SCOTUS Finally settles the Guantanamo Bay Argument
- Thread starter applesanity
- Start date
toybox99615
New member
US Military Base
if a base in Panama is US soil for the purpose of a presidential candidates right to run for office why is any US base not US soil for other purposes?
if a base in Panama is US soil for the purpose of a presidential candidates right to run for office why is any US base not US soil for other purposes?
So who doesn't have a right to a hearing in a US court according to the new ruling?
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.
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.
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.
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. Their decision should be based on the law and the COTUS. It is actually the easiest of the three branches of gov't because you need only implement what has been legislated and make certain it is not contradictory. There is no time whatsoever when a SCOTUS justice should be using his "feelings" on a matter to make a judgment.
If people do not like the course of action with GITMO and detainees then force change through your legislators. I thought those DEM hacks got into office two years ago by promising to stop the war yet their feet of clay are showing when it came to cutting off funding. They can always prepare legislation on how such detainees are to be treated.
As far as simply executing them... Enemy combatants who are out of uniform and acting against us are spies and saboteurs. We can just kill them and I do not have much of a problem with it. What treatment do our troops expect should they be captured by the enemy in Iraq or Afghanistan?
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.
I will have to read all of his dissent but I know this...
Scalia's written decisions and dissents tend to be "spun" by both sides far more than he applies any spin himself. He normally is pretty constructionist. 80% of the time that pisses off the Democrats. 20% of the times it pisses off the Republicans. Neither side, Dem nor Rep, is really interested in decisions always based on the COTUS. They are far more interested in decisions that support their position which may or may not have anything to do with the COTUS.
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.
Like I said, waiting until President Obama starts using all of these nifty new powers that GW has left for him. Then we will hear a different song from the Republicans.
Shane Tuttle
Staff
Quoted by divemedic:
I don't think the place where the detainee being held necessarily provides him/her the same due process as an American citizen. I think this is one of the common debates here.
I don't have a problem allowing detainees to have a hearing. I have a problem them having a trial in our court system.
I don't think you nor I have proof of your statement. They were captured for a reason. Why, I don't know. I guess I take the leap of faith in our military to handle situations like this during wartime and I butt out.
Quoted by SecDef:
Are you implying that they are all innocent bystanders being at the wrong place at the wrong time?
Quoted by divemedic:
Do you have proof? Whether there's solid evidence or not, I do admit to giving our military the benefit of the doubt of the purpose of keeping the reasons of the detainees over all this time.
I don't think the place where the detainee being held necessarily provides him/her the same due process as an American citizen. I think this is one of the common debates here.
I don't have a problem allowing detainees to have a hearing. I have a problem them having a trial in our court system.
I don't think you nor I have proof of your statement. They were captured for a reason. Why, I don't know. I guess I take the leap of faith in our military to handle situations like this during wartime and I butt out.
Quoted by SecDef:
Are you implying that they are all innocent bystanders being at the wrong place at the wrong time?
Quoted by divemedic:
Do you have proof? Whether there's solid evidence or not, I do admit to giving our military the benefit of the doubt of the purpose of keeping the reasons of the detainees over all this time.
For example, from the decision, found here.
Black’s Law Dictionary 728 (8th ed. 2004) defines habeas corpus as a writ employed to bring a person before a court, most frequently to ensure that the party’s imprisonment or detention is not illegal.
That's it- habeas does not mean that a person is entitled to a trial- it just means that the person has a right to ensure that his or her detention is legal. I just can't see how anyone can have a problem with that. After all, the last thing you want is to give someone like the author of McCain Feingold, or like Obama, the power to toss people in prison without so much as a question being asked as to why.
Black’s Law Dictionary 728 (8th ed. 2004) defines habeas corpus as a writ employed to bring a person before a court, most frequently to ensure that the party’s imprisonment or detention is not illegal.
That's it- habeas does not mean that a person is entitled to a trial- it just means that the person has a right to ensure that his or her detention is legal. I just can't see how anyone can have a problem with that. After all, the last thing you want is to give someone like the author of McCain Feingold, or like Obama, the power to toss people in prison without so much as a question being asked as to why.
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.
