Supreme court squashes Bush's Guantanamo policy

[Skybird]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/12/scotus/index.html

"Today's decision of the Supreme Court shows Americans that the American constitution is not as stretchable as their president has tried to make them believe, and that the principles of law and order are more than just an arbitrary knees-up." (Tagesschau-commentator on German first TV program ARD).

Before the Supreme Court's decision today, Bush's policy already had failed to impress the High Courts two times before.

John McCain commented that the camp on Kuba should be closed.

[PeriscopeDepth]

It's a bird! It's a plane! It's the constitution!

PD

[Officerpuppy]

I wonder what was the dissenting opinion.:know:

[Skybird]

Or in Bush's interpretation: the constitution is nothing else but an UFO. Questionable that it even exists.

[SUBMAN1]

Last time I checked, the US Constitution was for Americans. Maybe the justices see the whole world as America. Seems to be so lately.

Time to start telling our lacky's like Germany what to do since we own them anyway.

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

Last time I checked, the US Constitution was for Americans. Maybe the justices see the whole world as America. Seems to be so lately.

Time to start telling our lacky's like Germany what to do since we own them anyway.

-S
It sets a VERY dangerous precedent. If anybody can be snatched up with absolutely no rights if called an enemy combatant, what stops the government from doing this to an American citizen?

PD

[Ducimus]

Obligatory picture :rotfl:

http://www.funnyfarmonline.org/base/pics/bush-constitution.jpg


Sorry, couldnt resist.

[SUBMAN1]

Last time I checked, the US Constitution was for Americans. Maybe the justices see the whole world as America. Seems to be so lately.

Time to start telling our lacky's like Germany what to do since we own them anyway.

-S It sets a VERY dangerous precedent. If anybody can be snatched up with absolutely no rights if called an enemy combatant, what stops the government from doing this to an American citizen?

PDThe Constitution. It protects our peoples and our laws. It is not Europes Constitution, nor is it the Middle Easts Constitution.

-S

[Happy Times]

Last time I checked, the US Constitution was for Americans. Maybe the justices see the whole world as America. Seems to be so lately.

Time to start telling our lacky's like Germany what to do since we own them anyway.

-S

Technically they own you, you are in so much debt, that kind of attitude wont bring friends.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Last time I checked, the US Constitution was for Americans. Maybe the justices see the whole world as America. Seems to be so lately.

Time to start telling our lacky's like Germany what to do since we own them anyway.

-S It sets a VERY dangerous precedent. If anybody can be snatched up with absolutely no rights if called an enemy combatant, what stops the government from doing this to an American citizen?

PDThe Constitution. It protects our peoples and our laws. It is not Europes Constitution, nor is it the Middle Easts Constitution.

-S No. Two US citizens and one legal US resident have been imprisoned indefinitely without being charged/able to confront their accusers.

See:
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
Padilla v. Rumsfeld
Google "al-marri"

PD

[SUBMAN1]

Technically they own you, you are in so much debt, that kind of attitude wont bring friends.Its not about friends. Its about the Supreme Court being outside of its jurisdiction. I don't see it as Un-Constitutional at all since our Constitution does not apply to foreigners. They can call it an illegal act based on another law, but not on our Constitution. That part bothers me.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

No. Two US citizens and one legal US resident have been imprisoned indefinitely without being charged/able to confront their accusers.

See:
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
Padilla v. Rumsfeld
Google "al-marri"

PDI agree with you on that part. Americans kept without trial is not OK with me.

-S

[FIREWALL]

Last time I checked, the US Constitution was for Americans. Maybe the justices see the whole world as America. Seems to be so lately.

Time to start telling our lacky's like Germany what to do since we own them anyway.

-S

Technically they own you, you are in so much debt, that kind of attitude wont bring friends.

