BREAKING: Supreme Court backs rights for Guantanamo detainees

[AKIron]

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.

[midnight Target]

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?

[AKIron]

So when is the "war on terror" over and when can they expect repatriation?

When their buddies stop attacking.

[Toad]

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?

[myelo]

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.

[midnight Target]

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.

[Holden McGroin]

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.

[Donzo]

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.

[Toad]

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.

[midnight Target]

I answered you Toad, read further.

[Toad]

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.

[myelo]

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."

[Donzo]

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

[midnight Target]

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?

[Toad]

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.