Current Events

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15

 ... 433

Next

Louis_XIV

Louis_XIV

France
August 2007

JUN 16, 2008 07:55 PM

Louis, by the grace of God, King of France and Navarre, to all present and to come, greeting from the year 1708:



One of the most useful tools of an absolute monarch like me are lettres de cachet, which may be translated as "seal letters". You might not be familiar with this term. In my time, a seal letter (in its narrow sense) is a direct order from the king by which a subject is sentenced without trial and without an opportunity of defense to imprisonment in a state prison or an ordinary jail, confinement in a convent or a hospital, transportation to the colonies, or expulsion to another part of the realm. It's a common practice - not a practice I'm particularly proud of, but sometimes necessary to lock away potentially dangerous individuals and maintain the power of the crown. In other terms, it's the standard procedure to dungeon political prisoners. This is how absolute monarchy works.



However, most of you are living in a democracy, and your time considers seal letters symbols of the abuses of what you call "absolutism". That's why the founders of your democracies invented the writ of habeas corpus, which is basically a legal procedure through which a person can seek relief from unlawful detention of himself or another person. It has been praised as being one of the cornerstones of individual freedom and democracy. Leaders have now to justify themselves when they dungeon someone. This is how democracy works.



However, the habeas corpus can be somewhat unhandy when dealing with politically motivated arrests, for example, of supposed terrorists. That's why the U.S. Government had this really great idea: build a prison outside the U.S. borders such that they can imprison people without any trial. I'm the last one who could condemn political imprisonment - but, as far as I understand, this is not how democracy works.



Now it seems that democracy strikes back. In the case Boumediene vs. Bush, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed on June 12 the habeas corpus rights of detainees in Guantanamo:





(…)Our basic charter cannot be contracted away like this. The Constitution grants Congress and the President the power to acquire, dispose of, and govern territory, not the power to decide when and where its terms apply. Even when the United States acts outside its borders, its powers are not "absolute and unlimited" but are subject "to such restrictions as are expressed in the Constitution."



(…) Because our Nation's past military conflicts have been of limited duration, it has been possible to leave the outer boundaries of war powers undefined. If, as some fear, terrorism continues to pose dangerous threats to us for years to come, the Court might not have this luxury. This result is not inevitable, however. The political branches, consistent with their independent obligations to interpret and uphold the Constitution, can engage in a genuine debate about how best to preserve constitutional values while protecting the Nation from terrorism. (…).



(…)We hold that petitioners may invoke the fundamental procedural protections of habeas corpus. The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, a part of that law.



The determination by the Court of Appeals that the Suspension Clause and its protections are inapplicable to petitioners was in error. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The cases are remanded to the Court of Appeals with instructions that it remand the cases to the District Court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.



It is so ordered.



The full text as PDF



Whereas I feel with King George W., Rex Christianissimus Americae, that he can no more sign lettres de cachet, I have to admit that this court decision is a victory for democracy. As you might have guessed, I'm not a big fan of democracy - but, if you do it, you should do it correctly. If you give the power to the people, you can't take it away with the other hand. And, luckily for you, democracy has mechanisms like the Supreme Court to prevent political leaders to undermine its very basic principles.



This is how democracy works.



Given at Versailles in the month of June, in the year of grace 1708, and of our reign the sixty sixth.





motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

JUN 16, 2008 08:51 PM

i still find it a bit shocking to realize that not everyone thinks the Constitution should guide the US's actions even when it is acting outside its own borders. the Constitution was written to establish a single country, sure, but the text of it is clear on the point that we as a nation believe the principles laid down in that document should be applied to all people.

your highness touched on a point that i feel may not be discussed enough--that is, the ramifications of the duration of the 'war on terror'. many of the pro-Bush arguments i see have the subtext of "it's only temporary". the thinking seems to be that this terrorism thing is an emergency, and a strong hand is needed to deal with it before it gets out of control. the simple fact is that it's already out of control, and was out of control for a decade (or more, depending on who you ask) before 11SEP2001.

however a person feels about (for instance) Gitmo, i think it would take a very foolish person to suggest that policies which produce detention centers such as Gitmo are sustainable. do we really want to be secretly snatching people and shipping them off to Guantanamo Bay fifty years from now? even if you believe that suspending habeus corpus in the case of 'unlawful combatants' is okay, surely you understand that such a practice is prone to horrible abuse?

the 'war on terror' is, like it or not, a long-term battle. we need to fight it with thoughtful policies in keeping with the basic values we hold as a nation, not with emergency measures that encroach further and further on our freedoms.

