FTA Lawyer

Well............. Rather than attacking Police Officers as "dumb-ass cop (s)", perhaps reflecting on the realities of the situation might shed some light on the issue of Charter breaches. While a lawyer defending (or prosecuting) an accused has the luxury of looking at the facts with a fine tooth comb AFTER the fact (hindsight IS 20/20 ); and while a lawyer has the ability to scrutinize the actions of the Police Officer while seated in the safety of their office, with reference material, and time at hand, a Police Officer is afforded no such luxury. A Police Officer is required to make split second decisions, and perform while in a (possibly) hostile environment. A Police Officers life is at risk while making their decision, while providing an accused with their 10 a and b Charter Rights, and sometimes (all of the time?) a Police Officer will worry more about the safety of the Public, their partner, and themselves rather than (and perhaps unfortunately so) getting all of their ducks in order. A Police Officers actions are scrutinized by their peers, the courts, the public, their superior officers, and the media. When was the last time a lawyers name was published for a mistake that they made in court? A Police Officer is responsible for being physically capable to handle the situation, and at the same time, is required to be thinking about the possible court case that MAY occur years down the road. Perhaps if more education was provided to the Police Officers, more support by the courts was provided to the Police Officers (Maybe Harper is trying to do this?), more resources were allocated to the Police Officers, then there would not be as many Charter Rights issues. I would never presume to denigrate the position/career of another without having walked in their shoes. Our Charter case law specifically deals with allowing police much leeway on the basis that they amke decisions under pressure and often where safety is an unknown at the time. In my example, we are talking about a person who is already arrested and being brought to a bus or a police station to blow into the breathalyser (not the little road-side tester...the actual machine). There is absolutely no pressure, no safety issues, and the officers have checklists and all kinds of other reference material available to them at the time. In today's day and age, there is absolutely no excuse for an officer to not let an accused call a lawyer before blowing...but it still happens regularly. And when cases like this get tossed in court...everyone wants to say it's because of a crooked defence lawyer. If you would prefer I use the term incompetent instead of "dumb-ass", I'll oblige...but these types of "injustices" are 100% fault of the police. FTA

I don't want to sound callous but you're supposed to be a lawyer, not a social worker. And the legal system is supposed to render decisions not act as a confiding friend. FTA, I suppose there are going to be mistakes either way: the innocent goes to jail and the guilty goes free.You are missing Argus' main point. Many Canadians feel that the judicial system doesn't work well. It is clogged with delays and sentences that are perceived as too light. Your first point is very intruiging, because the exact phrase could be repeated to any victim or their family members who are complaining that they feel cheated by the system..."the legal system is supposed to render decisions, not act as a confiding friend." I'm not professing to be a social worker either...I specifically don't attempt to be one. But it is basically being suggested that lawyers are just evil money-grubbers who sell their souls and try their best to harm society's interests...I'm just trying to show that I am, in fact, still a human being. As to what you have called "Argus' main point" I think you are the one making that point. Argus may have been trying, but what he did was a rant of lawyer-bashing. I won't disagree that generally the public support for the judicial system is not high right now...I will disagree, however, when my profession is summarily tarred and feathered for its lack of ethics, humanity, and any care for anything but money. FTA

