Here's a strange comment from Obama, discussing the Supreme Court ruling on Guantanamo and the Republicans:
"If they wanted to have a serious conversation about it then they would know, for example, that the issue of habeas corpus is not designed to free prisoners. What it's designed to do is make sure that prisoners who are being held have at least one shot to say, ‘I’m being held wrongly.' "
Obama, of course, teaches constitutional law. So he should know this stuff.
Habeas corpus is designed to free prisoners. That's exactly what it's designed to do. What does he think happens if a court decides someone is being held wrongly? It sends him a letter of condolence?
Comments (11)
Wow, you're really torturing what he said to make a point.
I'm sure Sen. Obama knows exactly what he is talking about. Just as I'm sure you're using a slip of the tongue to harangue the senator over nothing.
The Writ of Habeus Corpus, is as Obama says, a chance for prisoners to say that they are being held wrongly. Just because you are granted a writ, does not mean you're getting out of jail.
In this case, if a GITMO detainee is granted a writ of habeus corpus, he or she has the chance to explain to a judge why he or she doesn't belong there. If the judge thinks they do belong there, they stay in jail.
If the judge thinks they don't belong in jail, they are set free. However, the Writ of Habeus Corpus wasn't explicitly designed to get people out of jail, so much as it was designed to keep the government from keeping political prisoners in jail for no reason.
Maybe you should look into this stuff before you make off-the-mark accusations against someone who could trounce you in knowledge of the law and legal proceedings.
Thank you John Riley, Esq. for showing again why you're the worst "journalist" in the entire NY area.
The commenter above is completely correct. Habeas Corpus is simply an opportunity to be heard in front of a judge. It's not a "Get out of Jail Free" card.
I'm the biggest Obama opponent out there, but you're completely wrong (as usual) here.
JR, See what happens when you question OBAMA the OBAMA DEMOC"RAT"IC attack machine attacks.
At least you tried to be fair and balanced with this item. But the OBAMA ATTACK MACHINE will only allow PRO OBAMA pieces.
Maybe this will awaken you to the problem. If you are far and balanced they will attack you. If you are pro Obama they will leave you alone. Get the point
VJ Machiavelli
www.vjmachiavelli.blogspot.com
PS NEW YORK MCAIN WEBSITE WWW.NYMCAIN.COM
VJ,
I wish I could get worked up about your comments, but they are so boring and pedantic that I can't even work up the energy to grind my teeth.
If all the Republicans have to offer this November is trite "DEMOC'RAT'IC" snipes and screams of "OBAMA ATTACK MACHINE" then the Democrats are really going to stomp you into the ground.
Nevermind that I'm a Republican, let's take this one on the merits: the author makes a spurious claim as to what the Writ of Habeus Corpus is supposed to mean. Then uses that spurious claim to try and make Obama, who is a lawyer and a professor of Constitutional Law, look like an idiot. Then, I point out that the emperor, in this case, the author, has no clothes and you scream "ATTACK, ATTACK."
That's not an attack machine, that's fact checking.
No that is an attack, attack, attack.
and you say you are a Republican I guess you are a OBAMA Republican.
BTW I guess you were worked up to commet on my comment
VJ Machiavelli
I don't understand the disagreement over what I wrote about habeas corpus.
I agree with the first commenter, Shirley Temple, completely, and I don't understand why she (?) thinks she disagrees with me. As she notes, "If the judge thinks they don't belong in jail, they are set free." Isn't that what I said? Isn't that the opposite of what Obama said?
As to JP: Criticizing me aside, if you agree with Shirley Temple, and I agree with Shirley Temple, then we must agree with each other. The Supreme Court has not given prisoners a get-out-of-jail-free card. It has given them the right to have their cases heard in a federal court, which can free them.
I just didn't see Obama in his quote acknowledging that the end result of the process can be freed prisoners.
No, it's not what you said. Obama is right. It's only a chance to be heard, it does not automatically set someone free, an important distinction since the rightwing noise machine is busy claiming the Gitmo guys will be free to walk out the door. It may seem like a tiny distinction but it is not.
"Habeas corpus is designed to free prisoners. That's exactly what it's designed to do."
This is where you're wrong. It's not designed to "free prisoners". It's designed to give prisoners a chance to speak to a judge and describe why they're being illegally detained.
An analogy to what you're saying is "A criminal trial is designed to free prisoners." It's not what it's designed to do, but that will be the effect if the prisoner/defendant is determined to be wrongly detained/innocent.
And I will not stop bashing you. You are a disgrace to journalism. Your cynicism and snarkiness on EVERY single blog item is extremely off-putting. The occasional good point you make is overshadowed by your obviously nasty nature.
This blog would be better served by giving more time to local reporters like Cassese, Hadrick, Laikin, Murphy and Epstein. If we want commentary on national news, there are many better options than you.
While I don't want to completely repeat the posters above me, they are correct.
Habeus Corpus is designed to to keep government from holding prisoners without any evidence of a crime. The Latin means "You have the body." In other words, "Do you have evidence?" If the government has evidence of a crime, the person stays in jail.
If the person is a political prisoner, or is being held for reasons other than the commission of a crime, he or she is supposed to be let go.
Basically, you're putting the cart before the horse. The Writ of Habeus Corpus is designed to protect you from government malfeasance, not necessarily get you out of jail.
So, if Obama says that Habeus Corpus provides prisoners with the chance to challenge their incarceration, his is correct. That right does not guarantee they are "freed." So, pretty much, on every count, he is right.
I realize the differences may seem to be semantic, but that's the way the law works.
JR I guess JP really does not think you are a good blogger.
I do not remember seeing him comment on your postings before.
I could be wrong,
So JR you better shape up or JP will ship you out.
VJ Machiavelli
In case anyone is still reading this string of comments:
To JP: Everyone at Newsday can post on the blog. I frequently ask them to. I agree that it would be better if it had more people, and less me. I try to bring a critical eye, and I'm sorry you don't like it. I hope it becomes more useful, and less irritating, as it matures.
To everyone else (including JP): Good points about habeas corpus, esp. the analogy to criminal trials. I don't disagree with anything you've said, except your interpretation of my post.
"Designed to free prisoners" does not mean it automatically frees them -- it means it was designed for prisoners who want to be freed, and is a mechanism through which they can obtain freedom.
Quoting from Boumedienne, page 9: "The Framers viewed freedom from unlawful restraint as a fundamental precept of liberty, and they understood the writ of habeas corpus as a vital instrument to secure that freedom."
As your comments make clear, however, the phrase is imprecise -- so it was unfair of me to take Obama to task for it.
If you look at publicly available information about the detainees at Guantanamo, it's fairly clear that some will be freed if they ever get a full court hearing. I thought Obama was obfuscating that reality by saying it was "not designed to free prisoners."
When I look at it now, however, I can see that maybe he was just being more precise than I was.