Military Commission Act 2006 Violates The Constitution

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by yguy

Next you'll be telling me freedom of the press doesn't apply to broadcast media.

Provide your evidence and reasoning the U.S. is currently under invasion in the sense contemplated by the Framers according to which suspension of habeas is authorized by the Constitution. Here's another big chance for you to pretend playing at the law.

[JaredM]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti (emphasis mine)

Provide your evidence and reasoning the U.S. is currently under invasion in the sense contemplated by the Framers according to which suspension of habeas is authorized by the Constitution. Here's another big chance for you to pretend playing at the law.

Oooh, better be careful, Scarlatti. Yguy might declare you a "liar".

Oh yeah, and "freedom of the press" only applies to right-wing news sources.

[California Tanker]

Cue obligatory quote:

"How about an Enabling Act? An Enabling Act can enable anything"
"Well, in this case, the Prime Minister feels it will merely enable him to lose the next election"

NTM

[yguy]

Originally Posted by JaredM

Are you suggesting that a terrorist attack constitutes an "invasion"?

No, I'm saying they had to invade in order to attack.

What evidence have you that any of our territory has been occupied by enemy forces other than the fact that a few alleged "terror cells" have been discovered in the United States?

No more than that is necessary, since the potential for destruction is comparable to that from an invasion as traditionally defined.

Your interpretation of the Suspension Clause stretches credibility.

Or, your definition of "invasion" stretches credibility.

[JaredM]

[QUOTE=yguy]No, I'm saying they had to invade in order to attack.

If I recall correctly, the 19 hijackers came here legally...no invasion necessary.

Originally Posted by yguy

No more than that is necessary, since the potential for destruction is comparable to that from an invasion as traditionally defined.

The clause doesn't say anything about "potential" invasion or rebellion, much less terrorist activity.

Originally Posted by yguy

Or, your definition of "invasion" stretches credibility.

Um, no. The terror attack was not an "invasion" any more than the Vinnie Vincent Invasion was...and they even called themselves by the term (and were almost as big of a disaster).

By your definition, the entrance of a single alien, lawful or unlawful, who harboted some criminal intent, would be sufficient to suspend the Great Writ. That's a slippery slope I would rather not go down.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by JaredM

The terror attack was not an "invasion" any more than the Vinnie Vincent Invasion was...and they even called themselves by the term (and were almost as big of a disaster).

[yguy]

[QUOTE=JaredM]

Originally Posted by yguy

No, I'm saying they had to invade in order to attack.

If I recall correctly, the 19 hijackers came here legally...no invasion necessary.

The clause doesn't say anything about "potential" invasion

What a coincidence. Neither did I.

or rebellion, much less terrorist activity.

Oh. Then maybe the first amendment does apply only to print media.

Um, no. The terror attack was not an "invasion"

And I never said it was, as you know very well.

any more than the Vinnie Vincent Invasion was...and they even called themselves by the term (and were almost as big of a disaster).

I don't know who these guys are, and I don't care...but are you actually drawing a comparison between an "invasion" by a rock group and the preparation for and execution of the 9/11 attacks?

By your definition, the entrance of a single alien, lawful or unlawful, who harboted some criminal intent, would be sufficient to suspend the Great Writ.

Not just criminal intent, but the intent to do harm to the United States. Even a serial murderer doesn't necessarily meet that criterion.

[D. Scarlatti]

An unauthorized suspension of habeas corpus does no harm to the United States? That's your burden, yguy. Are you planning on meeting it, or not? Mr. Superior Understanding of the Constitution, who inserts words into the Constitution that don't even appear there ('covert,' in this case).

Are 'covert' rebellions also grounds for constitutionally authorized suspensions of habeas corpus?

[godfry n. glad]

Hey, yguy?

What about this ?

If there is anybody is engaged in "traitorous" activities, I'd think you might want to look inside the Bush administration...possibly at the highest levels.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

An unauthorized suspension of habeas corpus does no harm to the United States? That's your burden, yguy.

There's no way to answer that in general terms. It may or may not, depending on the motivation for doing it.

[JaredM]

Originally Posted by yguy

Oh. Then maybe the first amendment does apply only to print media.

Nice analogy there, Learned Hand. So, invasion is to terror attack as newspapers are to print media? Sorry, I'm not convinced.

Originally Posted by yguy

And I never said it was, as you know very well.

Ahh, I see your tactic...when in doubt, obfuscate.

Originally Posted by yguy

I don't know who these guys are, and I don't care...but are you actually drawing a comparison between an "invasion" by a rock group and the preparation for and execution of the 9/11 attacks?

It's nice to see that not only did you totally miss the joke, but that you are completely devoid of a sense of humor.

Originally Posted by yguy

Not just criminal intent, but the intent to do harm to the United States. Even a serial murderer doesn't necessarily meet that criterion.

OK then, a single "subversive" who enters the country legally then. Would that be enough to trigger the suspension of habeas corpus, in your legal opinion?

Come on, Chief Justice yguy, we eagerly await your valuable pronouncement.

[angrybellsprout]

Originally Posted by Freddy

True enough about Lincoln, but there was an actual rebellion at the time.

Rebellion my ass, the supposed Union was claimed to be a free union that members weren't forced into being part of. There was a disagreement, various members of the Union left, and then the tyrants invaded and conquered like the sick bastards they are. Bush may be a pretty shoddy president, but at least he hasn't dropped down the level of Lincoln.

[angrybellsprout]

Originally Posted by yguy

And at this time, there is an actual invasion.

Come down to the southern border, and you can see the actual invasion taking place...

