I didn't say it was. I said it's getting us closer to that world.
> Disappearing would be when ...
Disappearing is when a civilian gets taken (doesn't matter the time of the day, whether anyone notices or not), and the person in question does not get an arraignment in any open court nor any followup open court proceedings (e.g., trial), and where family gets no access to the person, with no way to determine their whereabouts and health or even if they remain living, typically for a prolonged period of time.
(Sometimes the family of a disappeared has connections and can get them released quickly, but most often the family does not, the authorities lie or refuse to say anything about the case, and the person languishes for years before being released unless they die or are killed during the time that they are held in this way.)
In other words: disappearing == unconstitutional denial of Habeas Corpus, often paired with torture and/or murder. A breakdown of the rule of law and constitutional order.
The English invented Habeas Corpus (to my knowledge anyways), and I suspect that they must have had some experience with disappearances during one of their 17th century civil wars.
When Habeas Corpus is suspended pursuant to the Constitution, and a civilian is arrested, and the family is allowed to see them during the time that the person is held, then that is not a disappearance, though the constitutionality of the suspension of Habeas Corpus may be suspect. When constitutional order is restored, the expectation would be that the person would be released or arraigned. Considering that in the U.S. Congress has never suspended Habeas Corpus, and that Lincoln did suspend it, but only in limited areas and during limited times during the Civil War, we should consider that the circumstances that legitimately call for suspending Habeas Corpus must be extreme. Certainly the current situation in Ukraine does not remotely call for the suspension of Habeas Corpus in the U.S., nor for anything like military tribunal trials for public persons who make their opinions heard. It is my fear that calls for the latter are a bad omen presaging the denial of Habeas Corpus.
I didn't say it was. I said it's getting us closer to that world.
> Disappearing would be when ...
Disappearing is when a civilian gets taken (doesn't matter the time of the day, whether anyone notices or not), and the person in question does not get an arraignment in any open court nor any followup open court proceedings (e.g., trial), and where family gets no access to the person, with no way to determine their whereabouts and health or even if they remain living, typically for a prolonged period of time.
(Sometimes the family of a disappeared has connections and can get them released quickly, but most often the family does not, the authorities lie or refuse to say anything about the case, and the person languishes for years before being released unless they die or are killed during the time that they are held in this way.)
In other words: disappearing == unconstitutional denial of Habeas Corpus, often paired with torture and/or murder. A breakdown of the rule of law and constitutional order.
The English invented Habeas Corpus (to my knowledge anyways), and I suspect that they must have had some experience with disappearances during one of their 17th century civil wars.
When Habeas Corpus is suspended pursuant to the Constitution, and a civilian is arrested, and the family is allowed to see them during the time that the person is held, then that is not a disappearance, though the constitutionality of the suspension of Habeas Corpus may be suspect. When constitutional order is restored, the expectation would be that the person would be released or arraigned. Considering that in the U.S. Congress has never suspended Habeas Corpus, and that Lincoln did suspend it, but only in limited areas and during limited times during the Civil War, we should consider that the circumstances that legitimately call for suspending Habeas Corpus must be extreme. Certainly the current situation in Ukraine does not remotely call for the suspension of Habeas Corpus in the U.S., nor for anything like military tribunal trials for public persons who make their opinions heard. It is my fear that calls for the latter are a bad omen presaging the denial of Habeas Corpus.