DOJ Wants to Suspend Certain Constitutional Rights During Coronavirus Emergency

TU Curmudgeon said:

After reading

Update (12/19): Congress yesterday scrapped an amendment to the NDAA which would have explicitly barred U.S. citizens detained in the U.S. from being held indefinitely, as we detail below. Instead, Congress settled on language stating that nothing in the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force or in last year’s NDAA can be construed to deny habeas corpus or Constitutional rights to anyone in the U.S. That new provision doesn’t appear to do much, as the Supreme Court has already determined that all people have the right to challenge their detention in court. And it doesn’t explicitly address the issue of who can be detained in the U.S. without trial.
(emphasis added)
[SOURCE]
​

I have to conclude that your post is rather lacking in contact with reality.

PS - POGO (Convair XFY) was a "neat concept" that just didn't work out in practice.

Click to expand...

I read the entire article at Pro Publica, thanks much.

It even points out that the position you claim above is tenuous. Nothing is clear cut.

Chelsea Manning just spent another 14 months in prison for remaining silent. Julian Assange is in detention in Britain at the US request.

Nice rose-colored glasses you have TU

RogueWarrior said:

Carlin was right. These are not Constitutional Rights, part of the highest law of the land. They are temporary privileges that can be set aside by fiat.

Click to expand...

An alternative term that is sometimes used is "Fundamental Freedoms" and those are the things that a society of a certain structure and nature MUST allow if it is to remain of the same structure and nature and which (very frequently) those things which a society wants to change its structure and nature then SOME of the things which if (at the beginning) MUST allow end up being changed (even to things which are NOT allowed).

Those things are neither "rights" nor "privileges" but rather they are the very posts and beams from which the society is constructed and both a wood-frame house and a geodesic dome will provide adequate shelter, they require construction materials arranged in manner that differs between the two.

Thoreau72 said:

I read the entire article at Pro Publica, thanks much.

It even points out that the position you claim above is tenuous. Nothing is clear cut.

Chelsea Manning just spent another 14 months in prison for remaining silent. Julian Assange is in detention in Britain at the US request.

Nice rose-colored glasses you have TU

Click to expand...

Chelsea Manning was jailed pursuant to a validly obtained court order which she had the opportunity to oppose in open court. Mr. Assange is in detention in the UK pursuant to the laws of the UK and that is a detention which he had the opportunity to oppose in open court.

"Habeus corpus" does NOT mean "no one can be imprisoned after they have had the opportunity to oppose their detention in a fair and open hearing in court, even if the law says that they can be imprisoned after a fair and open hearing in court".

TU Curmudgeon said:

Indeed, but that is the situation that Mr. Trump WANTED to change by having Congress pass legislation that would enable the jailing of anyone for any reason and without having to tell anyone why they had jailed that person or running any chance that the courts would order the person released because they were being jailed without "due cause".

It is still possible to frustrate the habeus corpus laws by forbidding a court to hear such an application "on National Security grounds" BUT it doesn't look so good if you do that and it looks like what you are actually doing is conducting an "unlawful detention". If you manage to get a law passed that allows you to jail anyone for any reason and without having to tell anyone why they had jailed that person or running any chance that the courts would order the person released because they were being jailed without "due cause" then the detention is no longer an "unlawful detention" and the habeus corpus laws simply do not apply so you don't have to justify why the person is being jailed to anyone.

Click to expand...

And now say a few words about what Abraham Lincoln did to the nation please.

TU Curmudgeon said:

From Rolling Stone

DOJ Wants to Suspend Certain Constitutional Rights During Coronavirus Emergency
​

The Trump Department of Justice has asked Congress to craft legislation allowing chief judges to indefinitely hold people without trial and suspend other constitutionally-protected rights during coronavirus and other emergencies, according to a report by Politico’s Betsy Woodruff Swan.

While the asks from the Department of Justice will likely not come to fruition with a Democratically-controlled House of Representatives, they demonstrate how much this White House has a frightening disregard for rights enumerated in the Constitution.

The DOJ has requested Congress allow any chief judge of a district court to pause court proceedings “whenever the district court is fully or partially closed by virtue of any natural disaster, civil disobedience, or other emergency situation,” according to draft language obtained by Politico. This would be applicable to “any statutes or rules of procedure otherwise affecting pre-arrest, post-arrest, pre-trial, trial, and post-trial procedures in criminal and juvenile proceedings and all civil processes and proceedings.” They justify this by saying currently judges can pause judicial proceedings in an emergency but that new legislation would allow them to apply it “in a consistent manner.”