[California Tanker]

Tell me about it. I know some guys on the AZ border, who say it's more dangerous there than Afghanistan was. Goes generally unreported in the news.

NTM

[yguy]

Originally Posted by JaredM

Nice analogy there, Learned Hand. So, invasion is to terror attack as newspapers are to print media?

No, but as usual, that's not what I said.

Ahh, I see your tactic...when in doubt, obfuscate.

I am aware of your determination to make "clarify" mean "obfuscate" and vice versa, but I won't play under those rules.

OK then, a single "subversive" who enters the country legally then. Would that be enough to trigger the suspension of habeas corpus, in your legal opinion?

No. He'd have to reasonably believed by the CIC to have the means to accomplish his end.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by yguy

No. He'd have to [be] reasonably believed by the CIC to have the means to accomplish his end.

From whence do you derive this intriguing and novel constitutional test, Mr. Superior Understanding? From the 'rebellion' or the 'invasion' requirements? Remember, you don't get to 'the public safety' until you've satisfied one or the other.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

From whence do you derive this intriguing and novel constitutional test, Mr. Superior Understanding? From the 'rebellion' or the 'invasion' requirements?

From the obvious purpose of the exception, which is to provide a legal avenue for detention of enemies of the US when it is under attack.

Remember, you don't get to 'the public safety' until you've satisfied one or the other.

Where do you get that idea?

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by yguy

From the obvious purpose of the exception, which is to provide a legal avenue for detention of enemies of the US when it is under attack.

That wasn't my question. You are not allowed to invent constitutional tests from whole cloth.

Where do you get that idea?

From the plain meaning of the clause. Surely I don't need to explain a standard doctrine of construction to Mr. Superior Understanding. But I will anyway, if not for Mr. Superior Understanding, then for other observers.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Do you see? The public safety may require it, but only in cases of rebellion or invasion. So until you establish the existence of either a rebellion or an invasion, you do not reach the question of whether the public safety may require the suspension of the privilege.

It does not say, 'rebellion or invasion or when the public safety may require it.'

[yguy]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

So until you establish the existence of either a rebellion or an invasion,

Did that. See post #29.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by yguy

Did that. See post #29.

You did? All you did was suggest that a terrorist attack (which is not an invasion for constitutional purposes, according to you) was preceded by an invasion.

So?

Now are you going to provide your evidence and reasoning that the U.S. is currently under invasion in the sense contemplated by the Framers according to which suspension of habeas is authorized by the Constitution or not?

[JaredM]

Originally Posted by yguy

No, but as usual, that's not what I said.

Bullshit, that's exactly what you said. This is why it is so tiresome to attempt to discuss anything with you. Newspapers and print media serve the same purposes; they are in effect, two different flavors of the same thing. Terror attacks do not necessarily serve the same purpose or seek to accomplish (nor actually accomplish) the same objectives as an invasion. Your analogy is inapt, because you are comparing apples and oranges.

Originally Posted by yguy

I am aware of your determination to make "clarify" mean "obfuscate" and vice versa, but I won't play under those rules.

You don't play under any rules, other than those you make up as you go along. You aren't here to contribute anyhting meaningful or even interesting--you are just here to be a troll.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

You did? All you did was suggest that a terrorist attack (which is not an invasion for constitutional purposes, according to you)

The actual 9/11 attack was clearly not, by itself, the invasion for constitutional purposes, since Atta et al had already been here for some time. That's what I meant.

was preceded by an invasion.

So?

It was an invasion which led to an attack on American soil. What more do you want?

Now are you going to provide your evidence and reasoning that the U.S. is currently under invasion in the sense contemplated by the Framers according to which suspension of habeas is authorized by the Constitution or not?

Islamic terrorists have openly expressed their determination to repeat 9/11 and then some. Immigration policy being what it has been for the last few decades, there are presumably terrorist cells in country, just as there obviously were pre-9/11, which have the intent to carry out that purpose.

Case closed.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by JaredM

Bullshit, that's exactly what you said.

I don't know why you bother with such obvious lies when the record so plainly contradicts you.

Your analogy is inapt, because you are comparing apples and oranges.

No, your misconstruction of my "analogy" - if indeed it can even be called that - is inapt.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by yguy

Islamic terrorists have openly expressed their determination to repeat 9/11 and then some. Immigration policy being what it has been for the last few decades, there are presumably terrorist cells in country, just as there obviously were pre-9/11, which have the intent to carry out that purpose.

Case closed.

Are you seriously suggesting the Framers of the Constitution intended to authorize the suspension of habeas corpus by the federal government based on a mere presumption, or even that this presumption of yours actually represents an invasion in the constitutional sense? You can't possibly be serious. Scratch that. You are serious, aren't you?

[JaredM]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

Are you seriously suggesting the Framers of the Constitution intended to authorize the suspension of habeas corpus by the federal government based on a mere presumption, or even that this presumption of yours actually represents an invasion in the constitutional sense? You can't possibly be serious. Scratch that. You are serious, aren't you?

What I would like to know is whether or not yguy is even capable of understanding the difference in circumstances between an invasion or rebellion and a terrorist attack. Yguy, have you ever been to a country that has been wracked with civil war or invaded by another country? It is a scene of widespread chaos, starvation, and disease; destruction of critical infrastructure over wide areas; and a breakdown of the rule of law. That did not happen on 9/11/2001, nor has it happened since then (GWB's fuckups notwithstanding).

I am in no way attempting to make light of the situation. I am originally from Northern New Jersey , and several people I personally knew were killed on that fateful day, and several others (my father and my next-door neighbor included) narrowly avoided death or injury. But what we witnessed that day was neither an "invasion" in the Constitutional sense, nor was it the consequences of an invasion.