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

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:

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.

[QUOTE=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. [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?

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.

Update - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7470405.stm
This one was going to happen sooner or later, what happens with more problematic inmates remains to be seen.

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

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

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.

now there's an idea:hmm:

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.

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

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