[Unjucky]

Looks like we have decided to honor the right of people to defend themselves in a court of law. What a novel idea?

Congrats, Canada. I'm curious though, Andrew, at your comment above. Are you saying there is some universal right all people have to defend themselves in a court of law?

[masaredera]

Congrats, Canada. I'm curious though, Andrew, at your comment above. Are you saying there is some universal right all people have to defend themselves in a court of law?

That is certainly how it would sound the way i worded it. But the only rights are those rights granted by the state, and i think this particular right is worth granting.

Andrew

[Unjucky]

That is certainly how it would sound the way i worded it. But the only rights are those rights granted by the state, and i think this particular right is worth granting.

Andrew

Ahh, you are much too smart for me to bait you. But I'm still curious as to why you think this particular right is worth granting? What basis did you use to form that opinion?

In addition, which state would grant those rights? For example:

1) A citizen comes from a country which does not recognize the right to a trial. Ergo, he does not have that right. The country he enters may confer the right to trial upon its citizens, but until our happy immigrant becomes a citizen he does not have that right. Correct?

2) A citizen comes from a country which has conferred upon its citizens the right to a trial. Ergo, he has that right. He emigrates to a country which does not grant its citizens the right to a trial. Should our happy immigrant be worried? After all, his government has given him the right to a trial. Shouldn't he just be able to flash that and force his new country to recognize his right?

Of course, the escape clause to the first is rights conferred upon the citizens of one nation are universal rights - rights that apply to every person regardless of nationality. If that is the case, then shouldn't every person on the planet enjoy all the rights you enjoy? For example: they should be allowed to vote in your elections, utilize your health care system, go to your public schools, use your court system for their trials, demand protection from your military, etc.

And the escape clause for the latter would be to argue rights are not a function of who or what you are, but rather a function of where you are. If that is the case, then it begs the question why you feel Canada is a geographic place worthy of granting the right to a trial? Otherwise, you would have to make the argument there is something about humans which entitles them to a right to a trial. Of course, that would negate your argument for hypothetical number one and that states confer rights, because states are obviously different and capable of conferring different rights.

[crestosssa]

My congratulations to Canada, and I hope that the SCOTUS will take the same course of action.

[86GlSqSK]

Yeah its pretty much a case that we implemnted such laws after the attacks and you guys had to do the same. Its a bit like if someone gets a re-entry bar into the U.S. then tht person will find it difficult to get into Canada or Mexico. Real shame this law was struck down.

What evidence is there that the people held at Guantanamo Bay are guilty of anything?

[crestosssa]

What evidence is there that the people held at Guantanamo Bay are guilty of anything?

Uh.....hmmm.... uhhhh....

Oh wait, there doesn't seem to be any!

~Ben

[Unjucky]

Uh.....hmmm.... uhhhh....

Oh wait, there doesn't seem to be any [evidence the people held at Gitmo are guilty of anything]!

~Ben

I'm not sure how you can make that determination, Ben. Are you familiar with their cases?

[86GlSqSK]

No we should strengthen our protection such as the patriot act and give our law enforcement and intelligece operatives furter, greater and broader powers.

IMHO, our LEOs already do whatever they want (i. e. warrantless spying, extrajudicial arrest, torture, etc.).

The purpose of fighting the Pats Act, etc. is to have a legal basis for challenging these actions in Court in the event one of these LEOs is caught violating the USC.

However, if the security of the US is so threatened that Constitutional rights need to be curbed to deal with these threats, then the foreign policy that incites these threats need to be modified/repealed.

[masaredera]

Ahh, you are much too smart for me to bait you. But I'm still curious as to why you think this particular right is worth granting? What basis did you use to form that opinion?

In addition, which state would grant those rights? For example:

1) A citizen comes from a country which does not recognize the right to a trial. Ergo, he does not have that right. The country he enters may confer the right to trial upon its citizens, but until our happy immigrant becomes a citizen he does not have that right. Correct?

"Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses longing to be free..."


2) A citizen comes from a country which has conferred upon its citizens the right to a trial. Ergo, he has that right. He emigrates to a country which does not grant its citizens the right to a trial. Should our happy immigrant be worried? After all, his government has given him the right to a trial. Shouldn't he just be able to flash that and force his new country to recognize his right? Whether he can or not, he should fight to the death for that right, if he is worth anything more than slavery or chattel.


Of course, the escape clause to the first is rights conferred upon the citizens of one nation are universal rights - rights that apply to every person regardless of nationality. If that is the case, then shouldn't every person on the planet enjoy all the rights you enjoy? For example: they should be allowed to vote in your elections, utilize your health care system, go to your public schools, use your court system for their trials, demand protection from your military, etc. Sure. If they are able merge into this society succesfully, using whatever benefit this society offers, who am i to deny them. Run for the border, so to speak.