I'm not even quite sure where to begin with this post and I apologize that this is going to get long... Crown Prosecutors are lawyers...or did you forget that? So basically, following your logic, every time a guy gets convicted because a Crown lawyer did a great job, lawyers should be blamed for...well, everything?!?! Can you show me a case where a guy who shot someone in the head 14 times was acquitted of murder because the defence argued and the judge found that intent was not proven?...or is this just more pathetic feeble-minded drivel trying to support your extreme position? Does the law really "suck" or are you and most of the general public just so misinformed and willingly eating up every criticism lobbed out in main-stream media? Let me show you why the latter part of this question is true: 1. The current impaired driving law makes it illegal (and always has made it illegal) to drive while impaired by alcohol or drug...be it illicit, over the counter or prescription. Any officer able to observe and record signs of impairment has always been able to catch drug-impaired drivers and set them up for the exact same punishment as a drunk driver. This whole hullabaloo is over making it easier for police to seize bodily samples and I for one would prefer to minimize the number of reasons that the state can compel me to give it my blood. My comment about the government giving me business was clearly meant to be facetious...I assure you, I'd rather not have unconstitutional laws passed at all than to have the business of striking them down. 2. As to this often spouted but almost never substantively backed notion of "rights of the accused far outweighing the well being of the public" take a gander at what the actual state of the law in Canada is in a situation where police unlawfully seized blood from a hospital using an invalid warrant to get evidence of an accused's blood alcohol level (written by Alberta Court of Appeal, adopted by SCC): This case, known as Erickson, is a prime example of the Court finding a s. 8 Charter breach...finding the police seriously violated the privacy rights of the accused...AND finding that the evidence will nevertheless be admissible against the accused because of the rights of the public as a whole to be protected from impaired driving. Paraphrased, the legal test for exclusion of evidence in the US is "fruit from the poisonous tree"...everything after a violation (or arising out of a violation) of an accused's rights is GONE...In Canada, we decide between what would cause the bigger disrepute to the system...allowing it in or excluding it? Obviously you are so accurate about the rights of the accused being paramount to those of the public...oh, wait a minute, maybe you're completely wrong... 3. As to your comments on the ethics of the legal profession, I really wish I could understand where this B.S. about lawyers "must ignore justice in order to do the absolute best for their clients, no matter how evil or cruel or destructive that would be to society" keeps coming from. I have dispelled this crap before on this board and yet, posters like yourself continue to profess that we take some kind of oath of injustice and deception. Here's a few of the on-point selections of rules from the Law Society of Alberta Code of Professional Conduct (various chapters): And, really, the list goes on and on to include things like we have to withdraw as counsel if a client insists on instructing us to do anything contrary to these rules, we have to tell the court about cases that go against us if the other lawyer has missed such cases, we can't attempt to introduce evidence or facts that we know are inadmissible (the old Law and Order ask an improper question and then just say "withdrawn"). Now, I'm not so naive as to think that all lawyers follow these rules all the time, but your suggestion that somehow part of our ethics as lawyers is to subvert justice as long as it benefits our clients is simply absurd. A lawyer who does that is, as you can see, breaking more than 10 different ethical rules. I really have no confidence I'll change your mind Argus, but hopefully others on the board become a little better informed before they decide to brand lawyers as the cause of everything wrong in the world. FTA

Let me ask this...seeing as I guess I must be one of the "silly-ass" lawyers being referred to... WHY CAN'T THE POLICE STOP CHEATING, STOP BREAKING THE LAW, STOP BREACHING CHARTER RIGHTS and just CONVICT THE OFFENDERS FAIRLY AND JUSTLY!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Seriously, the Charter has been with us for almost a quarter of a century and yet, tomorrow, or the next day, I'm going to get an impaired driving file where the dumb-ass cop doesn't let the accused call a lawyer before the breathalyzer. THAT IS POLICE INCOMPETENCE leading to that charge being tossed...not silly-ass defence lawyers. I mean it...one of you anti-lawyer, anti-presumption of innocence, anti-fair trial types explain it to me...because, you see, if the police just do their jobs and don't act like storm-troopers out to get a conviction at all costs then they leave me with but one tactic to assist my clients...plead guilty. FTA

