Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: ZetaNine on June 12, 2008, 09:17:19 AM
-
4 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court has ruled that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.
The justices, in a 5-4 ruling Thursday, handed the Bush administration its third setback at the high court since 2004 over its treatment of prisoners who are being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba.
It was not immediately clear whether this ruling, unlike the first two, would lead to prompt hearings for the detainees, some of whom have been held more than 6 years. Roughly 270 men remain at the island prison, classified as enemy combatants and held on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaida and the Taliban.
-
Does this mean they can be given the death penalty if found guilty?
-
It means a media circus in our own US Courts that will make Nuremberg look like Judge Judy.
-
So can we start executing them?
These are terrorists, not parking ticket deadbeats!
-
About time!
-
now that they have the same rights that you and I have.......my guess is.....each will now be given a team of high priced US lawyers.....be relocated here in the states....and the ones we don't just let walk...will go to trial many many years from now. Many more will sue in civil court and most likely win millions of dollars.
-
They are _suspected_ terrorists, and that I guess is the real issue. If you are so sure they are guildty then a round in court should not be so bad.
-
About time!
I'm not so sure about that. These people have been classed as enemy combatants. When is the last time enemy combatants got to sue in US civilian courts?
-
I'm not so sure about that. These people have been classed as enemy combatants. When is the last time enemy combatants got to sue in US civilian courts?
Word. :aok
-
Two of the biggest terrorist scumbags have already confessed to being planners and would-be participant in the 9/11 atrocities. They ask to be executed so they can be "martyrs" for their cause.
What does that tell you?
ROX
-
Two of the biggest terrorist scumbags have already confessed to being planners and would-be participant in the 9/11 atrocities. They ask to be executed so they can be "martyrs" for their cause.
What does that tell you?
ROX
they were both waterboarded......... they will walk.
-
Two of the biggest terrorist scumbags have already confessed to being planners and would-be participant in the 9/11 atrocities. They ask to be executed so they can be "martyrs" for their cause.
What does that tell you?
ROX
That sex change operations should be used instead...
:devil
-
It worked the way it is supposed to work. It was legally challenged all the way up to the SC and the SC ruled.
As I may have mentioned here once or twice, the President proposes, the Congress disposes and the Supreme Court rules.
This is the primary reason it is important to be careful when you vote for a President. He's the guy that nominates judges. Same for voting for Senators; they approve/disapprove the President's nominees.
For the record, Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter joined Kennedy's opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.
-
It worked the way it is supposed to work.
It certainly did. God Help us.
(http://www.uscg.mil/history/WEBORALHISTORY/911_NYC_1_sm.jpg)
(http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200703/r131689_437597.jpg)(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/04_03/911RTRS_468x683.jpg)
-
I glad 5 of them remembered the law.
-
Well, it's the law now. ;)
-
I glad 5 of them remembered the law.
What law states that enemy combatants get to use the civilian court system?
As I recall, combatants captured during WWII didn't get access to our civilian courts and were in fact held w/o trials or charges presented until the end of hostilities upon which time they were repatriated.
Challenge their status as combatants first if you want them to go to trial and have charges presented.
-
I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that having "enemy combatants" would require a declared war.
-
I haven't read the whole decision yet.. maybe tonite.
The opener or Robert's dissent strikes me as pretty "right on" though.
Today the Court strikes down as inadequate the most
generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens
detained by this country as enemy combatants. The political
branches crafted these procedures amidst an ongoing
military conflict, after much careful investigation and
thorough debate. The Court rejects them today out of
hand, without bothering to say what due process rights
the detainees possess, without explaining how the statute
fails to vindicate those rights, and before a single petitioner
has even attempted to avail himself of the law’s
operation. And to what effect? The majority merely replaces
a review system designed by the people’s representatives
with a set of shapeless procedures to be defined by
federal courts at some future date.
-
I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that having "enemy combatants" would require a declared war.
Korea....Vietnam.....
-
Lol there a couple hundred foreign women-and-children killers using US courts to get OUT of Gitmo, and in Baghdad, we have a couple US citizens trying to use US COurts to get INTO Gitmo:
The Supreme Court has ruled against two U.S. citizens held in Baghdad who tried to use American courts to challenge their detention.
The unanimous decision came in the cases of Shawqi Omar, taken into custody in Iraq for allegedly assisting a terrorist network, and Mohammad Munaf, whose death sentence by an Iraqi court was recently overturned. Munaf has been accused in Iraq of setting up the 2005 kidnapping of three Romanian journalists.
