Supreme court squashes Bush's Guantanamo policy

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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]

Originally Posted by Happy Times

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

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

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.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by Happy Times

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

Understood.

PD

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by 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

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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.

[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.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Happy Times

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.

[Wolfehunter]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

True, for its US Citizen detainees and it's soldiers. Foreigners need not apply.

-S

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:

[Zachstar]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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.