This is really quite pathetic and feeble-minded. For all out there who follow your lead Argus and blame all of the ills of society on lawyers...as though we are a single, unified, homogenous group who all think the same, while we roll around in our vaults of money like Scrooge McDuck, give your damn empty head a shake. I get physically ill every time I see a client of mine get convicted when all of my instincts and the evidence I had to present suggest that they are innocent. I am enraged when I see police officers wilfully lie under oath just because they "want guilty people to go to jail". I am saddened when I appear in court knowing that the family of a deceased victim is sitting right behind me...the most devastating part of their lives is simply part of my daily routine. I felt truly dejected just this afternoon as I refunded part of a retainer to a client who I know to have a crack problem...and I couldn't do anything to stop him from going to get totalled this weekend. My clients are people. Some far more sympathetic than others, but all people just the same. I work my ass off to all hours of the morning to make sure they are treated fairly by the system...just as many prosecutors work their asses off to make sure that the interests of the public are protected...just as most judges struggle incredibly to try to make the right decision on any given case. I just hope that whenever you or your family is getting railroaded by someone in some system whether it be criminal, corporate, family, estates, whatever that you don't get stuck with the quality of lawyer that your comments suggest you deserve. Oh, and before you spout off about my position that criminal defence lawyers protect us from bad cops and wrongful convictions is fanciful or at best theoretical (because as you have so intelligently pointed out, law enforcement officials just want guilty people in jail and nothing more), try this recent one on for size: Corrupt Cops Some choice bits... It would appear that the CPS knew, right up to the Deputy Chief, that an officer falsified notes, lied under oath to get a warrant and they gave him a minor internal reprimand becuase obviously if it was made too big of an issue the poor cop might have trouble testifying against accused people in future trials. God forbid these white knights in shining armour would fire a cop they know has no problem lying under oath...after all, in the last five years he's probably been responsible for putting a number of "guilty" people behind bars...which as Argus well knows is all that law enforcement ever wants to do... If only I could bring myself to quit placing so much importance on the process and stop counting my money for a minute or so, I guess I'd just see that the police have a monopoly on caring that justice is done. FTA P.S. Check out my website sometime if you want to see examples of a few cases where my actions as defence counsel have quite likely thwarted unlawful convictions. Ruttan Bates

I guess I should celebrate...looks like the feds are going to hand me years worth of Charter litigation! We'll have to wait and see what search rights they purport to give to the police, but I'm willing to bet they go way too far...basically making it okay for a cop to take your blood if you've just been at a Rolling Stones concert. Beyond the "drug driving" tests the article goes on to talk about massive changes to impaired driving law. The most litigated/challenged sections of the Criminal Code are the current impaired and over .08 sections...try to make them more draconian (and take away the ability to defend against the breathalyser readings) and we'll be striking legislation all over the place! Seriously, the science that has been done on breathalyser machines confirms that they are based on fallacy...built-in presumptions about how the average person breaks down and eliminates alcohol. Until now, we've basically accepted the machines as fair to use against someone (even though they are based on normally improper presumptions) because they can call evidence to the contrary to demonstrate that the readings were incorrect. Take away the defence, and really you make an outrageous law which means a person will always be convicted, even if the machine malfunctions! We'd be far better off outlawing driving after drinking anything within 24 hours...that way, at least we would wrongfully convict far fewer people. FTA

What does the legal community think? Insane...the police should have absolutely no input whatsoever in the appointment of judges...their input would necessarily be 100% partisan and influenced by a desire to obtain convictions. Think about it this way...if you wanted to balance the self-interested input of the police, you'd have to appoint a few convicts to the panel as well. After all, who has a better familiarity with judges than a persistant recidivist? FTA

Being an accessory (or accessory after the fact) refers to the situation where you assist someone who has committed a crime in getting away / evading capture. What you are referring to is being party to an offence which is a bit more complicated. In law, you can be a party to an offence by 1) actually committing it, 2) doing or omitting to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it, 3) abetting any person in committing it. [see Criminal Code s. 21] While creating demand for child porn by accessing it does give a paedophile a possible motive to molest more kids, that won't make you a party under 1) or 2) and would be impossible to prove under 3) unless you are caught communicating with a particular paedophile and encouraging them to make you some new material. It is also noteworthy that merely being present at the scene of a crime and doing nothing to stop it does not make you criminally responsible (morally maybe a different story)...you have to at least be doing something to assist or encourage the actual perpetrator. FTA

