No right of habeas corpus for Canadians

[Higgly]

A new US Law is being signed by George Bush today which suspends right of habeas corpus for suspects who are not US nationals. Such suspects will no longer have the right to hear evidence against them or confront their accusers. They may be convicted by hearsay and they may be tortured (although not raped or subjected to certain kinds of torture). The law may be applied to crimes other than terrorism.

Tony Blair has asked for and received an exemption for British citizens under these laws. Steven Harper has not asked for any special considerations for Canadians.

[geoffrey]

You play the terrorism game, you deserve to be tried in a military court. I have little sympathy for those that break the law and then expect to be treated kindley.

Habeas corpus still applies, the bill just eliminates a lengthy appeal process for terrorists. You really shouldn't make up facts like that, it strongly discredits your opinion on the matter.

[Higgly]

Read the article.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Also, it specifically bars detainees from filing habeas corpus petitions challenging their detentions in federal courts. Mr. Bush said the process is “fair, lawful and necessary.”

So they can be held indefinitely without trial?

Tony Blair has asked for and received an exemption for British citizens under these laws. Steven Harper has not asked for any special considerations for Canadians.

Why not?

[Higgly]

Yes, inquiring minds want to know. Yes I believe it is Gitmo writ large.

[geoffrey]

Read the article.

Yup, I did.

And I repeat, what the hell are you talking about? Habeas corpus still applies. Show me otherwise.

[Higgly]

The article says..."it specifically bars detainees from filing habeas corpus petitions ". So you deny them habeas corpus during the trial and deny them the right to appeal. Same diff.

To quote more...

“The President can now, with the approval of Congress, indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions,” ACLU executive director Anthony Romero said.

[geoffrey]

The article says..."it specifically bars detainees from filing habeas corpus petitions ". So you deny them habeas corpus during the trial and deny them the right to appeal. Same diff.

That's quite a conclusion you got to there. Removing a rather silly long appeal in order to expedite the retrieval of critical information is one thing. If everyone gets a trial (and they do under this law), habeas corpus petitions are rather moot. I don't know if you really understand the concept, I don't see why someone during a trial would file a petition or how you can be denied that during trial really? Maybe you should read up on it some more.

Anyways, this just shows another area of ignorance for many people. Why do you think you should have all your Canadian rights in a foreign country? I think you should go to Iran or Syria, denounce their dictators then claim your Canadian rights.

When travelling abroad, you need to accept the risk of the legal system of the foreign nation. Too high, don't go.

The Canadian goverment can implement something like the War Measures Act at any time really (a 'crisis' of some sort). That's far more power than the US government gets with this legislation. If I were you, I'd be more worried about your rights here than south of the border.

[Higgly]

The problem of course is when you are held but you do not get a trial. Get the idea?

And yes, damned straight. I do expect rights when I travel to the US. Bringing Syria into this is a specious argument and you know it. We are not talking about a Syrian law. You seem to do this a lot - refine everything down to what might happen in Syria.

Yes the Candian government can bring in the war measures act. Watch what happens to them afterwards if it was not justified. Again, a specious argument.

[geoffrey]

The problem of course is when you are held but you do not get a trial. Get the idea?

Why wouldn't you? The Act has nothing to do with preventing trials.

The Act also doesn't gaurntee that prisions will be protected from errant meteor strikes. I'm sure this is an issue?

[Higgly]

Here is the Wikipedia entry for habeas corpus...

"In common law countries, habeas corpus, Latin for "you [should] have the body", is the name of a legal instrument or writ by means of which detainees can seek release from unlawful imprisonment. A writ of habeas corpus is a court order addressed to a prison official (or other custodian) ordering that a detainee be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he or she should be released from custody. The writ of habeas corpus in common law countries is an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action."

In other words, it is a petition designed to force the government to give you a trial. If you cannot file such a petition, then you may very well be held indefinitely without trial.

Now do you get the bloody point?

[Liam]

The law allows torture and refusal of habaes corpus for persons deemed unlawful enemy combatants. Who decides who is an unlawful enemy combatant? Bush (or his proxy). So Bush (or any president) can now declare *anyone* an unlawful enemy combatant, hold them in perpetuity without trial, can torture them and can deny them habeas corpus. Anyone. All based on one person's subjective decision that the person is an unlawful enemy combatant. The person held has no guaranteed right to challenge his classification as an unlawful enemy combatant. A less honorable president than Bush *cough*gag*choke* could now, effetively, have someone disappear from the street and that individual could, conceivably, be shuttled through some shadow legal system, denied rights, denied legal representation and never be heard from again. That is not only scary, but indecent, immoral and, frankly, un-American.

[geoffrey]

Where the hell does the bill say someone won't get a trial?

[Higgly]

The history of this bill goes like this...

The Gitmo prisoners were finally able to force a trial by going to the Supreme Court. This bill is deisnged specifically to avoid that happening again.

The bill guarantees that the US government will be able to hold people indefinitely without trial, like they wanted to do to the Gitmo detainees.

The whole purpose of the bill is to bypass the courts altogether. That is why there is so much protest.

If you still don't get it, I would say you are being deliberately obtuse.

[FTA Lawyer]

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!!!!!!

SEC. 7. HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS.

(a) In General- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking both the subsection (e) added by section 1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2742) and the subsection (e) added by added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law 109-163 (119 Stat. 3477) and inserting the following new subsection (e):

`(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

`(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.'.

( 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.

This is truly chilling...

FTA

[jdobbin]

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.

I wonder why the Conservatives would let Canadians stand in this legal limbo when Britain won't.

[gc1765]

What's that old saying "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself"

It seems that America is becoming paranoid about terrorism. Doesn't that mean that the terrorists are winning if their goal is to create TERROR?

[Higgly]

I just re-read the thread and I screwed up. I said "..deny then habeas corpus during the trial...". Should have been "during incarceration....". My apologies for the confusion.

[geoffrey]

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.

I wonder why the Conservatives would let Canadians stand in this legal limbo when Britain won't.

Don't go to the US if you don't like it. Do you expect Harper to provide you with a security team when traveling to Iran or Syria or other non-friendly nations? No. So why provide legal protection in another soverieign nation?

Anyway, international pressure works pretty good, if a Canadian got stuck in that they'd easily be sent to trial with some pressure.

And FTA, if it's as bad as you figure on the quick read, don't you think the Supreme Court will strike down such an act?

[B. Max]

I read some where in the constitution that the president has the power to suspend habeas corpus. Abe Lincoln suspend habeas corpus for the civil war.

[Black Dog]

I read some where in the constitution that the president has the power to suspend habeas corpus. Abe Lincoln suspend habeas corpus for the civil war.

Article 1, section 9 of the Constitution, restricting powers of Congress, forbids the suspension of habeas corpus except, "when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it." Lincoln did it during an armed uprising.

[B. Max]

I read some where in the constitution that the president has the power to suspend habeas corpus. Abe Lincoln suspend habeas corpus for the civil war.

Article 1, section 9 of the Constitution, restricting powers of Congress, forbids the suspension of habeas corpus except, "when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it." Lincoln did it during an armed uprising.

There you go.

[Black Dog]

There you go.

Where, exactly, is the rebellion or invasion?

[B. Max]

There you go.

Where, exactly, is the rebellion or invasion?

911 the most obvious. I don't believe there is any number requirement.

[Black Dog]

911 the most obvious. I don't believe there is any number requirement.

9-11 was neither a rebellion or an invasion by any stretch of the imagination or meaning of the words.