Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You're confusing the substantive question -- whether the person should be set free -- with the procedural question -- whether the person should be able to seek a writ of habeas corpus. The writ predates the Constitution by ~400 years.
And who said anything about enemy combatants? I just said it's a guy, and we know he's innocent. Not an enemy combatant. Not a part of a group we're at war with. Just an innocent guy.
|
We don't want to be holding innocent people. However, we also don't want foreign nationals in foreign countries to have any rights in relation to the United States. The way to solve the problem of innocent people being held is not giving them the right of Habeas Corpus.
What is so absurd about your hypo is that as I understand it, only "innocent" men would get a hearing. I can't imagine a situation where the executive branch would admit they are holding an innocent man. If they were holding them, and they were asked why, I am sure they would give a reason.
Your writ would only work if the executive branch admitted that the person was innocent. But if they really wanted to detain him then they would say he is not innocent and then the person would not get his hearing.
If on the other hand you are saying we should give the writ to every foreign national the United States detainees overseas, well that is just crazy.
So your question, it seems, is really academic.