Held by the U.S. military at Camp Cropper near Baghdad International Airport, both men are Sunni Muslims who say they will be tortured if turned over to the Iraqi government.
http://www.lawinfo.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/News.story/msgID/F7DC52D1-5689-4BC6-8007-BAC9A51133E7
-
I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that having "enemy combatants" would require a declared war.
war came to us babe......... 86 the semantics
-
I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that having "enemy combatants" would require a declared war.
Actually it just has to do with conflict in general as enemy combatants are defined in US Law of Armed Conflict. No declaration is required.
-
Bring the detainees before a court, have the US prove how/why the are unlawful enemy combatants, then put them back in detention.
-
Right when you think Americans couldnt get stupider along comes this.
-
Bring the detainees before a court, have the US prove how/why the are unlawful enemy combatants, then put them back in detention.
The article states they are classified as enemy combatants, not unlawful enemy combatants. If they are in fact classified as unlawful combatants, I don't see why they need access to civilian courts. Is there a precedent for this?
If the prisoners are in fact classified simply as enemy combatants then there is no precedent in allowing them access to civilian courts. Also, iirc, it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions to actually charge enemy combatants w/ crimes for simply performing their duty as combatants.
-
I say try them and return them to Iraq.
However, next time we don't just "capture" them.
-
The article states they are classified as enemy combatants, not unlawful enemy combatants.
"The President has determined that al Qaida members are unlawful combatants because (among other reasons) they are members of a non-state actor terrorist group that does not receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. He additionally determined that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants because they do not satisfy the criteria for POW status set out in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. Although the President’s determination on this issue is final, courts have concurred with his determination."
http://www.cfr.org/publication/5312/enemy_combatants.html
-
"The President has determined that al Qaida members are unlawful combatants because (among other reasons) they are members of a non-state actor terrorist group that does not receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. He additionally determined that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants because they do not satisfy the criteria for POW status set out in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. Although the President’s determination on this issue is final, courts have concurred with his determination."
http://www.cfr.org/publication/5312/enemy_combatants.html
Very informative link, thanks. That information should convince even MT that the prisoners are not being held illegally. ;)
-
Keep in mind that that document was from 2002. Congress has tried to tweak the law 3 times since then so some of it may not still apply.
-
war came to us babe......... 86 the semantics
LOL
Have you ever been in a court?....the whole show is ABOUT semantics. I'd be interested in hearing what a judge might say if you said that to him/her.
-
Right when you think Americans couldnt get stupider along comes this.
Not ALL of us Rich. Just the ones who claim to judge on a lawful, constitutional basis.
Astonishing ruling. Completely absurd.
-
war came to us babe......... 86 the semantics
Those who give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty or security.
--Benjamin Franklin
-
We should just turn 'em all loose and forget about taking prisoners on the battlefield. Where's the honor in surrendering rather than give your life for Allah anyhow? If their daughters showed such contempt for honor they'd be dispatched in a heartbeat.
-
Those who give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty or security.
--Benjamin Franklin
Not according to Ben himself.
-
LOL
Have you ever been in a court?....
Only when I have to be. I prefer an aggressive approach in the discovery phase.
-
war came to us babe......... 86 the semantics
Dude called me "babe". I'm a little concerned.
-
These arent American citizens yaknow.
They aren't even members of a constituted military organization of a foreign Govt. Let alone one that signed the Geneva convention.
If I was running the show they would get one trial in front of a Military tribunal and if found guilty by 51% of the presented evidence then they'd be swinging in the gallows the following morning.
Go look at some beheading videos first if you planned on responding back like a fricking Lawyer.
-
Dude called me "babe". I'm a little concerned.
maybe "Dude" is Dennis Miller.
-
Five Liberals on the SCOTUS who will vote for ObamaSama the Messiah in Novemeber are setting the ground work for him to win the peace by pardening the last of the Gitmo detainees as his first official miracle on the mountain. He will heal the middel east by bringing their lost children home to them.........Wonder what the reparations will cost us?
If McCain is elected they have placed a thorn in his side that the Liberals can twist anytime they need an issue and a first step in the campaign to ruin Bush's legacy.
Once the detainees are on domestic american soil being held for trial in a plush federal detention farm, they will become overnight rock stars with candel light vigels, freedom marches by the loony left and pro bono defence by the American Communists Legal Union who has as much money available to them for this as the federal government. Bet hollywood gives them a group script deal to help show the real truth behind Bush's war of terror on the innocent middel east.
