SCOTUS rules in favor of detainees

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Holding people for offenses we saw them commit is not the problem here. We are able to hold them with no difficulty. It's the people that we decided might be terrorists, but didn't see do anything, that is the problem...

Offenses according to what law? American law doesn't apply to other countries and whatever conduct we're talking about there maybe legal. So on what basis do we arrest them?

[snoopy369]

I think the military is concerned primarily with bodily harm-causing offenses which are fairly universal

[Wiglaf]

The issue is that we are taking citizens of states we are not at war with

We're involved in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq..

and deciding, arbitrarily, which are terrorists and which are not. We have the right to detain them for a period of time, IIRC 48 hours, and after that we have to talk to a judge. (NOT a jury, you know better than that...)

A civilian judge in DC should rule within 48 hours on a detention of an insurgent suicide bomber in Iraq? What in the hell are you talking about? This kind of protection has never been afforded to aliens in the history of this country, and I'm shocked you don't see how impractical it is in a time of war.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I think the military is concerned primarily with bodily harm-causing offenses which are fairly universal

Those aren't legal recogized crimes. It also brings us back to my idea of just shooting them.

[Wiglaf]

Snoopy seems to think most Gitmo detainees are suspected terrorists living in America. In reality they are almost entirely detained abroad, in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, by the military. They fly no flag and are so entitled to no Geneva protections because of this. Afghanistan and Iraq operate under near lawlessness, so it's hard to say they should be tried under the country's laws.

So I find it quite amusing you seem to think these bastards should receive the same habeas corpus rights as a kid in Tenessee picked up for drunk driving. It's a matter of practicality, security, and law that you just don't seem to get.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


We're involved in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq..



A civilian judge in DC should rule within 48 hours on a detention of an insurgent suicide bomber in Iraq? What in the hell are you talking about? This kind of protection has never been afforded to aliens in the history of this country, and I'm shocked you don't see how impractical it is in a time of war.

We're not AT war with either nation, so their citizens are not de factor combatants; we must actually PROVE it.

Sure, a civilian judge in DC shouldn't be ruling on these; instead, they should determine a protocol to follow to properly deal with this, that does NOT violate the constitution. Bring a civilian judge to Iraq, maybe? I don't know ... but something that doesn't just treat everyone like a terrorist by default.

[Wiglaf]

We're not AT war with either nation, so their citizens are not de factor combatants; we must actually PROVE it.

Let me have whatever you're smoking. So if you aren't fighting for an entire state, you're not a combatant? What if you're fighting for, oh I don't know, bin Laden?

Sure, a civilian judge in DC shouldn't be ruling on these; instead, they should determine a protocol to follow to properly deal with this, that does NOT violate the constitution. Bring a civilian judge to Iraq, maybe? I don't know ... but something that doesn't just treat everyone like a terrorist by default.

Again you're talking about violating the constitution.

Note that the suspension clause states "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

Note that, as Scalia says, under English common law, the writ of habeas corpus did not extend beyond the sovereign territory of England.

Note that the Habeas Corpus act of 1679 did not extend the writ elsewhere, even though the existence of other places to which British prisoners could be sent was recognized by the Act.

Note that 'rebellions' and 'invasions' can only occur in the United States' territory. So we are talking about rights that relate to our sovereign domain, not Iraq or Afghanistan's poppy fields.

As Scalia says, "there is less threat to liberty when the Government suspends the writ’s (supposed) application in foreign lands, where even on the most extreme view prisoners are entitled to fewer constitutional rights..It makes no sense, therefore, for the Constitution generally to forbid suspension of the writ abroad if indeed the writ has application there."

Don't go mouthing off about constitutionality when the document clearly says nothing about the impractical, dangerous position you're advocating.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Sig worthy.

Ginsburg is a centrist?

Stevens is a conservative?

If MLK can be called a conservative, I find this to be no less crazy.

Besides, che was speaking about the spectrum globe wide, not just in the US.


Oh, and SCOTUS

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Sig worthy.

Ginsburg is a centrist?

Stevens is a conservative?

You have no credibility at all when it comes to labeling people "left" or "right," especially with regard to US politics. This has been established beyond all reasonable doubt in the "conservatives have been at the forefront of every major social change" debate.

Che's characterization is probably off too. He is, after all, a communist.

"Hard line left" of the SCOTUS.

-Arrian