Your Dreaming :rotfl:

[Happy Times]

Technically they own you, you are in so much debt, that kind of attitude wont bring friends.Its not about friends. Its about the Supreme Court being outside of its jurisdiction. I don't see it as Un-Constitutional at all since our Constitution does not apply to foreigners. They can call it an illegal act based on another law, but not on our Constitution. That part bothers me.

-S

But it does apply to your citizens abroad having them in custody, so the loop hole is that you give them to someone else and oout of Guantanamo. Thats been done allready and what will happen, probably worse for them.
Have to add ive not lost any sleep thinking who is in Guantanamo, most probably deserve something worse. This is just good exsample that democracy and separation of powers works in the USA. Good for those to realise, that use more energy to critize USA, rather than pick one from the long list of murderous dictatorships.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Technically they own you, you are in so much debt, that kind of attitude wont bring friends.Its not about friends. Its about the Supreme Court being outside of its jurisdiction. I don't see it as Un-Constitutional at all since our Constitution does not apply to foreigners. They can call it an illegal act based on another law, but not on our Constitution. That part bothers me.

-S
But it does apply to your citizens abroad having them in custody, so the loop hole is that you give them to someone else and oout of Guantanamo. Thats been done allready and what will happen, probably worse for them.
Have to add ive not lost any sleep thinking who is in Guantanamo, most probably deserve something worse. This is just good exsample that democracy and separation of powers works in the USA. Good for those to realise, that use more energy to critize USA, rather than pick one from the long list of murderous dictatorships.
I am not aware of any cases of extraordinary rendition being practiced on US citizens. Not to say I agree with the practice; but that is what you are implying, right?

PD

[Platapus]

I don't see it as Un-Constitutional at all since our Constitution does not apply to foreigners. They can call it an illegal act based on another law, but not on our Constitution. That part bothers me.

-S

The constitution is not limited to citizens or foreigners. The Constitution defines and limits the power and authority of the government.

The fourteenth amendment specifically states:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.


While the first part defines what a citizen is, the rest of the section specifically uses the term person and not citizen. With respect to the political prisoners in Gitmo, the very last phrase of the amendment applies.

"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It was not an accident that the word person is used instead of citizen. If the congress in 1868, meant that this amendment only would apply to citizens, they would have used the word citizen throughout the amendment.

A prisoner at Gitmo is under the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore has the right to equal protection of the laws.

So yes the Constitution does not apply to foreigners, but it does apply to how the US government treats foreigners under US jurisdiction.

[Happy Times]

Technically they own you, you are in so much debt, that kind of attitude wont bring friends.Its not about friends. Its about the Supreme Court being outside of its jurisdiction. I don't see it as Un-Constitutional at all since our Constitution does not apply to foreigners. They can call it an illegal act based on another law, but not on our Constitution. That part bothers me.

-S
But it does apply to your citizens abroad having them in custody, so the loop hole is that you give them to someone else and oout of Guantanamo. Thats been done allready and what will happen, probably worse for them.
Have to add ive not lost any sleep thinking who is in Guantanamo, most probably deserve something worse. This is just good exsample that democracy and separation of powers works in the USA. Good for those to realise, that use more energy to critize USA, rather than pick one from the long list of murderous dictatorships.
I am not aware of any cases of extraordinary rendition being practiced on US citizens. Not to say I agree with the practice; but that is what you are implying, right?

PD

No, i ment that Guantanamo being US base has to uphold the US constitution in its practises.

[Happy Times]

Last time I checked, the US Constitution was for Americans. Maybe the justices see the whole world as America. Seems to be so lately.

Time to start telling our lacky's like Germany what to do since we own them anyway.

-S

Technically they own you, you are in so much debt, that kind of attitude wont bring friends.