First of all, don't for a minute get me wrong that the actions were cowardly and disgusting...anytime a mob attacks another group with significantly lower numbers I find that outrageous. I'm just not convinced that the actions of a drunken crowd translate into an implication that Canadians don't respect the military as the title of your topic suggests. In a small town, any group of outsiders sticks out and is at risk of becoming the target of us vs. them aggression...I have a hard time believing that passers-by jumping into the fight were doing so to releive themselves of their pent-up anger for guys with distinctively short haircuts. If the story develops to prove me wrong, then so be it...but for now I'll operate on the presumption that this was nothing more than drunken mob mentality rather than a targeted effort against the Navy. FTA

Argus, I'm not sure we disagree much here other than I am of the view a judge ought to have to view material before punishing someone for having it...what if the overimaginitive judge conjures up an image in his or her head that is far worse than the actual material itself? What I have struggled (rather unsuccessfully) to tell the Alberta Court of Appeal on two occasions is that the scope of the content of what is child porn is incredibly wide and when sentencing an offender we have to be very careful to sentence based on what the offender actually did and not on all of the horrors that the child porn industry as a whole is responsible for. I would venture to say that Hydraboss' seamless shift from child porn possession to child molestation demonstrates how easy it is to lump all "sex offenders" into one category, when we know there is a plethora of varying degrees of deviance and severity. Many people convicted of possessing child porn are not actually paedophiles and often, as you have surmised, do not have prior criminal records or even prior charges...of any kind. If judges don't view material to get a true sense of what they are dealing with in a given case, it can actually make it very difficult for a defence lawyer to distinguish his minor offender client from the severely deviant. FTA

BINGO!

I'll second that. I taught my 3-year old daughter this weekend her first lesson about Remembrance Day when she asked me why I had a flower on my jacket. Now if you ask her what the poppy is for she answers in her cute little voice, "It's for the soldiers who protect us." FTA

Are you seriously suggesting that in the booze-fueled melee of a riot outside a bar that those who were joining in the violence were doing so after having examined the haircuts of the combatants, determining that short hair = military, and deciding to express thier inner feelings of hatred for soldiers? This was bar violence...no more no less...could've easily been a group of university students or a baseball team or circus performers...I can't see how the "military" element to this story can be seen as anything but coincidence. FTA

Don't you think a judge can differentiate based merely on a description? A 10 minute long video of a baby being raped seems descriptive enough to base a sentence on. It is clearly different than a picture of a 13 year old posing provocatively. What reason would there be for the judge to actually view the video? What new knowledge is this going to add, as opposed to rousing emotions in a person who is supposed to decide things with a cool, restrained mind? I guess the old saying "a picture is worth a thousand words" comes to mind. What was argued earlier here is that sentences are not being given that reflect the actual nature of the crime when it comes to child pornography. Mere possession carries a maximum sentence of 5 years where making or distributing can be 10 years...but I can't say I know of any case where the maximum has been given...not saying it never has, but it would be extremely rare. I can describe the Grand Canyon to you, but unless you actually go there and see it, you really have no idea what I'm talking about. Arguably, you can be repulsed by a description of a terrible porn video, but unless you actually watch some of it, you don't truly appreciate its severity. FTA

I think you misunderstood my point. What I was saying was that if the only child porn that existed was provocative nude pictures of post-pubescent kids then we wouldn't have nearly the concern that we have now for imposing incredibly harsh sentences. The fact that people are increasingly making videos of actual sex acts with toddlers and babies is alarming to say the least...and I was making the comparison to argue against Argus' proposition that a court need not view porn material to fashion a fit sentence. I was making no comment whatsoever about child molestation. FTA

