Drug Wars tooooo close to home!

[Aliantha]

Yes that seems to be the case.

The thing I find difficult to get my head around is the fact that so many people tout the constitution and violations of it, and yet it really doesn't seem that much of it is really guaranteed because it might depend on how an individual judge feels about an individual case.

Even such things as guaranteed rights aren't always awarded. See gitmo as an example. Many of those prisoners were taken from other countries, deposited in a US jail and have never been given the right to a 'speedy trial' in order to prove their innocence if possible. I understand that people will argue that some of them are prisoners of war etc, but from an outsiders point of view, it still seems a very hypocritical situation.

eta: of course, the onus really is on the court to prove guilt rather than the prisoner needing to prove their innocence, but that doesn't seem to be the case in gitmo either.

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Yes that seems to be the case.

The thing I find difficult to get my head around is the fact that so many people tout the constitution and violations of it, and yet it really doesn't seem that much of it is really guaranteed because it might depend on how an individual judge feels about an individual case.

The Supreme Court relies heavily on precedent which limits the interpretation of any one justice.

Even such things as guaranteed rights aren't always awarded. See gitmo as an example. Many of those prisoners were taken from other countries, deposited in a US jail and have never been given the right to a 'speedy trial' in order to prove their innocence if possible. I understand that people will argue that some of them are prisoners of war etc, but from an outsiders point of view, it still seems a very hypocritical situation.

It took the Supreme Court awhile, but it did affirm the prisoners at Gitmo do have constitutional rights, albeit limited because of their status as prisoners of war.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

The Supreme Court relies heavily on precedent which limits the interpretation of any one justice.


It took the Supreme Court awhile, but it did affirm the prisoners at Gitmo do have constitutional rights, albeit limited because of their status as prisoners of war.

Nor does it make Enemy Combatants in Gitmo "Citzens" who have all the Rights afforded under our Constitution. That is not what the Supreme Court said. Nice try....

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Nor does it make Enemy Combatants in Gitmo "Citzens" who have all the Rights afforded under our Constitution. That is not what the Supreme Court said. Nice try....

Again, I never said that prisoners in Gitmo have the same rights as citizens.

I said the Court affirmed that they have some basic rights of "the people", including habeus corpus.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Again, I never said that prisoners in Gitmo have the same rights as citizens.

I said the Court affirmed that they have some basic rights of "the people", including habeus corpus.

They have "limited" Rights, nothing more nothing less. I would agree they should just close Gitmo. But Obama has failed to follow through on this promise.