Your Dreaming :rotfl:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_current_account_balance

List of countries by current account balance

(million US$)

1 People's Republic of China 363,000 2007 est.
2 Japan 201,300 2007 est.
3 Germany 185,100 2007 est.
4 Saudi Arabia 88,890 2007 est.
5 Russia 74,000 2007 est.
6 Switzerland 67,890 2007 est.
7 Netherlands 59,280 2007 est.
8 Norway 55,820 2007 est.
9 Kuwait 51,490 2007 est.
10 Singapore 41,390 2007 est.
11 United Arab Emirates 36,110 2007 est.
12 Algeria 31,500 2007 est.
13 Sweden 30,190 2007 est.
14 Canada 28,460 2007 est.
15 Malaysia 25,930 2007 est.
16 Republic of China 23,800 2007 est.
17 Hong Kong 19,870 2007 est.
18 Iran 19,000 2007 est.
19 Finland 17,120 2007 est.
20 Venezuela 17,020 2007 est.
21 Nigeria 14,610 2007 est.
22 Angola 13,640 2007 est.
23 Austria 12,610 2007 est.
24 Libya 11,710 2007 est.
25 Luxembourg 11,300 2007 est.
26 Argentina 11,154 Dec 2007
27 Belgium 11,040 2007 est.
28 Indonesia 10,210 2007 est.
29 Brazil 10,200 2007 est.
30 Philippines 9,040 2007 est.
31 Thailand 8,619 2007 est.
32 Chile 8,184 2007 est.
33 Iraq 7,802 2007 est.
34 Qatar 7,733 2007 est.
35 Azerbaijan 7,535 2007 est.
36 Israel 5,941 2007 est.
37 Denmark 4,699 2007 est.
38 Trinidad and Tobago 4,288 2007 est.
39 Oman 3,785 2007 est.
40 South Korea 3,700 2007 est.
41 Egypt 3,115 2007 est.
42 Uzbekistan 3,045 2007 est.
43 Botswana 2,231 2007 est.
44 Peru 2,045 2007 est.
45 Bahrain 2,009 2007 est.
46 Burma 1,676 2007 est.
47 Gabon 1,626 2007 est.
48 Bolivia 1,325 2007 est.
49 Congo 1,094 2007 est.
50 Namibia 1,065 2007 est.
51 Côte d'Ivoire 1,056 2007 est.
52 Turkmenistan 689.3 2007 est.
53 Bangladesh 683 2007 est.
54 Morocco 433.9 2007 est.
55 Papua New Guinea 314 2007 est.
56 Equatorial Guinea 250 2007 est.
57 Yemen 178 2007 est.
58 Zambia 150 2007 est.
59 British Virgin Islands 134.3 1999
60 Cook Islands 26.67 2005
61 Palau 15.09 FY03/04
62 Republic of Macedonia 5 2007 est.
63 Tuvalu 2.323 1998
64 Samoa -2.428 FY03/04
65 Tonga -4.321 FY04/05
66 Comoros -17 2005 est.
67 Kiribati -19.87 2004
68 Swaziland -26.71 2007 est.
69 Lesotho -28 2007 est.
70 Vanuatu -28.35 2003
71 Gambia -31.69 2007 est.
72 Federated States of Micronesia -34.3 FY05 est.
73 Anguilla -42.87 2003 est.
74 Belize -54 2007 est.
75 São Tomé and Príncipe -58 2007 est.
76 Paraguay -82 2007 est.
77 Antigua and Barbuda -83.4 2004
78 Uruguay -100 2007 est.
79 Tajikistan -102 2007 est.
80 Burundi -137.3 2007 est.
81 Seychelles -141 2007 est.
82 Chad -144.5 2007 est.
83 Togo -165.5 2007 est.
84 Rwanda -172.8 2007 est.
85 Guinea -175 2007 est.
86 Malawi -180 2007 est.
87 Haiti -184.8 2007 est.
