizen alike. Besides there is nothing in any of the forming documents about naturla rights applying only to "citizens" - go find it if you like . . . |
||||||
|
bobbynox 07-Nov-06, 20:51 |
If the war does not end, the enemy shall be held. |
||||||
|
Interesting Take My gut feeling is that it couldn't; however, it will be interesting to pursue. I say that now based on my feeling that it is a "legal" interpretation of jurisdiction, rather than a "moral" interpretation of right and wrong. |
||||||
|
bobbynox 07-Nov-06, 21:04 |
|
||||||
|
bobby returning them to their prospective govts. at the end of this war.*** There is nothing wrong with capturing those who would do or are planning harm - initiating force, against the natural rights of this country and peope of this country. There is also nothing wrong with attempting to obtain information. If we want to return them when we are done or try them ourselves doesn't matter that much - but it should be consideration to not return the captured to a government that will only violate naturla rights. You can capture and detain and obtain information, but a moral government protects the natural of the enemy captured, including due process and trial and torture is not an option. This country - at least when the Founding Fathers created it - stood for these natural rights, and we should too. These rights do not cease to exist simply because we do not like an idiology or actions. *ALL MEN* are created equal . . . |
||||||
|
softaire |
||||||
|
bobby to track you down, and prosecute you. And kill you if you try to run. That is what war is. *** I agree. What made you think anything I said was in opposition to this? |
||||||
|
bobbynox 07-Nov-06, 21:28 |
furthermore, I am betting that good ol' George WASHINGTON caught a few red-coats and took them 'round back to the wood-pile (wink, wink, nod, nod!) know what I mean? |
||||||
|
bobby I'm not sure what that means. I have a much more plausible and realistic explanation of the world than your coincidence theories ***furthermore, I am betting that good ol' George WASHINGTON caught a few red-coats and took them 'round back to the wood-pile (wink, wink, nod, nod!) know what I mean?*** I don't know why you'd want to slander a Founding Father like that. You have as much idea as I do what GW did with captured redcoats. |
||||||
|
bobbynox 07-Nov-06, 21:51 |
|
||||||
|
bobbynox 07-Nov-06, 21:57 |
C'mon, this country is WAY bigger than some silly 'round us up' theory. I suppose you feel very hemmed-in living in LA, but surely you where able to see the wide-open spaces on your trip to NE? |
||||||
|
bobby although, "I am quite certain" that the men who brought the concept of natural rights out of the dark of monarchy and theocracy were NOT torturing prisoners. these were men of principle, not people who changed or dropped those principles when it became incovenient or uncomfortable. although many today are not man enough to stick to principles . . . it's pathetic, tragic, and sad |
||||||
|
bobbynox 07-Nov-06, 22:02 |
|
||||||
|
bobby case what, some looters? Ok, bobby. |
||||||
|
bobbynox 07-Nov-06, 22:06 |
I think the differences between you and I can be boiled down to: A) I think we are in WWIII, you don't. I think that the constitution is intact, you dont. C) I think that the islamo-fascist around the world are out to get us, you don't. Granted, you have have some very well-though out ideas to the contrary, but I think we can agree, to disagree. Plus, the entire military agrees with me. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
bobbynox 07-Nov-06, 22:12 |
|
||||||
|
bobbynox 07-Nov-06, 22:16 |
Do you think we should return ill-gotten gains to the Native Americans? If all people are naturally equal, then the NA ought to have the lands stolen from them, returned? |
||||||
| |||||||