-
Here's an idea. Make those Supremes hear each and every case.
-
Those who give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty or security.
--Benjamin Franklin
I don't see how that quote is applicable. No one is giving up freedom for security.....unless you think the freedom to illegally fight US troops abroad.
Unlawfull combantents do not get protections under the geneva conventions. They are not foreign soldiers. If anything, we are following the constitution by detainging them in that Geneva is a signed US treaty, of wich the federal govt is obliged to obey.
LOAC comes from both customary international law and treaties. Customary international law, based on practice that nations have come to accept as legally required, establishes the traditional rules that govern the conduct of military operations in armed conflict. Article VI of the US Constitution states that treaty obligations of the United States are the “supreme law of the land,” and the US Supreme Court has held that international law, to include custom, are part of US law. This means that treaties and agreements the United States enters into enjoy equal status as laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. Therefore, all persons subject to US law must observe the United States’ LOAC obligations. In particular, military personnel must consider LOAC to plan and execute operations and must obey LOAC in combat. Those who violate LOAC may be held criminally liable for war crimes and court-martialed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac.htm
-
I don't see how that quote is applicable. No one is giving up freedom for security.....unless you think the freedom to illegally fight US troops abroad.
Unlawfull combantents do not get protections under the geneva conventions. They are not foreign soldiers. If anything, we are following the constitution by detainging them in that Geneva is a signed US treaty, of wich the federal govt is obliged to obey.
Combatants
The Geneva Conventions distinguish between lawful combatants, noncombatants, and unlawful combatants.
Lawful Combatants. A lawful combatant is an individual authorized by governmental authority or the LOAC to engage in hostilities. A lawful combatant may be a member of a regular armed force or an irregular force. In either case, the lawful combatant must be commanded by a person responsible for subordinates; have fixed distinctive emblems recognizable at a distance, such as uniforms; carry arms openly; and conduct his or her combat operations according to the LOAC. The LOAC applies to lawful combatants who engage in the hostilities of armed conflict and provides combatant immunity for their lawful warlike acts during conflict, except for LOAC violations.
Noncombatants. These individuals are not authorized by overnmental authority or the LOAC to engage in hostilities. In fact, they do not engage in hostilities. This category includes civilians accompanying the Armed Forces; combatants who are out of combat, such as POWs and the wounded, and certain military personnel who are members of the Armed Forces not authorized to engage in combatant activities, such as medical personnel and chaplains. Noncombatants may not be made the object of direct attack. They may, however, suffer injury or death incident to a direct attack on a military objective without such an attack violating the LOAC, if such attack is on a lawful target by lawful means.
Unlawful Combatants. Unlawful combatants are individuals who directly participate in hostilities without being authorized by governmental authority or under international law to do so. For example, bandits who rob and plunder and civilians who attack a downed airman are unlawful combatants. Unlawful combatants who engage in hostilities violate LOAC and become lawful targets. They may be killed or wounded and, if captured, may be tried as war criminals for their LOAC violations.
Undetermined Status. Should doubt exist as to whether an individual is a lawful combatant, noncombatant, or an unlawful combatant, such person shall be extended the protections of the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention until status is determined. The capturing nation must convene a competent tribunal to determine the detained person’s status.
-
Well Court TV always need new material......
Maybe the networks can make their trials the next reality series...
As Toad stated, this is why the POTUS is important.
We have to live with these judges and their "supreme" decisions for a long, long time
-
Those who give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty or security.
--Benjamin Franklin
Beer is proof that God exists and wants us to be happy.
--Benjamin Franklin
That Islamic extremists don't drink beer is proof that They neither believe in God, nor want happiness.
-
maybe "Dude" is Dennis Miller.
actually richard belzer was doing the "babe" thing a decade before denny....but yeah...I do admit to using it too.
-
Duct tape everyone of them bastages to pigs and drop them from B52's over Tehran...
Killin two birds with one stone so to speak.
Mac
-
Duct tape everyone of them bastages to pigs and drop them from B52's over Tehran...
Killin two birds with one stone so to speak.
Mac
let's keep them away from planes. remember........one of them successfully planned the murder of 3000 people ...brought down several jets.... the world trade center...and hit the pentagon..........all in three hours......and the only weapon of choice was a simple carpet knife.
-
I'm so glad you have your facts right.
Otherwise your inept recollection of the addressed events would be somewhat abhorring.