88 Cape Verde -218 2007 est.
89 Guyana -229.7 2007 est.
90 Uganda -241 2007 est.
91 Armenia -275.1 2007 est.
92 Benin -278.8 2007 est.
93 Eritrea -343.1 2007 est.
94 Laos -355 2007 est.
95 Zimbabwe -409 2007 est.
96 Cambodia -410 2007 est.
97 Malta -411 2007 est.
98 Honduras -446 2007 est.
99 Fiji -465.8 2006 est.
100 Cameroon -501 2007 est.
101 Mauritius -552 2007 est.
102 Moldova -569 2007 est.
103 Ecuador -600 2007 est.
104 Kyrgyzstan -677.3 2007 est.
105 Burkina Faso -710 2007 est.
106 Mozambique -726 2007 est.
107 Cuba -750 2007 est.
108 Nicaragua -754 2007 est.
109 Panama -861 2007 est.
110 Albania -918 2007 est.
111 El Salvador -929 2007 est.
112 Tunisia -935 2007 est.
113 Kenya -980 2007 est.
114 Senegal -1,034 2007 est.
115 Sri Lanka -1,118 2007 est.
116 Madagascar -1,145 2007 est.
117 Vietnam -1,199 2007 est.
118 Cyprus -1,236 2007 est.
119 Costa Rica -1,259 2007 est.
120 Tanzania -1,422 2007 est.
122 Slovenia -1,429 2007 est.
123 Ghana -1,470 2007 est.
124 Jamaica -1,573 2007 est.
125 Georgia -1,582 2007 est.
126 Jordan -1,690 2007 est.
127 Guatemala -1,772 2007 est.
128 Ethiopia -1,851 2007 est.
129 Dominican Republic -1,993 2007 est.
130 Bosnia and Herzegovina -2,021 2007 est.
131 Syria -2,160 2007 est.
132 Serbia -2,451 2005 est.
133 Belarus -3,056 2007 est.
134 Estonia -3,092 2007 est.
135 Slovakia -3,119 2007 est.
136 Lebanon -3,337 2007 est.
137 Iceland -3,384 2007 est.
138 Croatia -3,836 2007 est.
139 Ukraine -3,890 2007 est.
140 Sudan -4,465 2007 est.
141 Kazakhstan -4,643 2007 est.
142 Colombia -5,132 2007 est.
143 Lithuania -5,320 2007 est.
144 Mexico -5,414 2007 est.
145 Czech Republic -5,701 2007 est.
146 Latvia -5,839 2007 est.
147 Pakistan -6,477 2007 est.
148 Hungary -6,681 2007 est.
149 Bulgaria -7,189 2007 est.
150 New Zealand -9,973 2007 est.
151 Ireland -12,600 2007 est.
152 South Africa -16,280 2007 est.
153 Poland -18,130 2007 est.
154 India -18,530 2007 est.
155 Portugal -18,530 2007 est.
156 Romania -20,950 2007 est.
157 France -35,940 2007 est.
158 Turkey -36,270 2007 est.
159 Greece -36,400 2007 est.
160 Australia -50,960 2007 est.
161 Italy -57,940 2007 est.
162 United Kingdom -111,000 2007 est.
163 Spain -126,300 2007 est.
164 United States -987,100 2007 est.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Technically they own you, you are in so much debt, that kind of attitude wont bring friends.Its not about friends. Its about the Supreme Court being outside of its jurisdiction. I don't see it as Un-Constitutional at all since our Constitution does not apply to foreigners. They can call it an illegal act based on another law, but not on our Constitution. That part bothers me.