The police said a few days ago that a lot of judges refuse to see the evidence of child porn because it is so disturbing. However, because they don't, they don't hand out the full weight of sentencing that they have at their disposal. The crime here is not child porn, it is child molestation, which is a horse of a different colour. It might be that in purely child porn cases, where the accused has no record, and is merely accused of downloading and posessing porn (which I believe is most of the cases) the judge feels that there would be no particular advantage in viewing what the pictures were. After all, should we punish someone more severely for downloading a nastier child porn pic, as opposed to, I don't know, a less nasty child porn pic? It would be very difficult to establish a sliding scale based on how disgusting the porn is. So I think the judges set the punishment based on the offender's previous history, and probably a psychological assessment of what, if any danger to the public he is. Which, on the whole, doesn't sound that foolish. I have a couple of comments... It is the Crown's job to present the evidence...if the judge refuses to look at every piece of evidence that the Crown places before the court, then they should make a mistrial application and get a judge who will. That being said, the generally accepted rule (which in my experience is followed in Alberta) is that a trial judge must view at least a representative sample of the material. In most cases, it is not absolutely necessary for appellate courts to review the material because often only legal issues which are not affected one way or another by the images are at issue...therefore, appellate courts can use discretion whether they look or don't. As to Argus' comments I totally disagree that sentencing for "pure child porn" cases shouldn't depend on how disgusting the material is. A naked picture of a 13 year old simply posing provacatively is child porn. A 10 minute long video of a baby being raped is also child porn. Mere possession of these two items by two different offenders reveals, in my view, vast disparity in the moral blameworthiness of the offender. In the criminal code, the fundamental principle of sentencing is proportionality...like offences by like offenders should receive like punishment. Moral blameworthiness is a very important element to distinguishing how severe a punishment should be. In my view, the picture I describe above is way less serious than the video...especially if we accept the SCC view in Sharpe that creating demand for child porn actually encourages its production. If all that was ever produced was things like the photo and no one ever produced things like the video, I would almost venture to say that child porn would be relegated to a minor concern in the world of law enforcement and criminal law. FTA

You want to "call a spade a spade" and then you set up a completely misleading poll using slanted questions and improper definitions. My vote on question 1 is yes...becuase by definition you are disloyal to the confederacy of Canada if you advocate Provincial separation...this seems like a no-brainer to me. My vote on question 2 is no...because why the hell should CSIS monitor every person who is disloyal to the confederacy of Canada? And it is question 2 which totally blows your "call a spade a spade" intentions...apparently if I say CSIS shouldn't monitor such people, I must also profess that "traitors" should be dealt with softly. First of all, someone who is disloyal to Canada in the context that we are talking about (advocating Provincial separation) is not necessarily a traitor in the way you and others on this thread are using the word. Sure, going against some abstract notion of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada by advocating the dissolution of Canada is traitorous in the broad sense of the term...but democracy by its very nature permits this type of "traitor" to live and participate within the country's boundaries without fear of reprisal. The logical disconnect you make is when you equate a "traitor" who simply legally advocates against the country continuing as is with a true traitor who commits treasonous acts. In our criminal law, treason requires an act of violence or war against the Queen or the country (or conspiracy to do such acts) and trying to get your province lawfully and peacefully out of Confederation is not an act of war. Even when we move down the chain below High Treason and Treason to Sedition, all sedition-related offences are subject to the following exception: Bottom line is that our society fully endorses a person's right to advocate for Provincial separation, so those who take positions regarding "punishment of traitors" are simply ill-advised. FTA