But then again, who am I to challenge such a gifted mind?
Mac
Reread your last post.
-
But then again, who am I to challenge such a gifted mind?
my thoughts exactly....
-
my thoughts exactly....
Don't think too hard. The truth is a concept you've yet to acquire. But please, keep giving yourself more credit than you are due.
-
I knew that you would somehow agree...
Sheep are cute.
-
The truth is a concept you've yet to acquire.
link?
-
link?
No link needed. I'm sorry if I confused you. I thought you "had a gifted mind"? I guess not. Just keep "logging in/out" of the BBS and checking on this thread.
:aok
-
I knew that you would somehow agree...
Sheep are cute.
Mac, are you a Corriedale man or a Merino man? I love me some sheep.
-
I thought you "had a gifted mind"?
and now you stoop to the fake quote thing......... well played old timer.
-
(http://www.secularsobriety.org/addictioncycle.jpg)
Ignorance is learned, Stupidity a gift, Assinine is a drug.
You have achieved Greatness!
-
and now you stoop to the fake quote thing......... well played old timer.
You lose. Go play Stratego with your little brother.
-
You lose. Go play Stratego with your little brother.
surrender noted.
emoticon not required.
-
You lose. Go play Stratego with your little brother.
:aok
I gotta remember that one.
:rofl
-
:aok
I gotta remember that one.
:rofl
He's "Pee Wee League" at best. Feel free to use it. :rock You never answered my question above though you old codger.
-
He's "Pee Wee League" at best. Feel free to use it. :rock You never answered my question above though you old codger.
Hey once you go Corriedale you never go Barack.....
:D
-
I don't see how that quote is applicable. No one is giving up freedom for security.....unless you think the freedom to illegally fight US troops abroad.
Unlawfull combantents do not get protections under the geneva conventions. They are not foreign soldiers. If anything, we are following the constitution by detainging them in that Geneva is a signed US treaty, of wich the federal govt is obliged to obey.
The case has nothing to do with the Geneva convention. It has to do with the US Constitution, which specifically says that habeas can only be suspended upon invasion or rebellion. It's high time Americans and their politicians stopped being scared candyazzes all too ready to suspend the constitution anytime someone says 'boo".
-
The case has nothing to do with the Geneva convention. It has to do with the US Constitution, which specifically says that habeas can only be suspended upon invasion or rebellion. It's high time Americans and their politicians stopped being scared candyazzes all too ready to suspend the constitution anytime someone says 'boo".
Doesn't apply to prisoners of war.
-
Geeeeesh... just place a chitload of Viagra in their water and bring to trial the last survivor.
Case closed.
GAWD you kids are dumb!
Mac
-
Doesn't apply to prisoners of war.
Me and 5 smart folks in robes says it does.
-
Me and 5 smart folks in robes says it does.
Can't argue that. They have set a precedent we all may regret. Wouldn't it be ironic if we turn one of these terrorists loose who then goes on to set off a nuke in DC or your city? Nah, it'll never happen.
-
I am not reading through all the crap and such associated with this post. My point of view on it was when they are captured since they are not technically soldiers but are considered terrorists and I don't think they are covered by the useless Geneva convention is this...torture them when captured...extract all useful time sensitive information and then shoot them while "attempting to escape". Then we would not have any problems with our courts or our media since that would have ended several years ago due to the short attention span that we American's have developed due to our information overload.
-
I am not reading through all the crap and such associated with this post. My point of view on it was when they are captured since they are not technically soldiers but are considered terrorists and I don't think they are covered by the useless Geneva convention is this...torture them when captured...extract all useful time sensitive information and then shoot them while "attempting to escape". Then we would not have any problems with our courts or our media since that would have ended several years ago due to the short attention span that we American's have developed due to our information overload.
Yeah but Jack Bauer is a fictional character. Real soldiers worry about consequences and their families.
-
The case has nothing to do with the Geneva convention. It has to do with the US Constitution, which specifically says that habeas can only be suspended upon invasion or rebellion. It's high time Americans and their politicians stopped being scared candyazzes all too ready to suspend the constitution anytime someone says 'boo".
But it also says that the federal govt will follow ratified treaties signed by the US GOVT. The Geneva conventions is one of them and in that the Law of Armed Conflict is clearly defined these few as "Unlawfull combatants". Again this isn't about Habeas. I'll have to actually read the ruling to see what the judges said....I admit I havn't. Either way Geneva is a signed treaty and we are obliged to follow it under the constitutional powers afforded congress. These guys aren't the same as petty criminals. They aren't required to be read miranda rights. Like I said Franklins miss quote doesn't apply here. No one is giving up freedom. If anything we are following the constitution.
