So who doesn't have a right to a hearing in a US court according to the new ruling?
and conducting attacks against Americans.
I think the swiftest solution would be to simply summarily execute them since they are enemy combatants not in uniform and conducting attacks against Americans. Do not bring them back to anything which could be considered US soil. Do it in the field.
the new ruling fixes the injustice that many on the right seemed to support- they are all now entitled to a hearing. We don't have King George the Second. We have a president.
Agreeing or disagreeing with the "rightness" of a course of action is besides the point when it comes to SCOTUS decisions. Morality and "Rightness" should have absolutely nothing to do with their decision.
No. Guam is an American Territory. It is part of the US and the Constitution applies. The same for Puerto Rico, and the (US) Virgin Islands. What the "shoot 'em all and let God sort them out" crowd seem to be blissfully unaware of is that Gitmo is a defacto Extra Territorial Enclave. The laws of Cuba do not apply at Gitmo. The Laws of the US do. All of them.So if a person is held in a prison that is not in the actual United States, it is beyond SCOTUS jurisdiction? Gitmo isn't the only place. What about Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and others? If a prison is built there, do the people there have no Constitutional rights?
And yet Scalia can't help but try and spin the decision.
Exactly. It also seems as if many here wish to ignore the fact that the majority of the detainees at Gitmo were not captured in combat, and were not citizens of any hostile country.The laws of Cuba do not apply at Gitmo. The Laws of the US do. All of them.
So if a person is held in a prison that is not in the actual United States, it is beyond SCOTUS jurisdiction? Gitmo isn't the only place. What about Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and others? If a prison is built there, do the people there have no Constitutional rights?
but how do you know that they are not US citizens if they are not allowed to have a hearing?
That is the problem I have with your position- many of the detainees in American custody have done nothing to any American. No one is suggesting that we automatically turn them loose- just give them a fair trial and, assuming they are found to be terrorists, then you lock them up.
Are you implying that we have released nearly 400 illegal enemy combatants?
Exactly. It also seems as if many here wish to ignore the fact that the majority of the detainees at Gitmo were not captured in combat, and were not citizens of any hostile country.
Interpreting the AUMF, the Department of Defense
ordered the detention of these petitioners, and they were
transferred to Guantanamo. Some of these individuals
were apprehended on the battlefield in Afghanistan, others
in places as far away from there as Bosnia and Gambia. (note: no combat going on there DM)
All are foreign nationals, but none is a citizen of a
nation now at war with the United States. Each denies he
is a member of the al Qaeda terrorist network that carried
out the September 11 attacks or of the Taliban regime
that provided sanctuary for al Qaeda. Each petitioner
appeared before a separate CSRT; was determined to be
an enemy combatant; and has sought a writ of habeas
corpus in the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia.
Are you implying that they are all innocent bystanders being at the wrong place at the wrong time?
Well stated.divemedic said:That all depends on whether or not you really believe in the Constitution, or merely use it to further your own goals. All men are born with certain rights, rights that they have merely by being born. The Constitution does not grant these rights, it is merely there to protect them and to define them.
If you believe this, then a person has Constitutional rights, even though he may be a combatant against us.
That is the theoretical view. From a practical view, the President is not our king. Do you really want to grant that kind of power to the President? The power to declare anyone to be an "enemy combatant" without even so much as a right to a trial?
If you do, does that mean that you have set the stage for some future president to declare all gun owners to be "enemy combatants"? Or perhaps declare anyone who wishes to vote for anyone except him to be a combatant?
This ruling was spot on, as far as I am concerned.
Not sure about whether the Supreme Court should have ruled in this but I do have to say that I do think that everyone detained by our Government anywhere in the world either needs to be charged with a crime or released in some reasonable amount of time. In the case of enemy combatants that might be a longer time than normal but 6 years cannot be considered reasonable by anyone, except our "wanna be king" George.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said the administration's legal analysis on detainees and interrogations following the the Sept. 11 attacks will "go down in history as some of the most irresponsible and shortsighted legal analysis ever provided to our nation's military and intelligence communities."
In a declared war with an enemy leadership which can negotiate and effectively end hostilities the normal rules for POWs apply. In this conflict that will never happen. It is up to the executive to determine how to deal with them and the legislature to legislate rules should they decide to get off their duffs. I believe if they are caught conducting or aiding in acts of terror and insurgency they should be shot; you gotta give the guys on the ground some ability to make decisions. If they are caught for suspicion or such then a system with some form of oversight needs to be implemented. Certainly it should not be the full US Justice system. Sadly the administration's failure to do so properly on their own and the legislatures failure to act as it was supposed to resulted in another case of the SCOTUS assuming a power it was never meant to have...