Bullypulpit
Senior Member
<center><h1><font color=red>Those Who Forget History...</font></h1></center>
Of course, it helps to have learned history in the first place.
In 1215, a document was produced that became the foundation for western jurisprudence and our own Constitution. That document was the Magna Carta. Most relevant to the discussion at hand are are articles 38 and 39 of the Magna Carta, which is the basis of <i>habeas corpus</i>.
<blockquote>38 In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.
"39 No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.</blockquote>
Heady stuff in those days, but the application was strictly for landed gentry and nobles until about 1628. Until then, the typical yeoman could be imprisoned by the king without charge or recourse to the courts.
In 1628, several knights, imprisoned over a tax-dispute with the king. These knights invoked <i>habeas corpus</i>, where they were to be freed or on bail unless they have been convicted of a crime.
In response, Charles I invoked his right, as king, to imprison anybody he wanted, any time he wanted. This led to the a series of laws over the next 50 years which strengthened <i>habeas corpus</i> to the point where only Parliament could revoke it, which they did in the case of Napoleon Bonaparte.
Now, fast forward to the 21st century. Dubbyuh has invoked <i>per speciale Mandatum Domini Regis</i>, or the right to imrison anyone he wishes any time he wishes. But unlike George III in the case of Napoleon, Dubbyuh feels he needs no act of Congress to overturn the 4th through 8th amendments to the Constitution. In order to circumvent these protections, new legal terms such a 'enemy combatants' and 'terrorists' were created as well as a whole new set of laws to deal with them.
Dubbyuh forgot one thing though. He does not have the right to suspend <i>habeas corpus</i>. While the Constitution provides a mechanism for the temporary suspension of <i>habeas corpus</i>, he does not have the power to do so...Only Congress has that power, and they have...not...done...so.
Since this country was founded, there are two classses of people who can be legally imprisoned, prisoners of war and criminals. This first class is protected under the Geneva Convention and US law while the second class is protected under the US Constitution. These two classes have covered every threat to nations and their people in the 800+ years since the Magna Carta was signed on the banks of the Thames.
But jast as Hitler and his fellow travelers used the burning of the Reichstag to justify an unending war on terrorism and suspension of <i>habeas corpus</i>, so to have George W. Buhs and his merry band, including Alberto Gonzalez.
<blockquote> "The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus ... are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it [the Constitution] contains. ...[T]he practice of arbitrary imprisonments have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious [British 18th century legal scholar] Blackstone, in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital:
"'To bereave a man of life,' says he, 'or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore A MORE DANGEROUS ENGINE of arbitrary government.''' [Capitals all Hamilton's from the original.]</blockquote>
This by Alexander Hamilton, one of the most conservative authors of the <i>Federalist Papers</i>. The Founding Fathers recognized no situation in which the President could arbitrarily suspend <i>habeas corpus</i>.
While we are all familiar with Mr. Gonzales' involvement in the torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, this is just a part of a larger issue. That being whether the POTUS has the right to ignore the Constitution, international law and treatties, violate civil and human rights and build concentration camps for the permanent imprisonment of untired and uncharged individuals. Dubbyuh's exercise of <i>per speciale Mandatum Domini Regis</i> puts us all at risk of imprisonment by presidential fiant. Do we really want a man as Attorney General of the US who agrees with such policy? They always start with the terrorists first.
Of course, it helps to have learned history in the first place.
In 1215, a document was produced that became the foundation for western jurisprudence and our own Constitution. That document was the Magna Carta. Most relevant to the discussion at hand are are articles 38 and 39 of the Magna Carta, which is the basis of <i>habeas corpus</i>.
<blockquote>38 In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.
"39 No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.</blockquote>
Heady stuff in those days, but the application was strictly for landed gentry and nobles until about 1628. Until then, the typical yeoman could be imprisoned by the king without charge or recourse to the courts.
In 1628, several knights, imprisoned over a tax-dispute with the king. These knights invoked <i>habeas corpus</i>, where they were to be freed or on bail unless they have been convicted of a crime.
In response, Charles I invoked his right, as king, to imprison anybody he wanted, any time he wanted. This led to the a series of laws over the next 50 years which strengthened <i>habeas corpus</i> to the point where only Parliament could revoke it, which they did in the case of Napoleon Bonaparte.
Now, fast forward to the 21st century. Dubbyuh has invoked <i>per speciale Mandatum Domini Regis</i>, or the right to imrison anyone he wishes any time he wishes. But unlike George III in the case of Napoleon, Dubbyuh feels he needs no act of Congress to overturn the 4th through 8th amendments to the Constitution. In order to circumvent these protections, new legal terms such a 'enemy combatants' and 'terrorists' were created as well as a whole new set of laws to deal with them.
Dubbyuh forgot one thing though. He does not have the right to suspend <i>habeas corpus</i>. While the Constitution provides a mechanism for the temporary suspension of <i>habeas corpus</i>, he does not have the power to do so...Only Congress has that power, and they have...not...done...so.
Since this country was founded, there are two classses of people who can be legally imprisoned, prisoners of war and criminals. This first class is protected under the Geneva Convention and US law while the second class is protected under the US Constitution. These two classes have covered every threat to nations and their people in the 800+ years since the Magna Carta was signed on the banks of the Thames.
But jast as Hitler and his fellow travelers used the burning of the Reichstag to justify an unending war on terrorism and suspension of <i>habeas corpus</i>, so to have George W. Buhs and his merry band, including Alberto Gonzalez.
<blockquote> "The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus ... are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it [the Constitution] contains. ...[T]he practice of arbitrary imprisonments have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious [British 18th century legal scholar] Blackstone, in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital:
"'To bereave a man of life,' says he, 'or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore A MORE DANGEROUS ENGINE of arbitrary government.''' [Capitals all Hamilton's from the original.]</blockquote>
This by Alexander Hamilton, one of the most conservative authors of the <i>Federalist Papers</i>. The Founding Fathers recognized no situation in which the President could arbitrarily suspend <i>habeas corpus</i>.
While we are all familiar with Mr. Gonzales' involvement in the torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, this is just a part of a larger issue. That being whether the POTUS has the right to ignore the Constitution, international law and treatties, violate civil and human rights and build concentration camps for the permanent imprisonment of untired and uncharged individuals. Dubbyuh's exercise of <i>per speciale Mandatum Domini Regis</i> puts us all at risk of imprisonment by presidential fiant. Do we really want a man as Attorney General of the US who agrees with such policy? They always start with the terrorists first.