A link would be handy but from the orriginal cut and paste it would seem that the SC has only determined they have the right to challenge there status in court. This wouldn't say they are being held unlawfully or that their rights were infringed apon. If a court says they are "unlawfull Combatants" well then there's no question.....they are.
I don't think they have a leg to stand on.....typically these guys were engaged in armed conflict with US forces while not wearing a uniform or any country. They under the Geneva conventions are stuck with what they are labeled. The US has a constitutional requirment to follow through with that reguardless of what you think of these guys.
-
This is a tragic ruling.
-
basic human rights have always impeded the proper functioning of the empire's quest for world socialism... it always has and it always will.
-
Yeah but Jack Bauer is a fictional character. Real soldiers worry about consequences and their families.
Who is Jack Bauer? If it is or was a television character I try to stay as far as possible from any shows on network television unless they are comedy and even then its a 50/50 toss up about me watching it.
-
Again this isn't about Habeas. I'll have to actually read the ruling to see what the judges said....
Again, it is, and yes you do.
-
Again, it is, and yes you do.
I stand corrected but disagree. Franklins quote is still not applicable. This does not give us "little security" and we are not giving up "essential liberty"
The court itself was deeply divided. I'm with Justice Roberts on this one:
Chief Justice John Roberts, in his own dissent to Thursday's ruling, criticized the majority for striking down what he called "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants."
-
Here's the funny thing..
We have 5 "libs" on the court who in essence are making a decision based on the strict interpretation of the Constitution. And now the conservatives are screaming that the Constitution should have been interpreted to allow for these "special circumstances". I guess one man's activist judge is another man's poison. LOL.
-
I stand corrected but disagree. Franklins quote is still not applicable. This does not give us "little security" and we are not giving up "essential liberty"
Habeas is one of the most important safeguards of individual liberty and was considered essential enough that the constitution specifically prohibits suspension of habeas except for specific circumstances. The administration is now 0 for 3 in trying to circumvent this part of the constitution because of fears of terrorism. Since the executive and legislative branch refuse to grow a pair, I'm glad the judicial branch is stepping in.
-
Let's be a little more exact here.
IIRC, this ruling overturns legislation put in place by the House & Senate, the Military Commissions Act. It was done by Executive branch fiat.
-
Justice Scalia added that the U.S. is "at war with radical Islamists", and that the ruling "will almost certainly cause more Americans to get killed." Scalia warned, "The nation will live to regret what the court has done today."
/Thread
-
Justice Scalia added that the U.S. is "at war with radical Islamists", and that the ruling "will almost certainly cause more Americans to get killed."
In other words the ends justify the means. So much for Scalia basing his rulings on originalism in constitutional interpretation. As MT says, he follows that when it suits his political beliefs but otherwise he distorts the argument to get the result he wants.
-
I got no problem with the ruling based on the way the whole thing was handled.. we botched it up... we really didn't know how and it is a learning experience.
We should have just called em combatants and POW's
The problem is.. how do you try non citizens in a civil court? That seems even worse.
lazs
-
In other words the ends justify the means. So much for Scalia basing his rulings on originalism in constitutional interpretation. As MT says, he follows that when it suits his political beliefs but otherwise he distorts the argument to get the result he wants.
there are those of us that agree that the constitution is the best we can do...but as it's authors stated...it's an imperfect document that will require revisions from time to time. 911 changed everything.......and this is one matter where a lack of said revisions are harming us. the SC can only interpret the law......it's up to our Gov't to modify it for this situation......and my guess is it will take the next 911 to achieve that.
this ruling is nothing anyone should celebrate....certainly no american. it's the same as watching a serial killer walk on a technicality.
-
In other words the ends justify the means. So much for Scalia basing his rulings on originalism in constitutional interpretation. As MT says, he follows that when it suits his political beliefs but otherwise he distorts the argument to get the result he wants.
How does the US Constitution apply to these enemy combatants?
-
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Article 1 section 9
nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The 14th amendment.
-
I'll admit I haven't done the research.
Does the US Constitution apply to enemy combatants? That is, people that are openly fighting US forces? Or do those people fall under the Geneva Conventions?
How are these people who have engaged in combat against US forces without being under the flag of any nation classified? Are they enemy combatants? If not, what are they?