I assume the Court ruling applies only to detainees at Gitmo, not all the other sites, both known and secret, all over the world where our government is holding prisoners without charge. Just today I found an article about this issue, a few snips are below. The last line about sums up the situation: people are being "disappeared", courtesy of the US government. Sad, and contrary to what I thought (naively) our country stood for.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/17/usa.humanrights
"...The CIA appears to have overseen or controlled, and in some cases appears still to be running, black sites in Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Macedonia, Kosovo, Morocco, Libya, Egypt, Djibouti, Somalia, Ethiopia, Iraq, Jordan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Thailand and, possibly, Diego Garcia. The US appears to be using ships as secret prisons. In just two years the CIA ran 283 flights - which the Council of Europe believes were used for transporting secret prisoners - out of Germany alone...In Iraq, the US now admits to holding 22,000 prisoners without charge in its own facilities, some of whom are known to be kept away from the Red Cross and other visitors...Never mind detention without trial; this is detention without acknowledgement. When men and women disappear into this system, neither they nor their families know where they are. The Red Cross cannot reach them; they are beyond the scope of the law. They have been disappeared in the Latin American sense of that word."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/17/usa.humanrights
"...The CIA appears to have overseen or controlled, and in some cases appears still to be running, black sites in Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Macedonia, Kosovo, Morocco, Libya, Egypt, Djibouti, Somalia, Ethiopia, Iraq, Jordan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Thailand and, possibly, Diego Garcia. The US appears to be using ships as secret prisons. In just two years the CIA ran 283 flights - which the Council of Europe believes were used for transporting secret prisoners - out of Germany alone...In Iraq, the US now admits to holding 22,000 prisoners without charge in its own facilities, some of whom are known to be kept away from the Red Cross and other visitors...Never mind detention without trial; this is detention without acknowledgement. When men and women disappear into this system, neither they nor their families know where they are. The Red Cross cannot reach them; they are beyond the scope of the law. They have been disappeared in the Latin American sense of that word."
Well stated.divemedic said:
Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of "conservatives" nowadays don't want to conserve the very principles that define their country, one of which you basically paraphrased and I put in bold above. The inalienable rights that our Declaration says ALL men possess don't depend on where someone is standing on earth; it's just a matter of whether governments are going to respect them.
I fail to see the harm in giving any prisoner legal protections that are designed to avoid punishing the innocent. Why should it be considered less important to avoid punishing an innocent foreigner than an innocent American? Do foreigners not have the same God-given or natural inalienable rights as Americans?
Incidentally, I seem to remember a banner hanging at Guantanamo that proudly proclaimed, Honor Bound To Defend Freedom. I don't think I've ever seen anything more Orwellian in my life. Or maybe the sign is referring to the freedom of the US government to do as it pleases to whomever it wants?
I do think the SCOTUS overstepped its bounds and think the constant references to "King George" are fairly childish because it completely misrepresents the motivation for the (unwarranted I believe) expansion of powers we have seen gov't assume in the last 7 years.
That aside, I agree with you. 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...
It seems some justices think their robes conceal a cape and tights which gives them the job to right all social wrongs. That was never meant to be the case but when you have an unaccountable judiciary and two other branches not doing their jobs right why should you expect the third to be any better?
That is where I disagree here. Just because a situation has not been addressed by the Legislature or Executive to the populace's satisfaction does not mean the SCOTUS gets defacto jurisdiction over it.
I see this as entirely outside the court's jurisdiction. Should a law be passed that violates the COTUS and the executive branch enforces it then the SCOTUS can strike it down.
Hey, I do think it reprehensible that the Legislative branch did squat on this. I am also displeased with the Executive who, if they had at some point set up some sort of procedures with visibility to the public would have averted this whole mess. That though does not give 9 men and women from the Judiciary the right to run into a phone booth, put on their Super Justice Costumes and try to save the day. At some point you need to let the workings of the Representational Democracy grind forward.
I see this as entirely outside the court's jurisdiction. Should a law be passed that violates the COTUS and the executive branch enforces it then the SCOTUS can strike it down.
Hey, I do think it reprehensible that the Legislative branch did squat on this. I am also displeased with the Executive who, if they had at some point set up some sort of procedures with visibility to the public would have averted this whole mess. That though does not give 9 men and women from the Judiciary the right to run into a phone booth, put on their Super Justice Costumes and try to save the day. At some point you need to let the workings of the Representational Democracy grind forward.