Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (121952)	6/24/2005 1:03:34 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793891

It's interesting how you argue--purposefully mischaracterize what is said, then attack it for being wrong. I don't know what logical or rhetorical error this is but it gets you nowhere. Examples: If you're arguing that the SCOTUS upheld habeas corpus rights in Rasul but won't uphold the right to due process in those habeas corpus hearings - that's nuts. No, that is a false "if." Why do you bother saying it is? Rasul is not complicated. It simply overrules an older case, and upholds jurisdiction of the District Courts over the claims by noncitizens that they are being held unlawfully. C'est tout. What it doesn't say is that the detainees will get the full panoply of due process rights such as the right to subpoena power, discovery, and all the myriad things to which criminal defendants are entitled. But since you seem to think that my position is encapsulated in your "if" statement, let me ask you this: Do you think Rasul and his cohorts are going to be allowed to serve subpoenas in Afghanistan so that they can show that they're really peaceful sellers of mint tea at Kabul's bazaar instead of terrorists? I think that's nuts. The point is that in Rasul the Court was utterly silent as to what the detainees will be allowed to do to establish their cases at any habeas hearing. We don't know how this may wind up, but I'm willing to bet that the habeas hearings are going to be perfunctory, limited probably to the circumstances of the capture. If you read Hamdi, however, there are clues as to what extent the court will go. If you're predicting that the SCOTUS is going to carve out an exception and say, "these guys are entitled to a habeas review but NO due process of any kind whatsoever" -- your crystal ball is on the fritz. More of your nutty way of arguing. Never said such a thing, but since you asked......now for the Hamdi clues: Why not read O'Connor's opinion in Hamdi, especially its apparent jettisoning of the presumption of innocence and the placement of the burden of proof on him? What does that tell you about the kind of DP the noncitizens like Rasul are likely to ultimately get? What does the fact that O'Connor wrote this aspect of the opinion tell you about the ultimate resolution of the larger issue?