And the escape clause for the latter would be to argue rights are not a function of who or what you are, but rather a function of where you are. If that is the case, then it begs the question why you feel Canada is a geographic place worthy of granting the right to a trial? Otherwise, you would have to make the argument there is something about humans which entitles them to a right to a trial. Of course, that would negate your argument for hypothetical number one and that states confer rights, because states are obviously different and capable of conferring different rights. Absolutely. Its just a matter of thinking there is benefit to such a transparent system, both for the accused and for the society at large. Many americans forget that when they argue that the suspension of habeus corpus for non-citizens is ok, they are turning over absolute power to those who would likely abuse it. I think the right to know the evidence for your charges is as much a benefit to the individual being charged as it is to the general public tasked with the responsibility of making sure the government is not 'cheating'.

In other words, it is important for a society that enjoys freedom to constantly be a check on the institutions that can grant those freedoms. They will abuse it if you are not looking. I did not and do not trust the Canadian government enough to preserve their right to secret evidence and indefinite detention without an 'airing' of those charges to the public scrutiny, for better or worse.

So regardless of whether my state can grant or take away the rights it chooses, a just society grants everybody the right to a free and open trial, regardless of their citizenship. Its just a matter of whether we think there is value for society in granting that right, i think it is worth it.

Andrew

[Nurse_sero]

That is certainly how it would sound the way i worded it. But the only rights are those rights granted by the state, and i think this particular right is worth granting.

Andrew

I'm still reading the rest of the posts but jumped in here so apologies if it's out of whack with the others.

I'm not a fan of the idea that the state grants rights. I'm much more keen on the natural rights idea, that we have rights simply by being human. Our rights can only be curtailed by the state and we accept that as part of the social contract we have with the state. I like the reasoning behind the US Constitution, it's based on natural law theory and accepts that - since I'm not religious this doesn't follow for me at least - the Creator has given us rights, not fellow humans. I don't know if the Charter follows the same philosophy, I would think it would be based on natural rights as well.

So, the debate is really which rights should be curtailed and to what extent.

[Nurse_sero]

The right to a fair trial is a legal right that comes from the English common law. It's common to all common law countries except that in some countries it has been, at times, curtailed. It seems that the US has completely curtailed it for some individuals. The British with the Diplock Courts in Northern Ireland in the 1970s severely curtailed some of the rights associated with what's normally considered a fair trial but they didn't wipe them out completely. I think the US is the only common law country that has so far done that. As we're seeing right here, Canada has tossed out the attempt by its government to follow the lead of the US.

[Nurse_sero]

IMHO, our LEOs already do whatever they want (i. e. warrantless spying, extrajudicial arrest, torture, etc.).

Some do at times. If they're found out then the courts will excluded evidence unfairly obtained. There are of course provisions to charge those officers criminally where offences (eg torture) have been committed.

The purpose of fighting the Pats Act, etc. is to have a legal basis for challenging these actions in Court in the event one of these LEOs is caught violating the USC.

Yes, the objective of the Act is to curtail certain legal rights and to make lawful certain things that were previously unlawful.

However, if the security of the US is so threatened that Constitutional rights need to be curbed to deal with these threats, then the foreign policy that incites these threats need to be modified/repealed.

And this is the point that others have made. AQ has achieved a victory. It has caused the US to repress its own citizens (eg Jose Padilla) and others who are not its citizens. The Administration believes that it's necessary to curtail legal rights for citizens and non-citizens to ensure security. It seems that most people in the US went along with that for a long while. It seems they're now re-thinking that position. It seems the Administration is determined to ignore that re-think and carry on regardless.

[crestosssa]

I'm not sure how you can make that determination, Ben. Are you familiar with their cases?

Well, no. But the Feds don't exactly overwhelm us with information, either.

[Seiblybiozy]

I feel that there should be a limit on how long a person can be held and that that person has the right to know why they are being held.
But I also believe that the general public doesn’t have the right to know those reasons.

[corolaelwis]

This was in 2004. You seem to be a bit behind the times here!

It was then later upheld by the D.C. circuit court of appeals...and the Patriot act has since been revised and permanently re-authorised barring a couple of stupid sunset provisions, and upheld in the courts.

[jenilopaz]

None of which negates the fact that it is anti-personal freedom and unconstitutional.

Just out of curiosity, exactly what things can you no longer do now, under the Patriot Act, that you could do before the Act?

I don't like the Patriot Act, but I see a lot of people complaining about it restricting their freedoms who are unable to articulate exactly what the Act is preventing them from doing.

Matt