-S
But it does apply to your citizens abroad having them in custody, so the loop hole is that you give them to someone else and oout of Guantanamo. Thats been done allready and what will happen, probably worse for them.
Have to add ive not lost any sleep thinking who is in Guantanamo, most probably deserve something worse. This is just good exsample that democracy and separation of powers works in the USA. Good for those to realise, that use more energy to critize USA, rather than pick one from the long list of murderous dictatorships. I am not aware of any cases of extraordinary rendition being practiced on US citizens. Not to say I agree with the practice; but that is what you are implying, right?

PD
No, i ment that Guantanamo being US base has to uphold the US constitution in its practises.
Understood.

PD

[SUBMAN1]

No, i ment that Guantanamo being US base has to uphold the US constitution in its practises.True, for its US Citizen detainees and it's soldiers. Foreigners need not apply.

-S

[Happy Times]

No, i ment that Guantanamo being US base has to uphold the US constitution in its practises.True, for its US Citizen detainees and it's soldiers. Foreigners need not apply.

-S

Your supreme court ruled otherwise, they voted for it, democracy at work.
I know, it sucks sometimes but options are far worse.

[Fish]

Last time I checked, the US Constitution was for Americans. Maybe the justices see the whole world as America. Seems to be so lately.

Time to start telling our lacky's like Germany what to do since we own them anyway.

-S

Technically they own you, you are in so much debt, that kind of attitude wont bring friends.

Your Dreaming :rotfl:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_current_account_balance

164 United States -987,100 2007 est.

188:know:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2187rank.html

[Ducimus]

Buy now, pay later. It's a concept i really hate.

[Skybird]

America's highest court has spoken, and although it was a split decision, it is a valid sentence and finally, after so long time of abuse, marks a first step of reason in an attemtp to find back to the road of legal principles to which also the united states have subscribed and which to defend and spread in the world they claim at every opportunity, since decades and almost two centuries. What one demands from others to follow, or wants them to convince of, one must practice oneself in order to set a convincing example. Also, I dare say that the court is in line with the majority opinion of the American people, and I even dare say: the vast majority of the american people. So now there must be consequences in form of changes and corrections to most obvious misgovernment and bad disgrace, wether the Submans of this world like it or not, and carry on to excuse the wrong or not. Instead of trying to convince those who won't be told anyway (which experience tells to be a totally wasted effort anyway), we better start thinking about the consequences that must be realised - despite these dyed-in-the-wool-"Americentrists". Succeeding in that, history will leave these people behind sooner or later. And that is good so.

but let's npot be mistaken that the cvourt has not discovered the holy grail, and so the news today is twosplit: I think Guantanamo has existed for the longest time. That is the good news, but I also think that activities like Guantanamo will be shifted and put away from the sights of the public and the world's awareness, and being carried on in the secrecy of black operations, the secret services, and in the realm of invisibility and lacking public awareness and lacking political countercontrol, and missing checks and balances. so I think that what will change is that a guantanamo that we knew off will be replaced with something we will not learn about, but serves the same purpose.

that's why I applaud the court's decision, but I am not getting enthusiastic. It most likely will cause a cosmetic face-lifting, and not more. Why do I think so? Because that is what I would do in their place if having their motivations.

[Skybird]

Buy now, pay later. It's a concept i really hate.
Oh yes, me too. If one apple costs one thaler, and I have three thaler, I can buy one, two or three apples - not more.

Basic math, first school class.

[Happy Times]

Buy now, pay later. It's a concept i really hate.

And if someone decides not to pay, moneys worth comes the same you wipe your behind with.:lol:

[Platapus]

Buy now, pay later. It's a concept i really hate.

I like the term "credit card conservative" which has been used to describe our current administration.

Spend spend spend, but pass on the pay pay pay on to a future generation(s). Hey grandkids can't vote yet so what's the concern?

As long as we can stand up and say that we did not raise taxes, everyone will think we are fiscal conservatives right :up:

[SUBMAN1]

Your supreme court ruled otherwise, they voted for it, democracy at work.
I know, it sucks sometimes but options are far worse.The Constitution upholds democracy, not the other way around as you describe.

-S

[The WosMan]

This has set a very dangerous precedent in so many ways. However, the Supreme Court is not the final say. The president could go back to congress and get another law passed.

As far as I am concerned there is no need to take prisoners anymore. Our military should just now shoot to kill any terrorist or enemy that surrenders on the battlefield.