-
Article 1 section 9
The 14th amendment.
"Public Safety" huh? who wouldda' thunk...
-
I'll admit I haven't done the research.
Does the US Constitution apply to enemy combatants? That is, people that are openly fighting US forces? Or do those people fall under the Geneva Conventions?
How are these people who have engaged in combat against US forces without being under the flag of any nation classified? Are they enemy combatants? If not, what are they?
This article http://www.cfr.org/publication/5312/enemy_combatants.html gives the precedents and applicable laws for detaining enemy combatants until at least the cessation of hostilities.
-
Article 1 section 9
The 14th amendment.
The folks being held in Gitmo are enemy combatants, the rules of war apply to them. The rules of war does not require due process to be carried out for those captured while fighting your army.
If you are trying to say the folks in Gitmo aren't enemy combatants, then please explain why you think they aren't.
-
911 changed everything.......and this is one matter where a lack of said revisions are harming us. the SC can only interpret the law......it's up to our Gov't to modify it for this situation......and my guess is it will take the next 911 to achieve that.
911 didn't change the constitution. If we want to modify the constitution, there's a mechanism to do that. Until then, I'm glad our individual liberty in protected from arbitrary whims of politicians.
I guess it's a matter of perspective. I'm not nearly as scared of a bunch of religious nuts from a third work country as I am of politicians who want to "protect" me by "modifying" the constitution because they know what's best. Sounds like you feel different.
-
The definition of their status seems to be moot. If there is no rebelion or invasion and they are under the jurisdiction of the US, they have the right to Habeas Corpus.
-
I'm not nearly as scared of a bunch of religious nuts from a third work country as I am of politicians who want to "protect" me by "modifying" the constitution because they know what's best. Sounds like you feel different.
wow..........just wow.
I'll add you to the list that thinks 911 was a tv show ....and wish you good luck.
ps: need I remind you: politicians invented the constitution...and concluded that it had faults and would require modifications over time.
-
The folks being held in Gitmo are enemy combatants, the rules of war apply to them. The rules of war does not require due process to be carried out for those captured while fighting your army.
What about the ones who weren't fighting at the time of their capture?
As an example, 2 of the "British" detainees released in 2007 were captured when their flight from the UK landed at Banjul airport, Gambia, West Africa. They were arrested by Gambian authorities, turned over to the US, and spent 5 years in Guantanamo.
These men cannot in any sense of the word be said to have been taken on the "battlefield". They were arrested passing through immigration at an airport in West Africa. There was no fighting in progress, they didn't have any weapons, and they arrived on a commercial flight from the UK.
-
your answer is somewhere in "released in 2007"
-
wow..........just wow.
I realize my argument is stunning but as a courtesy to others, please hold your applause til the end.
-
I realize my argument is stunning but as a courtesy to others, please hold your applause til the end.
duly noted, sir.
-
911 didn't change the constitution. If we want to modify the constitution, there's a mechanism to do that. Until then, I'm glad our individual liberty in protected from arbitrary whims of politicians.
I guess it's a matter of perspective. I'm not nearly as scared of a bunch of religious nuts from a third work country as I am of politicians who want to "protect" me by "modifying" the constitution because they know what's best. Sounds like you feel different.
Once again, how does the US Constitution apply to these enemy combatants?
-
Once again, how does the US Constitution appply to these enemy combatants?
once again........it doesn't yet.
-
I get that...myelo keeps going back to the Constitution. I want to hear his explanation as to how it applies to these enemy combatants.
-
I get that...myelo keeps going back to the Constitution. I want to hear his explanation as to how it applies to these enemy combatants.
understood........that was for him as well.
-
I get that...myelo keeps going back to the Constitution. I want to hear his explanation as to how it applies to these enemy combatants.
The definition of their status seems to be moot. If there is no rebelion or invasion and they are under the jurisdiction of the US, they have the right to Habeas Corpus.
-
The definition of their status seems to be moot. If there is no rebelion or invasion and they are under the jurisdiction of the US, they have the right to Habeas Corpus.
So what you are saying is that German soldiers captured in WW2 under the jurisdiction of the US should have had the right to take their cases to civil court as the Gitmo Gang are about to do?
No rebellion or invasion of the US by Germany at that time.
-
No, that is what the Supremes are saying. The key seems to be the open ended nature of our current "war".
-
And by extension of your previously posted approval, you think the German POWs in the above example should have been entitled to habeas corpus while held here in the US or anywhere under US jurisdiction?
