BREAKING: Supreme Court backs rights for Guantanamo detainees

[midnight Target]

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.

[myelo]

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.

[Toad]

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.

[ZetaNine]

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

[myelo]

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.

[lazs2]

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

[ZetaNine]

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.

[Donzo]

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?

[midnight Target]

  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.

[Toad]

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?

[ZetaNine]

Article 1 section 9

The 14th amendment.

"Public Safety" huh?  who wouldda' thunk...

[Elfie]

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.

[Elfie]

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.

[myelo]

 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.

[midnight Target]

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.