[SUBMAN1]

This has set a very dangerous precedent in so many ways. However, the Supreme Court is not the final say. The president could go back to congress and get another law passed.

As far as I am concerned there is no need to take prisoners anymore. Our military should just now shoot to kill any terrorist or enemy that surrenders on the battlefield.Exactly. That way the demo's will opt for going back to Guantanamo instead of outright killing them.

-S

[Ducimus]

If this is truly a constitutional issue, then i have only one thought.
Integrity.

Its a concept that i think moral crusaders everywhere can grasp. In simple human terms:

I will not lie, cheat, steal, commit any act of intentional dishonesty or tolerate those who do.

Integrity in my mind is paramount. If you screw up, make a mistake, or do something wrong, you should admit to it, even if it hurts. Better that then quibble and errode your person. At the end of the day, a man is only as good as his word. If you don't have that, you have nothing.

In summary, If we fail to adhere to the principles on which our nation is founded, our nation becomes nothing but a lie. I might add that George W bush, did infact, say, "Stop throwing the constitution in my face, it's just a god damn piece of paper".

There is NO excuse for ANY president to say that in ANY context. It's my opinion that any president who says that, should be immediatly removed from office. It shows willful disregard for the framework and foundation of our country, and willingness to tap dance around our laws to get what he wants, the very action of which is a willful display of how he lacks integrity.

( Im a big fan of integrity in case you haven't noticed. :rotfl: )

Having said that, i also realize that according the ahh... "combatants" the same rights we have, is a really, Really, REALLY, hard pill to swallow. I can't say i like it much.

[August]

( Im a big fan of integrity in case you haven't noticed.

If that's so then why are you squandering it on this?

This information comes from three West Wing sources who say a fourth White House employee in the meeting told them the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper." That employee refused to return my phone calls but this kind of behavior is consistent with Bush's record on ignoring the Constitution when it suits his political purpose.

[nikimcbee]

So, when we capture one of them, do we need to read them the miranda rights?:shifty:
I think all 3 branches of our gov't are out of control. Time to hit ctrl-alt-del. Term limit all of them.:up:

[Platapus]

ts" the same rights we have, is a really, Really, REALLY, hard pill to swallow. I can't say i like it much.

One of the tests of a democracy is whether we are willing (not forced) to recognize rights of those we intensely dislike.

[mrbeast]

As far as I am concerned there is no need to take prisoners anymore. Our military should just now shoot to kill any terrorist or enemy that surrenders on the battlefield.

So what separates you from the enemy? :nope:

[Tchocky]

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who voted against the ruling, warned that "it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving in a civilian court ... that evidence supports the confinement of each and every prisoner".

heaven forfend.

[PeriscopeDepth]

I actually kind of agree with Wosman.

Which do you guys think is more effective against suspected insurgents?:

In Iraq, it has been common practice to round up the entire male population of a village that is suspected of harboring an insurgent. They would first cordon off the village. Then break down the front door of each house and humiliate the man in front of his family. Then they would ship them off to a military prison in Iraq where they would likely remain for quite a while until someone got around to talking to them. My source for this is Thomas Rick's _Fiasco_.

In post WWII Germany, there was a brief period of insurgency by the group known as the Werewolves. They were involved in beheading people by using wires strung across roads, snipings, and poisonings. When the US Army suspected a village was harboring one of these people, they would arrive at the village and line up the three most likely suspects. Then they would ask if the villagers had any suggestions. Then they would kill them and leave.

I think that Guantanamo type camps (they exist in Iraq as well) are one of the dumbest things we could be doing on so many levels.

PD

[PeriscopeDepth]

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who voted against the ruling, warned that "it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving in a civilian court ... that evidence supports the confinement of each and every prisoner".
heaven forfend.
I hate to say it, but I agree with Scalia's take on this one. We have zero actionable intelligence for the most part to begin with on terrorists. And the military are not cops, nor are they trained to be, nor is in their psychology. They _are_ the executioner.