-
edit
-
in 1950 there was a supreme court decision...the eisentrager case.......which is supposed to be the precedent that future SC's regarding this issue....and one the current SC is obliged to follow......which 21 german nationals were taken into chinese custody at the end of WW2. they were found guilty by a US military tribunal...in china. they were then remitted to a us military prison in germany...they sought to have their cases remedied in the USA under the writ of habeas corpus...
the issue was if alien combatants should have access to US Courts......... (and these were soldiers...not terrorists who follow no laws)
the SC unanimously (and filled with liberal justices by the way) ruled that the german soldier's had no right to access the civil courts of the USA.
the SC understood that war was not their province, and enemy combatants were not their concern...for reasons we are talking about here.
these terrorists are not part of OUR criminal justice system........
think about the weight this put's on our military now.......some 21 year old infantryman...out on a battlefield.......will now not only have to worry about protecting himself and his fellow soldiers in battle........he will also have the obligation to COLLECT EVIDENCE if he has to capture an enemy......to satisfy some local judge in miami or denver.........are you freakin' kidding me???????????????
this decision is the new Roe V Wade.
-
Turn 'em all loose in DC and give 'em the home addresses of the Supremes so they can express their appreciation. We certainly shouldn't pull the troops who captured them off the battle field to testify.
-
And by extension of your previously posted approval, you think the German POWs in the above example should have been entitled to habeas corpus while held here in the US or anywhere under US jurisdiction?
You just live for these "gotcha" posts don't you?
As I wrote earlier the key here seems to be the open ended nature of the current "war". Our government seems to want to treat the GITMO prisoners like criminals and like POW's. I don't think they can have it both ways. If they are criminals then they have the right to Habeas, if they are POW's then they must be treated as POW's. So when is the "war on terror" over and when can they expect repatriation?
-
So when is the "war on terror" over and when can they expect repatriation?
When their buddies stop attacking.
-
MT, there is a clear disconnect on this. You know it. You don't want to admit it, obviously.
There's no "gotcha" here. There's a problem here.
If the Gitmo Gang are entitled to habeas corpus and if as you said earlier the SC is saying the German POWs should have been entitled to habeas corpus in our courts... that idea is simply, totally, beyond all reason unworkable.
So in the next declared war, where ever or when ever, we capture hundreds of thousands of enemy soldiers like we did in WW2 and they all get their day in US court? You think THAT is in our Constitution? Really?
-
Once again, how does the US Constitution apply to these enemy combatants?
That was decided 4 years ago (Rasul v. Bush) when the SCOTUS held that application of the habeas statute to persons detained at Guantanamo is consistent with the historical reach of the writ. Read Kennedy's lengthy, and I do mean lengthy, discussion of this in the majority opinion. Briefly, The Constitution grants Congress and the President the power to acquire, dispose of, and govern territory, not the power to decide when and where its terms apply. Guantanamo has been under the complete and utter control of the US since 1903. The constitution applies there. Abstaining from questions involving formal sovereignty and territorial governance is one thing. To hold the political branches have the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will is quite another.
-
MT, there is a clear disconnect on this. You know it. You don't want to admit it, obviously.
There's no "gotcha" here. There's a problem here.
If the Gitmo Gang are entitled to habeas corpus and if as you said earlier the SC is saying the German POWs should have been entitled to habeas corpus in our courts... that idea is simply, totally, beyond all reason unworkable.
So in the next declared war, where ever or when ever, we capture hundreds of thousands of enemy soldiers like we did in WW2 and they all get their day in US court? You think THAT is in our Constitution? Really?
The disconnect is somewhere on your end. The detainees at GITMO are not POW's, just ask the Bush administration. The last thing they wanted was to call these guys POW's. Oops. Now they have rights... double oops.
-
Bush admin says they are not POW's because they do not fulfill the GC requirements of the following four items:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
esp. b and d
So they are enemy combatants, which are sort of like but not quite POWs so they are treated sort of like but not quite POWs and they fall into a limbo where they are afforded only the rights that the Bush admin wants them to have.
-
That was decided 4 years ago (Rasul v. Bush) when the SCOTUS held that application of the habeas statute to persons detained at Guantanamo is consistent with the historical reach of the writ. Read Kennedy's lengthy, and I do mean lengthy, discussion of this in the majority opinion. Briefly, The Constitution grants Congress and the President the power to acquire, dispose of, and govern territory, not the power to decide when and where its terms apply. Guantanamo has been under the complete and utter control of the US since 1903. The constitution applies there. Abstaining from questions involving formal sovereignty and territorial governance is one thing. To hold the political branches have the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will is quite another.