LSlice

LSlice

Montclair, NJ
December 2007

JUN 16, 2008 10:36 PM

motorfirebox said:
i still find it a bit shocking to realize that not everyone thinks the Constitution should guide the US's actions even when it is acting outside its own borders. the Constitution was written to establish a single country, sure, but the text of it is clear on the point that we as a nation believe the principles laid down in that document should be applied to all people.

your highness touched on a point that i feel may not be discussed enough--that is, the ramifications of the duration of the 'war on terror'. many of the pro-Bush arguments i see have the subtext of "it's only temporary". the thinking seems to be that this terrorism thing is an emergency, and a strong hand is needed to deal with it before it gets out of control. the simple fact is that it's already out of control, and was out of control for a decade (or more, depending on who you ask) before 11SEP2001.

however a person feels about (for instance) Gitmo, i think it would take a very foolish person to suggest that policies which produce detention centers such as Gitmo are sustainable. do we really want to be secretly snatching people and shipping them off to Guantanamo Bay fifty years from now? even if you believe that suspending habeus corpus in the case of 'unlawful combatants' is okay, surely you understand that such a practice is prone to horrible abuse?

the 'war on terror' is, like it or not, a long-term battle. we need to fight it with thoughtful policies in keeping with the basic values we hold as a nation, not with emergency measures that encroach further and further on our freedoms.



Yes, and the process of incrementalism is important to note here. With an indefinite duration, each successive growth of state power and withering away of legal protections seems like a perfectly rational step from the previous, in otherwards, "what's the big deal?" Recognizing this vector is important, because of the direction it goes in. If each movement advances it further along the same course, there can be no doubt that eventually it will cross into something you will find unacceptable, but by the time it does, your abilty to further resist its progress will be greatly diminished (or in other words, it's too fucking late)

bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

JUN 16, 2008 10:57 PM

Fantastic article, sir.

I do have one point about which to nitpick...

Louis_XIV said:
That's why the founders of your democracies invented the writ of habeas corpus...



In point of fact, it was your contemporary Charles II of England (who, you may remember some 30 years ago in your time, you agreed to assist in his war against the Dutch) who first codified the writ, though its history dates back in one form or another some three or four centuries prior.

scylis

scylis

Anchorage, AK
November 2004

JUN 16, 2008 11:05 PM

bean said:
Fantastic article, sir.

I do have one point about which to nitpick...

Louis_XIV said:
That's why the founders of your democracies invented the writ of habeas corpus...



In point of fact, it was your contemporary Charles II of England (who, you may remember some 30 years ago in your time, you agreed to assist in his war against the Dutch) who first codified the writ, though its history dates back in one form or another some three or four centuries prior.



well, to be fair, the Sun King did state democracies, plural, and the USA is of a similar manner of democracy as that of Brittan, after a fashion.

emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

JUN 16, 2008 11:06 PM

bean said:
Fantastic article, sir.

I do have one point about which to nitpick...

Louis_XIV said:
That's why the founders of your democracies invented the writ of habeas corpus...



In point of fact, it was your contemporary Charles II of England (who, you may remember some 30 years ago in your time, you agreed to assist in his war against the Dutch) who first codified the writ, though its history dates back in one form or another some three or four centuries prior.

I was going to say. Good article, nonetheless.

Louis_XIV

Louis_XIV

France
August 2007

JUN 16, 2008 11:57 PM

bean said:
In point of fact, it was your contemporary Charles II of England (who, you may remember some 30 years ago in your time, you agreed to assist in his war against the Dutch) who first codified the writ, though its history dates back in one form or another some three or four centuries prior.



You are right, Sire, my fault. I now remember having had a conversation with Charles II about this act. It was in fact passed by the Parliament of England which is at the time I'm writing those lines far from being a democratic institution. If I remember well, Charles was not very happy about this act, but gave his Royal Assent for political reasons..

I later heared a rumour that when the Lords voted about the bill, it passed only because a very fat lord was accorded 10 votes - meant as a joke, but taken seriously by mistake. I don't know whether or not this story is true.


Mr_Matt_

Mr_Matt_

Hollywood, FL
July 2005

JUN 17, 2008 05:27 AM

Another interesting read to scroll through.

Although it's sad it came to this. And how do you think the two recent Bush appointees voted on decision that really should have been unanimous?

Squire

Squire

Milwaukee, WI
November 2003

JUN 17, 2008 03:00 PM

1 Cranch 137. Nice.

Separation of powers will kick. you. in. the. ass.

xo_b_mac

xo_b_mac

Markham, ON
June 2007

JUN 17, 2008 04:07 PM

Napoleon was better bitches! eeek

scylis

scylis

Anchorage, AK
November 2004

JUN 17, 2008 04:09 PM

xo_b_mac said:
Napoleon was better bitches! eeek



at pissing off everybody else? yes, yes indeed.

Shiny_metal_ass

Shiny_metal_ass

I'm lost
October 2006

JUN 17, 2008 04:19 PM

xo_b_mac said:
Napoleon was better bitches! eeek



Ron Paul 1708!!