PD

[Tchocky]

I can see that the military are not a subtle instrument, or an investigative one, but if any arm of any nation is going to detain foreign nationals without trial or challenge for 7 years, the burden of proof is definitely on them. Not necessarily the military, though.

Response from Chez McCain - http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/06/mccain_slams_the_supreme_court.html

"The United States Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country,"

[August]

I actually kind of agree with Wosman.

Not me. An enemy that knows he will be executed if he tries to surrender will make every fight a fight to the death, and that translates into way more friendly casualties. I see no reason to make our soldiers job tougher than it already is.

[PeriscopeDepth]

I actually kind of agree with Wosman.
Not me. An enemy that knows he will be executed if he tries to surrender will make every fight a fight to the death, and that translates into way more friendly casualties. I see no reason to make our soldiers job tougher than it already is.
Isn't that kind of the idea for them? Virgins and all? I would be interested in knowing how many insurgents in Iraq/Afghanistan surrender.

PD

[The WosMan]

Look the fact of the matter is writ of Habeas corpus (Supension Clause Article 1 Sec 9) of the Constitution is specifically enumerated to be between the American people and the federal government for the purpose of protecting Americans from random arrest and imprisonment. Therefore it is not extended to aliens outside the USA, especially a flagless, no-nation enemy that we are at war with.

In the past the SCOTUS has denied habeas corpus many times to foreign enemies. We did it to the nazi's a number of times. In fact in one case a justice said the following:

instance where a court, in this or any other country where the writ is known, has issued it on behalf of an alien enemy who, at no relevant time and in no stage of his captivity, has been within its territorial jurisdiction. Nothing in the text of the Constitution extends such a right, nor does anything in our statutes.


This quote clearly sets binding precedent. Also, the court's recent ruling ignores the fact that Guantanamo Bay is not within the judical authority of our court system because it is not a sovereign American territory. Habeas corpus only extends to where federal courts have jurisdiction.

There are already liberal judges out there that claim that these terrorist scum can march right in and demand constitutional rights. They will be encouraged to make things up as they go. Maybe they will want access to classified military information. They may subpoena our soldiers right out of the battle field. These troops who were fighting a war, in the heat of battle, and made decisions based on these circumstances will now have to give testimony and be cross-examined by lawyers as to why they did what they did:

"Did you read the enemy their Miranda Rights?"
"Well because of this stupid ruling, yes I did sir."
"Ahh, but the defendant doesn't speak english and you had no arabic translator so therefore my clients rights were violated."

There could be some terrorist bomb about to go off and we need to question these terrorists but now they can demand access to a lawyer which would stop all questioning and also the discovery of any lifesaving intelligence. Full trials with the presumption of innocence and all other rights guaranteed to an American citizen will given to terrorists who were captured in the battlefield already fighting against us where guilt by association has already been established? I can imagine the lawyers out their licking their chops over the money they can make suing the federal government and the military and cashing in those big settlements.

Right now if I was President Bush I would take a page out of the book of Abraham Lincoln whom is considered to be one of our nations greatest Presidents. During the civil war Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and had people like these five justices and anyone else that would compromise the war thrown in jail for sedition. This is exactly what should be done in this case and the president should ignore this ruling. The SCOTUS has no business making itself the commander in chief of the US military and this ruling does just that. It takes away the Presidents ability to wage war against the enemy. If anyone has violated our Constitution it is the Supreme Court.

[Platapus]

Look the fact of the matter is writ of Habeas corpus (Supension Clause Article 1 Sec 9) of the Constitution is specifically enumerated to be between the American people and the federal government for the purpose of protecting Americans from random arrest and imprisonment. Therefore it is not extended to aliens outside the USA, especially a flagless, no-nation enemy that we are at war with. [QUOTE}

I am not seeing anywhere in Article 1 Section 9 where it states that any limitations to only citizens. Could you point out the exact phrase you are using to support your argument?