But the Constitution grants citizens habeas corpus which gives arrestees the right to appear in front of a judge and ask to be released before trial. Enacting legislation like the DOJ wants would essentially suspend habeas corpus indefinitely until the emergency ended. Further, DOJ asked Congress to suspend the statute of limitations on criminal investigations and civil proceedings during the emergency until a year after it ended.

COMMENT:-

Of course, everything that you read in "Rolling Stone" is a complete lie - right?

PS - If that legislation were to be passed, then the courts could not overturn it because the courts would be closed.
​

Click to expand...

How then, does one administer justice if the courts need to be closed due to natural disaster, civil disobedience or other emergency?

Thoreau72 said:

You should laugh your way back in history to the Iran-Contra affair and discover Barr's role in that fiasco. That would require informing yourself, so it probably won't happen.

Click to expand...

Actually you are wrong. I own a fine book called Reagan, the man and his presidency.

Until posters read that book, they only learned bits and pieces of propaganda. They for instance do not really understand Iran at all. And they certainly do not understand Contra.

Barr is an old timer for a government man. So he has had a storied life.

The book is Reagan, the man and his presidency by Strober and Strober.

It is in depth and not shallow. And is presented not as their particular view, but the many dozens of views of those there at the time who knew the inside stories.

That book is one of finest of not the epitome of books on Reagan.

TU Curmudgeon said:

Chelsea Manning was jailed pursuant to a validly obtained court order which she had the opportunity to oppose in open court. Mr. Assange is in detention in the UK pursuant to the laws of the UK and that is a detention which he had the opportunity to oppose in open court.

"Habeus corpus" does NOT mean "no one can be imprisoned after they have had the opportunity to oppose their detention in a fair and open hearing in court, even if the law says that they can be imprisoned after a fair and open hearing in court".

Click to expand...

In your world TU, and the world of DOJ and others, Habeas Corpus means whatever you say it means. You can rationalize tyranny as you need to. You can trick yourself into believing that the rule of law is practiced in this country.

Robertinfremont said:

Actually you are wrong. I own a fine book called Reagan, the man and his presidency.

Until posters read that book, they only learned bits and pieces of propaganda. They for instance do not really understand Iran at all. And they certainly do not understand Contra.

Barr is an old timer for a government man. So he has had a storied life.

The book is Reagan, the man and his presidency by Strober and Strober.

It is in depth and not shallow. And is presented not as their particular view, but the many dozens of views of those there at the time who knew the inside stories.

That book is one of finest of not the epitome of books on Reagan.

View attachment 67276692

Click to expand...

LOL, yes my brother has a book too. It says the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was just a mistake. He believes every word in the book so that he does not have to deal with the reality that the Liberty was attacked on purpose by our "ally." :lol:

Barr and Mueller are in the same boat--they are both government men, and they do as they are told to do.

Robertinfremont said:

And now say a few words about what Abraham Lincoln did to the nation please.

Click to expand...

When Mr. Lincoln asked the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for an unofficial opinion on whether it was constitutional to suspend habeus corpus during time of civil war, he was told that it was NOT.

Mr. Lincoln took the "wiser" step of NOT suspending habeus corpus and merely instructed the courts and legal enforcement authorities to ignore it.

I see that Mr. Trump is being "Lincolnesque" and has informed the nation that he fully intends to ignore the "transparency requirements" of "The Big Bailout" legislation.

Hey, you won - get over it.

Athanasius68 said:

How then, does one administer justice if the courts need to be closed due to natural disaster, civil disobedience or other emergency?

Click to expand...

With a great deal of difficulty.

On the other hand, you also have a great deal of difficulty in RECEIVING justice if the courts are closed due to the whim of one person.

Thoreau72 said:

In your world TU, and the world of DOJ and others, Habeas Corpus means whatever you say it means. You can rationalize tyranny as you need to. You can trick yourself into believing that the rule of law is practiced in this country.

Click to expand...

Habeus corpus means exactly what it does mean and that is "Bring forth the person and show cause why they should be detained.".

Whether or not the courts are operating honestly has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the person must be brought forth and the state be required to show cause why the person should be detained.

A person could well be brought before a "Volksgerichtshof" on a writ of Habeus Corpus - but it really wouldn't matter because they were going to (and in accordance with the laws then existing) be ordered kept in custody REGARDLESS of the evidence.

