Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 1824
-
@ ondolette
[Read the article: What happened to the Padilla interrogation videos?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]nabalzbbfr is wrong but the MCA of 2006 is retroactive
Section 7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 denies courts the right to hear habeas corpus petitions -- of non-citizens. It doesn't say anything about stripping citizenship, or about habeas corpus rights of citizens.
It is also retroactive: part b) states:
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a)shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001.
It has been argued that because it prevents detainees from going into court to challenge their imprisonment, it also prevents citizens from going to court to challenge being treated as non-citizens, but this isn't, strictly speaking, part of the law as written.
The prohibition on ex post facto law bars making any act a crime retroactively (the thought is that it isn't fair to punish people for something for which they were not on notice as to it's being wrong). Courts have also found that anything that basically effects punishment or increases punishment retroactively is also such a law (this has been used to challenge, with varying results, "sexual predator" laws). The courts have made a distinction, though, between substantive changes to criminal law and procedural changes. The state can change the way it tries people, and other parts of the procedural mechanisms in criminal prosecution, without -- in principle -- running afoul of the ex post facto prohibition. It in on this hook that the maladministration is hanging its hat WRT the habeas changes; they're claiming it is procedural and that there's no new substantive crime being prohibited. However: Courts have in the past found that when such "procedural" changes in effect bring about a substantive change in the laws (or they way they end up applying), the "procedural" nature of the change will not exempt it from the ex post facto proscription (an example would be to change state jury rules from requiring a unanimous guilty verdict to a simple majority; IFAIK this specific hasn't happened, but IIRC there were some cases where the grounds for imposing capital punishment had been changed, and the gummint had claimed that such was "procedural" but the courts disagreed). This is a grey area in the law; the denial of habeas may be found to have such an impact on the outcomes (for example, by preventing a trial at jury with the normal criminal rules of evidence) so that the ex post facto ban may pertain.
Cheers,
-
@ Sweet Polly Purebred
[Read the article: What happened to the Padilla interrogation videos?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks for picking up where I left off - I appreciate you having my back while I was out ;-) Keep up the good fight!
NP. Been battering RW trolls with 2X4s on Unclaimed Territory for a long time. I'm here to help.
Cheers,
-
@ "shooter242"
[Read the article: The FBI's lawbreaking is tied directly to President Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let's consider terrorism prevention. Prevention is trying to determine what MIGHT happen and stopping that possibility. By definition it requires gathering information about people without evidence of a crime. As far as I know, without evidence of a crime a warrant cannot be issued, and any intrusion into personal information is considered a fourth amendment violation, yes? Which necessitates a more relaxed standard for foreign agents and the FISA court, yes?...
Hate to point out the obvious, but prevention is a part of domestic law enforcement as well. Yet, the gummint labours along under the same old rules that the Founders saw fit to write.
... It has occurred to me that there may be a way to satisfy the Left's difficulties with the Bush administration. Make it a crime to [wiretap U.S. persons] without a FISA warrant.
It already is (see, e.g. 50 USC § 1809). Thought you knew that. But I keep forgetting you're dumber than a stump ... or just blatantly dishonest.
Cheers,
-
@ Glenn Greenwald
[Read the article: Blind faith in the Bush administration]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why is that principle even controversial? Since when did we become a country filled with "journalists" and others who are content with allowing political officials to wield unchecked power and who are eager to place blind trust in their Goodness?
Dontcha see? 9/11 changed everything. And nowadays these people change their Depends™ regularly as well.
And now we have Amber Alerts and Missing White Women by the day.
Gone are the days of that Commie-symp FDR and his "We have nothing to fear except fear itself...."
A nation of wusses. Real ones, you know, like Coulter....
Cheers,