Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

christx30

(6,241 posts)
16. If someone commits a crime
Wed Jan 18, 2012, 02:44 AM
Jan 2012

arrest them, try them, convict them and sentence them. But there is nothing about terrorism that warrants indefinite detention without trial. Especially if that person is an American citizen. But everything that someone could do in "terrorism" is already a crime. Planting bombs, making threats, murder, ect is already illegal. Which begs the question: if all of that is already illegal, at what point does doing that stuff rise to the standards of this law and warrant being caged for the rest of their lives with no trial.
Further, if someone is being held without a court giving it's blessing, isn't that essentially kidnapping by branch of the government? I know I'm not the smartest person on the planet, but hear me out:
The Legislature branch votes and says murder is illegal.
The Executive branch (through the police) arrest someone for it.
The Judicial branch tries the person and sentences them.
All three branches in his above example have signed off on what it takes to take away someone's freedom. Sure the murderer is an ass, but all of his rights were protected to the last second, because that's the type of people we are.
Under this new law:
The legislature says that belonging to certain organizations (Al Quida) is illegal.
The Executive (in this case, federal agents) arrest you for it.
the Judicial branch is not involved. May or may not even hear about your case. You are shipped off to Gitmo or a supermax somewhere and you eventually die there without having your day in court.
Scary times indeed. Good luck Mr. Hedges.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Good, let's hope it's found unconstitutional Ter Jan 2012 #1
+1000000000 nt Joe Shlabotnik Jan 2012 #5
Doesnt someone have to be harmed by the bill to get into the court system? rhett o rick Jan 2012 #19
Correct, a person MUST have "Standing" but in this case the Reporter clearly does happyslug Jan 2012 #21
Remember that the courts IMO fail miserably in both the Hamdi and Padilla cases. rhett o rick Jan 2012 #22
As I recall Roe in Constitutional Law, the reasoning wasn't that she might want an abortion in the 24601 Jan 2012 #23
Don't confuse the issue with actual law. Or facts. msanthrope Jan 2012 #26
But the point I was trying to make, was the Court COULD have avoided the case happyslug Jan 2012 #27
Wrong. He does not have standing. Read Lujan v. Defenders and get back to us. msanthrope Jan 2012 #24
I am talking the POLITICS of the Court happyslug Jan 2012 #28
So, you don't have the law, but are arguing politics? msanthrope Jan 2012 #29
If politics or conjecture don't come into play why did the SC give Bush standing Uncle Joe Jan 2012 #30
Because Mr. Bush claimed an actual, direct harm that could be redressed. msanthrope Jan 2012 #31
How could Bush be harmed in a disputed, two man, state run election, and Gore not be harmed by Uncle Joe Jan 2012 #32
None of the other issues you bring up have anything to do with msanthrope Jan 2012 #33
I understand you agree with the dissent, my only point is that De Facto by Uncle Joe Jan 2012 #34
So you want SCOTUS to find Hedges has standing for political reasons msanthrope Jan 2012 #35
It isn't a question of what I want, it's a question of what is. Uncle Joe Jan 2012 #36
War Powers Resolution EVDebs Jan 2012 #2
It is ilegal and they know it lovuian Jan 2012 #3
The constitutionality of a law is determined by the court system. rhett o rick Jan 2012 #20
Glad to hear it. tblue Jan 2012 #4
No need to worry, O is just playing 12 dimensional chess JJW Jan 2012 #6
This is badly timed. If the current right-wing SCOTUS finds it Constitutional, it will be very hard rhett o rick Jan 2012 #7
SCOTUS knows its ilegal too and if they vote lovuian Jan 2012 #8
The SCOTUS is acting well beyond their Constitutional duties. They are out of control. rhett o rick Jan 2012 #10
+1000 Wind Dancer Jan 2012 #25
What do you do when the supreme court becomes illegitimate? Mosaic Jan 2012 #9
Guillotines. nm rhett o rick Jan 2012 #11
This issue goes beyond right and left Ter Jan 2012 #17
So do you think the SCOTUS would rule against it? nm rhett o rick Jan 2012 #18
Reality check JJW Jan 2012 #12
How great would it be Iwillnevergiveup Jan 2012 #13
kr Norrin Radd Jan 2012 #14
So that's why the recent character assassination against Hedges has been occuring MNBrewer Jan 2012 #15
If someone commits a crime christx30 Jan 2012 #16
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Journalist Chris Hedges S...»Reply #16