About 25,000 but close enough. What does pop % have to do with anything? 3,500 soldiers is not a "large" amount. It is helpful and I am proud to have them working with us. As I said I have a lot of respect and appreciation for the soldiers from Canada. But a large force, 3,500 are not. Yes they do. Is there a point here b/c it doesn't have anything to do with the conversation at hand? I assume America1 that you will agree that a non-conscriptive military (as both of our countries presently have) obtains its numbers from those members of the population who volunteer for service and are able to pass admissibility requirements. I assume that you will also agree that only a percentage of any population will fit the two preconditions above. I assume that you understand that Canada has approximately 10% of the overall population of the US. So, you would agree that by simple math and demographics, Canada will always have a much smaller military than will the US. And you would agree that, again by simple math, a commitment of 3500 troops from a total available number of 10,000 would be a much more major commitment than 3500 troops from a total of 100,000. Now, if you really can't understand that population % is a direct factor in the size of the contingent of troops that any non-conscriptive country can commit to a war then I fail to see the point in continuing to debate. As far as us having less threats than the US because we are close to the US, that simply makes no sense. While I agree that Canada might have more people willing to attack us if we were not right beside a country that many are afraid to piss off, that has nothing to do with why we have less threats as compared to the very country that many are afraid to piss off. (You see, if terror cells 1 through 10 and rogue countries A, B, C, and D all want to attack Canada but don't because we are right beside the US...and these people don't want to mess with the US...then 1-10 and A, B, C, and D are not the entities that pose any threat to the US either. Based on your theory of geographical proximity, any entity that was a threat to the US (i.e. not afraid to mess with US) would not be non-threatening to Canada for reasons of proximity to the US...it must be for some other reason) In fact, if all things were equal and Canada ran identical foreign policies and had identical history in terms of war vs peacekeeping etc. with the US, then we would have more threats because we would be the weak link to be exploited in getting to the US. FTA

Well, Jerry, I guess perspective is everything...see what you call "anti-war, anti-bush, anti-conservative" I call pro-democracy, pro-freedom of speech. I'll accept your original point...US Marines could adopt the song as their anthem and sing it every morning in Iraq to bolster their reasons for being there...not ready to make nice with terrorists...mad as hell about 9/11...I get it. The irony, I suppose, is that I think you were trying to point out your epiphony as a way of devaluing the song (but more importantly the singers and their views)...all with a view to supporting Bush and the war. But I think you've completely missed the point. The song isn't in support of the war...it's a pop-culture political statement about the importance of speaking up against things you don't agree with, even when doing so is unpopular. AND, then not having to apologize and "make nice" once you see how many people you pissed off. What the writers are "still waiting" for is not for everyone to fold up their tents, abandon their own views and say "Oh Dixie Chicks, how did we ever disagree with you?" That would just be "making nice". Although I'm not them, what I really think they're waiting for is everyone who sent them death threats and tried to tar and feather them right out of the good ol' US of A to recognize that democracy is about having a voice, and that healthy debate with many differing voices is far better than blindly accepting everything your government feeds you in order to avoid confrontation. Who knows, less people willing to "make nice" with the notion that you either love the US or you love terrorists might have prevented a full-blown war... FTA

I thought quite a while about this question before voting "yes". The reason this was so difficult for me is that my job requires me on a daily basis to analyse police conduct with a significant level of suspicion. Furthermore, I actually do deal with many situations where police have acted unlawfully or unethically and sometimes even to such extent that they lie under oath or themselves commit criminal acts. That being said, I had to remind myself that for every one of these instances I see, there are literally thousands of "routine" interactions between police and the public every day. On top of this little "step back" that I took, I realized that if I ever was being mugged or in any other type of danger, I would have absolutely no hesitation in calling out for and accepting help from the police. Not having lived in a place with true police corruption, I think many North Americans really don't realize how good our police forces are and how, generally speaking, they deserve our trust. FTA

