US Committing "Corruption of the Blood "? Another Constitution Violation!

[leftchick]

http://www.juancole.com/

<snip>

Ed Furey writes:

' Professor Cole:

You barely scratched the surface on the unconstitutionality of the so-called terror legislation. Beyond repealing habeas corpus, another grotesque violation of the Constitution is implicated in that legislation. The Constitution specifically forbids the passage of a “bill of attainder.” In the old days, when kings and others were not certain they get a judge or jury to convict someone of a crime, they would simply declare them guilty (attainted) and imprison, torture and/or execute them. When Parliaments did this they passed a “bill of attainder” declaring the person guilty of a crime. What this recent piece of legislation has done is to declare a whole class of persons, “unlawful enemy combatants,” to be criminals, subject to punishment -- imprisonment without trial and torture -- at the discretion of the president. By the way, this does not exclude American citizens.

The Constitution also prohibits “corruption of the blood” which was another old tyrant’s trick in which the families of the attainted were also declared guilty of the crimes because they were related to the criminal. This provided a sort of pseudo-legal sanction for wiping out the families of political enemies, especially those who might succeed to titles of nobility – and seek revenge. By declaring the whole bloodline criminal, you get to kill women and small children whose murders would otherwise be distasteful. It is expressly forbidden in the Constitution. Nevertheless, punishment of relatives of the accused has also become United States policy.

The ban on corruption of the blood would seem to be violated by the common U.S. practice in Iraq of taking hostages and imprisoning people suspected of nothing other than being related to the suspect (the taking of hostages is also banned under the Geneva Conventions). U.S. forces held the two sons of the head of the Iraqi air defense hostage in Abu Ghraib until he agreed to surrender. Being imprisoned is a form of punishment for the person being held, hence the corruption of the blood. Once in US custody he was killed, in what the Army investigation called a homicide.

It is interesting that the current administration and Congress are descending into barbarities so ancient and so grotesque that most Americans have never heard of them. They reside banned in obscure corners of the Constitution because the Founding Fathers knew them well enough to forbid them. Nevertheless, they are there, and as Casey Stengel liked to say: You could look it up.

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. Kicked and recommended

These are very salient points that need desperately to see the light of the media spotlight.

[leftchick]

2. I need to re read the Constitution

I haven't read it since eighth grade. Apparently most in congress haven't either. :(

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. Here's the copy I use

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

Very handy. :hi:

[leftchick]

4. Thank You

I think I will send it to my congress creatures. They need it!

:hi:

[helderheid]

15. Start a new thread. this would be a powerful action we all could take

sending every one in Congress and the Senate a copy of the Constitution. Not to mention * and co. We could send them an extra note that says "Its the constitution, not toilet paper! Learn the difference!"

[leftchick]

20. That is an excellent idea hh!

:hi:

[helderheid]

21. did you start the thread?

:hi:

[bobbieinok]

18. in junior high we studied the constitution

We used Your Rugged Constitution by Findlay and Findlay.

The book went through article by article, listing 'you give, you get'.

The parts that were later amended were markd through. That's why I remember that slaves were counted as 3/5's of a person; that was changed after the Civil War.

Try to find a copy (there seem to be several at amazon). It's a simple introduction to the basics.

A few years ago I wanted to check something and asked a poli sci prof for a copy. It, along with other documents, was at the back of a text-book; I was shocked at how short it is.

[badgerpup]

5. Does this bill eventually pass under review of the SCOTUS?

If so, just by stare decisis* (is that the term?) don't they have the ability to just toss it?

*I mean the precedent that allowed Ken Lay to go scot-free since he allegedly died before sentencing or whatever it was...

"The (previous) decision stands."

[meganmonkey]

6. I have heard various predictions about this

but my understanding is as follows.

In order for a case to make it to the SCOTUS, the accused must have access to the courts to begin with so they can appeal their way up there. Because these 'enemy combatants' are considered guilty before being proven...er...guilty, they have no access to the court system. The combatants cannot prove damages, because, again, they have no access to the court to even make that accusation against the admin.

It's like a big, nightmarish loophole :(

[badgerpup]

7. I meant the bill ITSELF...

Just the fact that it's been signed...can the SCOTUS overturn it?

[meganmonkey]

8. Unless I am really missing something

SCOTUS can't simply review and overturn bills. There has to be a court case that makes its way up the court system to SCOTUS, and for that to happen someone has to start a court case. As i said above, those who should be able to sue the gov't or challenge the constitutionality of this bill are unable to do so because the bill removes their right to do so.

Unless someone can figure out a way to make a class action suit on behalf of the US or something, I can't see how this can get in the courts. Generally, the person initiating the suit has to prove damages, but since we don't know who is being detained, how they are being treated, or why they are being held, how can they sue, or how can someone else sue on their behalf?

This bill is designed so that there is no recourse for the detainees, and there can be no punishment meted to the administration for their unconstitutional acts. It is written very carefully.

Can someone more schooled in the law then me help me explain this? Or tell me I am wrong? I hope I am wrong because this scares the shit out of me.

[G_j]

9. k&r RIP the US Constitution

:-(

[leftchick]

10. the betrayal of congress

it makes me sick beyond belief. :(

[HamdenRice]

11. Correction on "corruption of blood" -- the family is not "guilty"

Corruption of blood, which you correctly point out, is specifically banned in the Constitution, did not make family members guilty.

It refers to the inability of a person convicted of treason to inherit a propertied estate or transmit property by will or inheritance, as a result of his conviction.

The family therefore could not inherit from the convicted felon. But that did not mean the family would be criminally punished.

A more appropriate analogy to corruption of blood in our overcriminalized society, are the property forefeiture statutes, in which the government simply seizes the property of a drug trafficker regardless of its effect on his family, or their ownership rights in it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. Some families are more worthy of collective judgement than others n/t

[slaveplanet]

12. I'm surprised they didn't

declare the 'declaration of independence' and the 'constitution' a "conspiracy" in this new bill. The rest of it intimates as much.

England retakes American colonies and hardly anyone cares...

[KoKo]

13. Good article..thanks for posting...kick

[Trillo]

14. That would certainly explain the zeal to get our DNA

in databanks, whether we want it there, or not.

Question, where does one draw the line in Corruption of Blood? Wife? Children? Grandparents? Cousins?

If one goes back far enough, aren't most of us related? (note I didn't say 'all')

[Usrename]

17. They have created a new species of sub-humans..

All men are created equal (except some are less equal)

[Jack Rabbit]

19. K/R

Will Pitt once wrote a book called Silence is Sedition.

As long as Bush sits in the Oval Office, sedition has become patriotic.