Habeas Corpus: Human Right or American Right?

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Of course, it is a human right. Only an idiot would think otherwise.

Let the games begin.

[daroga]

To be contradictory: American Right

[SpazX]

Omicronian right

Puny humans have no rights.

[trq]

Well, the question needs to be a little more clearly defined: are you questioning whether it *is* the case, or whether it *should be* the case?

Because the reality is, as it stands, it's an American right. Should it be universal? Absolutely. Where people really miss the boat, in my opinion, is whether it should be extended to foreign citizens in US custody. They answer there is pretty clearly, "Of fucking course." We recognize Constitutional rights as *human* rights (they're "inalienable" and all that), so any *human* we have within our authority has those same protections. We don't "grant" rights or "give" rights -- mankind intrinsically has them. End of story.

Omicronian right

Correct. Because he will sic Sharkticons on your face.

[speedracer]

Great. More Americans trying to force their morality on the rest of the world.

[bigdaddy]

Is gone.

So why the fuck does it matter?

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Is gone.

So why the fuck does it matter?

I know. Doesn't that suck?

I can't wait until I piss off the wrong government peon and he declares I'm a foreigner. Then, I can "legally" spend the rest of my life being tortured in Gitmo.

[mykevermin]

Neither at the moment.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Which presidential candidate will try to restore HC?

[InuFaye]

Ron Paul.

Technically its an American Right.
But its a tottally humane, and ethical thing to have.

[JolietJake]

I've never quite understood this being referred to as an American right. It's almost to say that only Americans deserve such a right, which is just an arrogant thing to say. It's a right that every human being deserves, regardless of their country.

[daroga]

I've never quite understood this being referred to as an American right. It's almost to say that only Americans deserve such a right, which is just an arrogant thing to say. It's a right that every human being deserves, regardless of their country.It's an American Right in that it's something that specifically applies to America and their legal system.

For it to be a human right you have to declare that countries who don't have said American Right are inhumane in their treatment of their people. That gets pretty subjective there.

But, yeah, American Right doesn't indicate that no one else should have it. Just that it's unique or exemplified or even just present in the American system.

[XxFuRy2Xx]

All I know is that it better be re-instated as soon as possible.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

All I know is that it better be re-instated as soon as possible.

That's just what a foreigner would say.

I declare thee an enemy combatant.

Do not pass Go. Go directly to Gitmo.

[dopa345]

It's a basic right but in extraordinary circumstances it has been suspended. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War which was probably justifiable. Obviously the internment camps during WWII was not though considering the situation, it was understandable. It's not something to be taken lightly but if there is a demonstrable threat to the American people, suspending habeas corpus should be considered if it would serve the greater good. History, with the luxury of hindsight will eventually judge. Gitmo may have prevented a major terrorist attack or ended up providing intelligence that did. Or perhaps it served no purpose. It's easy to b eself-righteous when we don't have to be the ones that make the tough call.

[niceguyshawne]

Been said several times but neither.

[trq]

It's a basic right but in extraordinary circumstances it has been suspended. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War which was probably justifiable. Obviously the internment camps during WWII was not though considering the situation, it was understandable. It's not something to be taken lightly but if there is a demonstrable threat to the American people, suspending habeas corpus should be considered if it would serve the greater good. History, with the luxury of hindsight will eventually judge. Gitmo may have prevented a major terrorist attack or ended up providing intelligence that did. Or perhaps it served no purpose. It's easy to b eself-righteous when we don't have to be the ones that make the tough call.

Actually, the standards for suspending habeas corpus are a bit stricter than "the greater good" -- Lincoln suspended habeas corpus not in the entire Union, but in Maryland and outlying areas, so that if Maryland seceded, the capital wouldn't be surrounded by hostile territory. It's also important to note that when habeas corpus *is* suspended, military tribunals replace civil courts -- something we've had to fight tooth and nail to extend to Gitmo prisoners. So our current situation isn't really comparable -- we've stripped away more of due process than Lincoln did, and with looser standards of application. We simply haven't cast as wide a net.

It's also easy to let "history be the judge" once the damage has been done, and no one is left to be held responsible. There's no substitute for doing the right thing at the time.

[mykevermin]

Wait. I thought Guantanamo had military tribunals, but just a particularly nasty one lacking things like "defense" and "substantiated evidence."

[trq]

Wait. I thought Guantanamo had military tribunals, but just a particularly nasty one lacking things like "defense" and "substantiated evidence."

Yeah, there are military tribunals ... at the moment. But they weren't established immediately. Heck, there are still those who want any "nonlawful combatants" in Gitmo to be summarily executed.