And yet, that is the the only consideration in hate crime laws, and those still stand. Intent is very much different than motive. In the hate-crime provisions, there is absolutely nothing about why a person spreads hate literature, just that they intend the literature to be hateful and incite a breach of the peace. Consider an example...If I hit someone with a baseball bat with the intent of causing death and do cause death, you only know that I intended to kill the person...you have no idea what my motive was for doing so. My motive could be jealousy, greed, settling a personal grudge etc. In simple terms, intent = what you meant to do...motive = why you meant to do it. This is why the terror law was such a quagmire for prosecutors. They not only would have had to prove that the person put the bomb on the train with the intent of causing harm, terror, destruction or whatever, but they also would have had to prove that this intentional act was done for the purpose (or motive) of furthering a religious or political agenda...otherwise it would not amount to "terrorism" With the motive element gone, we are really just back to proving the regular old criminal offences that deal with why it is bad to put a bomb on a train. So why have the special terror sections if the special motive element is now gone? FTA

This has proven to be a bizarre turn of events. Basically, the judge says that it is unconstitutional to include motive as an essential element of a terrorism offence, which then begs the question why does the rest of the terrorism legislation (manifested as sections of the Criminal Code) remain standing? I ask this question because it seems to me that we are now left with a definition of "terrorism" that is simply duplicitous when considered along side the criminal organization, mischief, and other provisions of the Criminal Code. Of course, the true irony is that by having this definition struck down, the defence lawyer has actually made it easier for his client to be convicetd! I guess the adage "be careful what you wish for" wasn't in his mind when he filed his Charter challenge! FTA

Geoffrey, You need to read the excerpt I cited in my last post...for ease of reference, here's the part you need to read very closely: If you are someone in Mr. Arar's exact situation, wrongfully held prisoner by the US having been determined to be a person involved with Al Qaeda, you can't even make an application to a court to ask for a review of your detention...there is NO JURISDICTION for such an application. So, the fact of the matter is, you can literally vanish into indefinite US custody and no matter how many laws they break while continuing that custody...YOU HAVE NO LEGAL RECOURSE. You say, oh, don't worry...if you are Canadian, international pressure will free you no sweat. Let me ask you this...how will anyone know that the US has even detained you? I hate to be a scare-monger, and I ususally don't take such positions, but this legislation is terrifying...especially if you are of Middle-Eastern ancestry and a citizen of ANY country other than the US (and from what others here are saying the UK, because they've already used their "international pressure" when it matters BEFORE their citizens disappear into a now apparently fully approved US torture / non-trial facility). FTA

This is probably the most disturbing piece of legislation I have ever read (well, skimmed actually). It is so fraught with ambiguity, undefined terms, and completely unchecked discretionary power that I am actually wondering if I ever really want to head to the US again. Okay, maybe a bit dramatic, but seriously... The only reason you outlaw habeas corpus applications is if you intend to unjustifiably detain someone. To the extent that the opportunity exists for someone (oh, I don't know, insert the name Arar) to be wrongly declared as an alien "unlawful combatant" who has been involved in "hostilities" against the US (which is HUGE in this Act in my opinion), habeas corpus is a simple and expeditious method for a court to judiciously determine whether the detention is valid or not. If all you ever do is properly detain terrorists, then you have no reason whatsoever to deny them the ability to make a habeas corpus application...because the court will simply confirm that you are holding them justifiably. Forget about the fact that the maxim has been an integral part of our justice system (and the US and British system) since the beginning of time, how can the US people buy into a piece of legislation which gives such absolute authority to its own government?...while at the same time donating its young soldiers' lives to the removal of such powers in other countries?!?!?! Geoffrey...you keep supporting the legislation demanding to be shown where it says you could disappear without a trial...well, take a look at the actual text of the legislation and you will see that once the all-powerful and infallible "United States" has declared you to be an "enemy combatant" or you are "awaiting such determination" (i.e. while they torture and interrogate you without trial) no court has jurisdiction to hear an application questioning the validity of your detention!!!!!! Even if there was an express right to a trial within "X" months in this legislation, you can't apply to a court to demonstrate that the law has been broken!!!!!! This is truly chilling... FTA

Why are you asking this? Who do you work for? What do you want with us? FTA