Ok, then if the Constitution can be applied at Gitmo, I say pack 'em up and move them somewhere else.
They should not have access to our legal system...military tribunal, yes, wacked out liberal court, no.
-
The disconnect is somewhere on your end.
I said this: "So what you are saying is that German soldiers captured in WW2 under the jurisdiction of the US should have had the right to take their cases to civil court as the Gitmo Gang are about to do?
No rebellion or invasion of the US by Germany at that time."
YOU replied: "No, that is what the Supremes are saying."
So where are you on this? Should the German solidiers captured in WW2 been entitled to our civil courts and habeas corpus? That is what you just said the Supremes said.
Obviously, that is ridiculous.
Please resolve the disconnect on your end.
-
I answered you Toad, read further.
-
Damn.
MT, in light of this recent Gitmo ruling, do YOU think that German soliders captured in WW2 and held as POWs on US soil should have had the right to be heard under habeas corpus in our civil courts?
Do you think that POWs held similarly in future wars should have had the right to be heard under habeas corpus in our civil courts?
A simple yes or no for each question is all it takes.
-
Ok, then if the Constitution can be applied at Gitmo, I say pack 'em up and move them somewhere else.
The opinion suggests the court would look unfavorably on efforts to skirt its core findings by moving the prisoners elsewhere. The scope of habeas "must not be subject to manipulation by those whose power it is designed to restrain."
-
The opinion suggests the court would look unfavorably on efforts to skirt its core findings by moving the prisoners elsewhere. The scope of habeas "must not be subject to manipulation by those whose power it is designed to restrain."
diddly that
-
Damn.
MT, in light of this recent Gitmo ruling, do YOU think that German soliders captured in WW2 and held as POWs on US soil should have had the right to be heard under habeas corpus in our civil courts?
Do you think that POWs held similarly in future wars should have had the right to be heard under habeas corpus in our civil courts?
A simple yes or no for each question is all it takes.
The people in GITMO are not POW's.
Your question has NOTHING to do with the current situation, but to answer your question,..... maybe. Are they in our jurisdiction and are they being held for a crime? Do you think a POW accused of a crime in the US should not have the rights to our judicial system?
-
You're the guy that said the Supremes were saying that POWs are entitled to access to our civil courts and to habeas corpus.
Now you're waffling.
As someone mentioned upthread, this new decision seems to disregard Johnson v. Eisentrager as precedent. I need to read more about the new one and Eisentrager.
The GTIMO/POW issue:
I personally feel that the ones captured while in armed combat are in fact POWs. How can it be any other way?
Some of the others, picked up in non combat situations may be a different case.
On your sidetrack of a POW committing a crime: If a POW held in the US escapes from detention and steals a car, yeah, send him to civil court for that AFTER his POW issues are resolved.
-
The definition of their status seems to be moot. If there is no rebelion or invasion and they are under the jurisdiction of the US, they have the right to Habeas Corpus.
This Supreme Court decision seems to have made their status a moot point, yet, what precedent shows that enemy combatants taken prisoner have the right to Habeas Corpus?
-
I personally feel that the ones captured while in armed combat are in fact POWs. How can it be any other way?
Because of the Geneva Conventions. Specifically the 3rd one which states how prisoners of war are to be treated and how enemy combatants are to be identified. The problem in this war is virtually all prisoners are actually classified as illegal combatants since they don't fight for a particular country and don't wear a specific uniform to identify themselves with a specific country. (Taliban fighters might be an exception to this. I'm not sure if the Taliban actually wore standardized uniforms to identify themselves as part of the Afghan army or not.)
Imo, this whole issue isn't whether or not these folks are entitled to the rights granted by Habeas Corpus but what exactly is their legal status. Once their legal status is determined, then it would have been obvious what rights they did and did not have. Using the example from earlier in this thread, German PoW's didn't have access to Habeas Corpus and our civil courts. These folks in Gitmo shouldn't have access either if they are classed as PoW's or enemy combatants, legal or illegal. That precedent was set in Johnson vs Eisentrager.
Otoh, if some of those folks being held in Gitmo are being held as criminals, then yes, they should have access to Habeas Corpus and our civil courts.
-
No, that is what the Supremes are saying. The key seems to be the open ended nature of our current "war".
WWII, Korea and Vietnam were pretty open ended affairs until they ended as well.....were they not?