[QUOTE=The WosMan]This quote clearly sets binding precedent.

It may have set a precedent but even if it does, the Supreme Court is not obligated to follow it if they deem the situation appropriate. Precedents are not universally binding.

As whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction, I would like to refer to Article Three, Section Section 2 of the Constitution which is quoted below

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

I believe this section gives the Supreme Court authority to judge over this issue.

[Tchocky]

Update - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7470405.stm
In the first ruling of its kind, a US court has overturned the designation of an inmate at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp as an "enemy combatant".
This one was going to happen sooner or later, what happens with more problematic inmates remains to be seen.

Mr Parhat is one of 17 Uighurs still being held at Guantanamo, even though the US authorities acknowledge that they pose no threat.


On the advice of some readers I picked up Jack Weatherford's Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World (http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FGenghis-Khan-Making-Modern-World%2Fdp%2F0609610627&tag=matthygles-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325) where I learned that Genghis Khan banned torture in his empire.
So, yes, under George W. Bush the United States of America is regressing to an understanding of humane treatment of people that doesn't reflect the enlightened views of Genghis Khan. That's your feel-good thought of the day.

[August]

On the advice of some readers I picked up Jack Weatherford's Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World (http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FGenghis-Khan-Making-Modern-World%2Fdp%2F0609610627&tag=matthygles-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325) where I learned that Genghis Khan banned torture in his empire.
So, yes, under George W. Bush the United States of America is regressing to an understanding of humane treatment of people that doesn't reflect the enlightened views of Genghis Khan. That's your feel-good thought of the day.
So do you and this Matthew guy think we ought to adopt old Khans hostile city pacification program where if they resisted his demand for surrender the city is sacked, razed and it's population put to the sword, or do you figure that what we call torture these days Ghengis would call just kidding around? :p

[Wolfehunter]

No, i ment that Guantanamo being US base has to uphold the US constitution in its practises.True, for its US Citizen detainees and it's soldiers. Foreigners need not apply.

-SI believe its about the US Citizens being detained and not Foreigners. They have international law for the foreigners but I could be wrong.:hmm:

[Zachstar]

No, i ment that Guantanamo being US base has to uphold the US constitution in its practises.True, for its US Citizen detainees and it's soldiers. Foreigners need not apply.

-S

The supreme court ruled otherwise. What the supreme court says goes. Unless congress tries something else of course.

You can have an opinion on the matter but you need to stop making it sound like fact.

[nikimcbee]

On the advice of some readers I picked up Jack Weatherford's Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World (http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FGenghis-Khan-Making-Modern-World%2Fdp%2F0609610627&tag=matthygles-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325) where I learned that Genghis Khan banned torture in his empire.
So, yes, under George W. Bush the United States of America is regressing to an understanding of humane treatment of people that doesn't reflect the enlightened views of Genghis Khan. That's your feel-good thought of the day.
So do you and this Matthew guy think we ought to adopt old Khans hostile city pacification program where if they resisted his demand for surrender the city is sacked, razed and it's population put to the sword, or do you figure that what we call torture these days Ghengis would call just kidding around? :p

now there's an idea:hmm:

[mookiemookie]

Look the fact of the matter is writ of Habeas corpus (Supension Clause Article 1 Sec 9) of the Constitution is specifically enumerated to be between the American people and the federal government for the purpose of protecting Americans from random arrest and imprisonment.

Note that the Constitution does not GRANT the right of Habeas Corpus, it only states the situations in which it can be taken away. This is important, as the right of Habeas Corpus is a right that ALL people automatically have and don't need to be specifically granted, and have had since the days of the Magna Carta.

[Stealth Hunter]

Or in Bush's interpretation: the constitution is nothing else but an UFO. Questionable that it even exists.

He and Cheney demand crowns be placed upon their royal heads.:roll:

All hail the King Bush and Vice-King Cheney.:rotfl: :roll: