SCOTUS Grants Guantanamo Prisoners Habeas Corpus

[Flint]

Originally Posted by flaja

I’ve seen it claimed on the internet that...

ha ha ha that's classic ... best argument ever

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by flaja

The Constitution makes no distinction between a citizen of the United States and all other persons.

I believe it does.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

No where does it say we the people of the United States establish this Constitution for all people of the world under any conditon.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by deadbeater

Sigh. 'Unlawful combatant' status override diplomatic immunity. The way the Bush administration had it, once you are declared an unlawful combatant, no diplomatic immunity, no US citizenship, nor right to habeas corpus can save you. The SC at least granted a hearing regarding habeas corpus.

Although I am not sure I ever agreed with it I can see why they did it at the time and there was some value in using the term Unlawful Combatant in a legal sense. If you look at the Law of Land Warefare there is a bit about uniformed organized armies and others. We encountered something all together different.

[headsplice]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Like O.J.

But not R. Kelly!

[headsplice]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

We encountered something all together different.

True. However, just because there are new types of combatants, doesn't mean we get to ignore the law. Why not come up with workable definitions that didn't come skirt legal lines? Or, for that matter, that we some built-in checks and balances (like, you know, the REST of the goverment) to make sure that even if we were detaining really bad people, that we were sure they were, in fact, really bad people. I don't think anyone really wants the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks running around Washington D.C. However, we imprisoned people from Afghanistan that were working on our side and were ratted out as 'terrorists.'
Is that too much to ask to make sure that we've got the right people?

[flaja]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I disagree. Singapore is an Islamic country but they do not display a great deal of anti-American sentiment.

Get your facts straight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore
Singapore is not an Islamic country. 51% of the population is Buddhist or Taoist. Only 13.9% is Islamic.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by Flint

ha ha ha that's classic ... best argument ever

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...163d4f25c7&p=8

Would you believe The New Republic?

“…Wright was a former Muslim and black nationalist…”

[Flint]

I've seen it claimed on the internet that my bananaphone is cellular, modular, interactive-oldular.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I believe it does.

"We the people of the United States,

Did we the people include women people who could not vote in America until 1920? Or did this country routinely fine, jail and execute women without giving them their due process rights? Women had no role in preparing the Constitution and thus could not be construed as being any part of “We the People”, but women still had the same legal due process rights that citizens of the United States enjoyed.

So what makes you so certain that the Persons to which the 5th Amendment is applicable is limited to U.S. citizens?

[flaja]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Although I am not sure I ever agreed with it I can see why they did it at the time and there was some value in using the term Unlawful Combatant in a legal sense. If you look at the Law of Land Warefare there is a bit about uniformed organized armies and others. We encountered something all together different.

What were the Americans that fought the British during the Revolutionary War? What status did they have under international law at the time?

Not every American soldier had a uniform- and I doubt that any of the crewmen that manned privateers to fight the British Navy and merchant marine had uniforms. The Americans who fought at Lexington and Concord did not have the sanction of any national government- and were they all legal members of a legally-organized militia force or were they just unlawful combatants?

[flaja]

Originally Posted by headsplice

True. However, just because there are new types of combatants, doesn't mean we get to ignore the law. Why not come up with workable definitions that didn't come skirt legal lines? Or, for that matter, that we some built-in checks and balances (like, you know, the REST of the goverment) to make sure that even if we were detaining really bad people, that we were sure they were, in fact, really bad people. I don't think anyone really wants the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks running around Washington D.C. However, we imprisoned people from Afghanistan that were working on our side and were ratted out as 'terrorists.'
Is that too much to ask to make sure that we've got the right people?

If terms like unlawful combatant can be defined by the people in power at the moment for the sake of their own convenience, what happens if a president someday decides to classify people as unlawful combatants simply because they picket the White House or do something like going to church?

As soon as our political leaders decide that they are above the law, the law will cease to protect all of us. You may not be on the great leader’s enemy list today, but what about tomorrow?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by flaja

Did we the people include women people who could not vote in America until 1920? Or did this country routinely fine, jail and execute women without giving them their due process rights? Women had no role in preparing the Constitution and thus could not be construed as being any part of “We the People”, but women still had the same legal due process rights that citizens of the United States enjoyed.

So what makes you so certain that the Persons to which the 5th Amendment is applicable is limited to U.S. citizens?

It is obvious things have morphed since the beginning, no doubt. The situation was the same for blacks and American Indians. But the Constitution was never intended to address people not in the US.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by flaja

What were the Americans that fought the British during the Revolutionary War? What status did they have under international law at the time?

Not every American soldier had a uniform- and I doubt that any of the crewmen that manned privateers to fight the British Navy and merchant marine had uniforms. The Americans who fought at Lexington and Concord did not have the sanction of any national government- and were they all legal members of a legally-organized militia force or were they just unlawful combatants?

I'm sorry but I don't buy your examples from 200 years ago. Much has changed as a direct result of each successive conflict, esp in the 20th Century. What happened at Lexington and Concord is interesting but not as relevant. L&C was in April of 1775 and the Constitution was written in its final form in Sept of 1787, 12 years later. The Constitution is a living breathing document. We have been through this with another poster on here and if you are going to assume a dogmatic position and not take into account any of the changes over the past 200 years then we can't continue to debate the merits of any decision made or event that has occured since.

[DanaC]

Get your facts straight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore
Singapore is not an Islamic country. 51% of the population is Buddhist or Taoist. Only 13.9% is Islamic.

You are right lol. I meant Indonesia *rolls eyes*.

[glatt]

Funny thing is that when I read your post, I thought "Indonesia" not "Singapore." I guess I was trying to understand you.