Your issue is, in reality, that you do not believe that the American courts were operating honestly when Ms. Manning was ordered detained and that you do not believe that the UK courts are operating honestly in the matter of Mr. Assange's possible extradition. Unfortunately you have no actual evidence to support either position only your dislike for the decisions.

If you MUST use technical terms, please use them correctly.

Thoreau72 said:

LOL, yes my brother has a book too. It says the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was just a mistake. He believes every word in the book so that he does not have to deal with the reality that the Liberty was attacked on purpose by our "ally." :lol:

Barr and Mueller are in the same boat--they are both government men, and they do as they are told to do.

Click to expand...

I am serious about the Reagan book. It is not like any other book you ever read. Actually a good name for it would be the thousands of direct quotes by all the parties involved.

Robertinfremont said:

Actually you are wrong. I own a fine book called Reagan, the man and his presidency.

Until posters read that book, they only learned bits and pieces of propaganda. They for instance do not really understand Iran at all. And they certainly do not understand Contra.

Barr is an old timer for a government man. So he has had a storied life.

The book is Reagan, the man and his presidency by Strober and Strober.

It is in depth and not shallow. And is presented not as their particular view, but the many dozens of views of those there at the time who knew the inside stories.

That book is one of finest of not the epitome of books on Reagan.

View attachment 67276692

Click to expand...

The only thing 'storied' about Barr is his history of coverups, criminality and the fact that he's a hard-core Domionist who believes in magic.

TU Curmudgeon said:

When Mr. Lincoln asked the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for an unofficial opinion on whether it was constitutional to suspend habeus corpus during time of civil war, he was told that it was NOT.

Mr. Lincoln took the "wiser" step of NOT suspending habeus corpus and merely instructed the courts and legal enforcement authorities to ignore it.

I see that Mr. Trump is being "Lincolnesque" and has informed the nation that he fully intends to ignore the "transparency requirements" of "The Big Bailout" legislation.

Hey, you won - get over it.

Click to expand...

The way you characterized what Abe did, it seems a mark of approval for what you claim Trump will do. Trump however says he will be totally transparent.

Tanngrisnir said:

The only thing 'storied' about Barr is his history of coverups, criminality and the fact that he's a hard-core Domionist who believes in magic.

Click to expand...

I am still waiting for some Democrat to lodge actual true complaints about Barr.

Robertinfremont said:

I am still waiting for some Democrat to lodge actual true complaints about Barr.

Click to expand...

Already been done, countless times. That you aren't able to either stay awake or pay attention isn't the Dems problem.

Tanngrisnir said:

Already been done, countless times. That you aren't able to either stay awake or pay attention isn't the Dems problem.

Click to expand...

Why did you speak for them given you have nothing to add?

Robertinfremont said:

Why did you speak for them given you have nothing to add?

Click to expand...

I didn't. I merely pointed out that the Dems have offered, time and time again, substantive reality-based complaints and criticism of Barr and his criminality.

You must have been napping.

TU Curmudgeon said:

With a great deal of difficulty.

On the other hand, you also have a great deal of difficulty in RECEIVING justice if the courts are closed due to the whim of one person.

Click to expand...

One would suspect it is difficult for a Grand Jury, or other juries, to meet at a time of 'social distancing.'

Not having a trial would place place a defendant right to a speedy trial in jeopardy
Summarily releasing anyone would not be in the interest of the state.
Hence-- the proposal on how to resolve the issue.

Tanngrisnir said:

I didn't. I merely pointed out that the Dems have offered, time and time again, substantive reality-based complaints and criticism of Barr and his criminality.

You must have been napping.

Click to expand...

Or better, paying none of you one bit of attention. Barr is one more for the Democrats to lie about.

TU Curmudgeon said:

Habeus corpus means exactly what it does mean and that is "Bring forth the person and show cause why they should be detained.".

Whether or not the courts are operating honestly has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the person must be brought forth and the state be required to show cause why the person should be detained.

A person could well be brought before a "Volksgerichtshof" on a writ of Habeus Corpus - but it really wouldn't matter because they were going to (and in accordance with the laws then existing) be ordered kept in custody REGARDLESS of the evidence.

Your issue is, in reality, that you do not believe that the American courts were operating honestly when Ms. Manning was ordered detained and that you do not believe that the UK courts are operating honestly in the matter of Mr. Assange's possible extradition. Unfortunately you have no actual evidence to support either position only your dislike for the decisions.

If you MUST use technical terms, please use them correctly.

Click to expand...

Yes, you are correct that I do not believe that the courts are operating honestly. The case of Manning is a perfect example, and though a British court handles the Assange case, only a dishonest person grossly ignorant of the case would claim any sort of honest treatment by the Court, and that is done to appease US interests.

