Guantanamo bay

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by elijah
KrazyHorse: IIRC, Guantanamo bay is US soil, and certainly US military soil, thus it still applies.

It is not US soil. It is Cuban soil currently occupied by the US military on an indefinite (?) lease signed in 1902 (?) by the newly-independent Cuban government after the Spanish-American war.

[Kirnwaffen]

Sorry Skywalker, but your quote is out of context, and can only be misinterpreted in the fashion that you have chosen if you replace 'is' with 'as', and even then, it doesn't make sense. Furthermore:

In every such case, the act of Congress, or the treaty, is supreme; and the law of the State, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it.'' 5

[Whaleboy]

awww!!! I wanna get Fezzed!!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

I believe none of my statements were incorrect. Where does the constitution say it applies to non-citizens?

Where does it say it doesn't? It doesn't state (IIRC) explicitly either way, but is worded in such a way that most of the rights enumerated by it (and all of the ones relating to rights of the accused) are accorded to noncitizens as well. I'm sure Imran can tell you which decisions of the SCOTUS defend this.

Why would it apply to noncitizens? I understand it applying to residents, but foreign nationals?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by elijah


IIRC its the same status as national embassies, which, according to the simpsons, is US soil.

It does not have the same status. It is on a lease. Embassies were granted (in the 1970s, I think) status as sovereign territory of the home country.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
Sorry Skywalker, but your quote is out of context, and can only be misinterpreted in the fashion that you have chosen if you replace 'is' with 'as', and even then, it doesn't make sense. Furthermore:

In every such case, the act of Congress, or the treaty, is supreme; and the law of the State, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it.'' 5

"the act of Congress, or the treaty, is supreme"

Thus the treaty isn't supreme over the act of Congress - it is at the same leve.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


It does not have the same status. It is on a lease. Embassies were granted (in the 1970s, I think) status as sovereign territory of the home country.

I thought this was a really old tradition?

[Whaleboy]

I dont know, I was assuming it was US soil. If not, then it is most likely legal under the US constitution, which is a sad indictment on that document. Still my argument is philosophical and not necessarily legal and still stands. In that sense, its the sort of thing not unlike the concentration camps during the Boer War, only with even less freedom (but more food though ).

[Kirnwaffen]

"the act of Congress, or the treaty, is supreme"

Thus the treaty isn't supreme over the act of Congress - it is at the same leve.

I didn't say it was. You need to pay more attention to the crafting of your argument, because that is not the interpretation you argued for.

[Kuciwalker]

If we're arguing philisophically, we might as well start a new thread. This one is so replete with legal junk and at least three or four threads of conversation that it's impossible to read

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by skywalker


Why would it apply to noncitizens? I understand it applying to residents, but foreign nationals?

Foreign nationals who visit the US are protected by it. If I visit New York and am accused of committing a robbery then I have the same right to a lawyer etc. as you do.

In addition I have the treaty right to see a representative of my government on demand.

The same is true were you to visit Toronto and be arrested.

EDIT: changed "representative of government" to read "representative of my government"

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen


I didn't say it was. You need to pay more attention to the crafting of your argument, because that is not the interpretation you argued for.

huh? I'm saying that it isn't unconstitutional for the federal government to ignore treaties.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Foreign nationals who visit the US are protected by it.

Why? You keep telling me that it's true. Tell me why.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by skywalker


I thought this was a really old tradition?

I used to think that (and embassies always had a bit of a special status), but AFAIK it was only enumerated by an international treaty in the 70s

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by elijah

But they must prove that they are unlawful combatants, and then try them for the crimes committed while under that status. So far, the US has done neither, except spuriously claim the former to be true.

My dear sir, you are quite full of ****e on this subject. There is no standard regarding "proof" of unlawful combatant status at all - the only requirement, is that a military tribunal, of unspecified form or composition, must determine the status of each individual.

Once an individual is determined to be an unlawful combatant, they essentially have no rights. Read the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

If you don't fit into those categories (the Gitmo *******s don't fall under 4A1, 3, 4, 5 or 6, and they fail to satisfy at least two of the four (in some cases, three or all four) of the criteria needed to meet 4A2.

Their status as not falling under the GC was determined before they were ever shipped, and it has been reviewed subsquently, so that a handful who were misidentified or misclassified were repatriated early on. IIRC, that was four individuals or so, out of a little under 1,000 sent to Gitmo, out of some 15,000-20,000 total prisoners processed.

Prove it! Theres no evidence of that, certainly none that will stand up in a court of law.

Prisoners of war have no legal rights to courts of law, why should unlawful combatants?

Lets not forget that these people are human first, possibly terrorists later.

Let's not forget that these *******s weren't entitled to more than a quick bullet in the head, yet we're releasing some as we deem them no longer a thread, and may get around to trying and sentencing a small minority.

I disagree with the US and sympathise with the Arabs, does that make me a terrorist?

If you get caught with weapons in someplace like Iraq or Afghanistan, without distinguising markings, ignoring the laws and customs of war, and hanging out with like-minded, similarly armed folks, yes. And in that hypothetical, if you didn't end up dead on the spot, anything that happened subsequently is pretty much a bonus, so don't *****.

So not only have they failed to show that they are unlawful combatants, they have failed to show they are Al Qaeda members, and they have failed to show they are guilty of supposed crimes for which they are incarcerated now!!

Believe it or not, honeybuns, but international law does not require that the United States of America put on a show for you personally, or for every other little whiner out there who thinks you're entitled to proof. Unless you personally are a contracting party to any relevant international agreement?

The first two were determined in a manner that meets the standards required of the Geneva Convention, and since they were determined to be unlawful combatants consistent with that convention, they are entitled to none of it's protections.

If you don't like that, TFB.