The FISA court acted dishonestly with Carter Page, but it's obvious that the court was deceived by DOJ.

NDAA have "empowered" the government to ignore Habeas IF the Executive branch declares any given arrestee to be "a terrorist" or giving aid and comfort to "a terrorist".

Was it you who linked to the Padilla case? Somebody did. The Padilla case happened, I think, before the various NDAA amendments included the provision, which I think began during the Obama administration.

Rationalize it anyway you must TU. In this age of Snowden, the government does as it damn well pleases. The Judiciary is every bit as corrupt as the other 2 branches.

If the judge that kept Manning in prison for 14 months for remaining silent about material she had already delivered in her prior testimony had been honest, Manning would have been released.

The judge was not honest. The judge happily violated the letter and spirit of the law.

Robertinfremont said:

The way you characterized what Abe did, it seems a mark of approval for what you claim Trump will do.

Click to expand...

I suppose that it could seem that way for someone who isn't fully conversant with the English language.

Robertinfremont said:

Trump however says he will be totally transparent.

Click to expand...

As with any other of Mr. Trump's statements, please contact Winston Smith at 202-456-1111 to find out whether or not Mr. Trump actually said it and then consult The Current Response And Position Bulletin to find out what you are directed to believe it means.

Thoreau72 said:

Yes, you are correct that I do not believe that the courts are operating honestly. The case of Manning is a perfect example, and though a British court handles the Assange case, only a dishonest person grossly ignorant of the case would claim any sort of honest treatment by the Court, and that is done to appease US interests.

Click to expand...

How one copes with paranoidal delusions of that extent, I simply do not know.

Thoreau72 said:

The FISA court acted dishonestly with Carter Page, but it's obvious that the court was deceived by DOJ.

Click to expand...

So, by doing what it was supposed to do with the evidence the FISA court "acted dishonestly", did it?

Thoreau72 said:

NDAA have "empowered" the government to ignore Habeas IF the Executive branch declares any given arrestee to be "a terrorist" or giving aid and comfort to "a terrorist".

Click to expand...

I really do wonder why I even bother to produce the actual text of laws in rebuttal of repetitious statements that totally ignore what the actual text of the laws actually says. In fact, since I have already done so a sufficient number of times in response to your blatantly false mischaracterization, I don't think that I'm going to bother to do it AGAIN for you.

Thoreau72 said:

Was it you who linked to the Padilla case?

Click to expand...

No.

Thoreau72 said:

Somebody did.

Click to expand...

Where?

The Padilla case happened, I think, before the various NDAA amendments included the provision, which I think began during the Obama administration.

That would be the Jose Padilla who was originally was arrested in Chicago on May 8, 2002 and who was convicted of conspiring to commit murder and fund terrorism in August of 2007.

As I understand it, Mr. Obama was not inaugurated until January 20, 2009 (but what do I know since I live in Canada and evrewunknoz that there are no media outlets in the igloos that evrewunknoz Canadians all live in).

Thoreau72 said:

Rationalize it anyway you must TU. In this age of Snowden, the government does as it damn well pleases. The Judiciary is every bit as corrupt as the other 2 branches.

Click to expand...

And everyone in "the other 2 branches" (as well as the movers and shakers who make the actual decisions on whom the voters are going to get to choose between) is just fine with that.

Thoreau72 said:

If the judge that kept Manning in prison for 14 months for remaining silent about material she had already delivered in her prior testimony had been honest, Manning would have been released.

Click to expand...

You do know that there is no "double jeopardy" clause that protects a person from having to testify more than one time, don't you?

Thoreau72 said:

The judge was not honest. The judge happily violated the letter and spirit of the law.

Click to expand...

Nope, Ms. Manning was subpoenaed, Ms. Manning was ordered to answer questions, Ms. Manning refused to answer questions and thereby committed "contempt in the face of the court".

Whether or not Ms. Manning had answered the questions previously, is totally irrelevant to the fact that she DID NOT COMPLY with a validly issued court order.

One of the Dickens characters, perhaps Uriah Heep, noted from the bench "The law, sir, is an ass".

Thoreau72 said:

One of the Dickens characters, perhaps Uriah Heep, noted from the bench "The law, sir, is an ass".

Click to expand...

What you appear to be thinking of is

You got the author correct, the character (and also the book) incorrect, the setting incorrect, and managed to take the statement so far out of context that it became meaningless. A 20% mark is NOT a passing grade.