SCOTUS lets GITMO Detainees have

[bozo_casanova]

Indeed they were- held in Texas, actually. But then, they were prisoners of war, not "detainees".

 

[mia1994]

The distinction is that there is no historical legal standing for holding a foreign citizen indefinately on your own soil outside the rule of law or treaty... which is what we are doing. Their status is essenetially somewhere between hostage and slave.

 

[bozo_casanova]

Hey, this should be fun- would Washpark or one of you other steely-eyed American heroes like to tell me what battlefield these detainees were captured on?

 

[Bob in Houston]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[TexonLongIsland]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[TxStHorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[TxStHorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[mia1994]

Bob, you are making the argument that non-US citizens outside of non-US soil should not be covered by US law. I don't disagree with that. Usually their treatment would be subject to treaty between the host nation and the US, but that doesn't apply here since we enacted regime change on the host nations. After that their treatment would be subject to international law regarding the treatment of soldiers in wartime, but then that doesn't apply here either since they weren't representing a nation. Hell, the home nation of many of the people we've detained won't accept them. I recognize that the situation is complicated. But we made this situation our problem when we chose to bring them here. And after 6 years, we've made no serious attempt to define the legal status of these men.... but here they remain incarcerated on US soil.

6 years is long enough to mount a defined rational based on the rule of law (military or otherwise). So the question is are we stuck in a legal quandry or are we hiding in one?

 

[Bob in Houston]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[triplehorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[bozo_casanova]

bob,

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Bob in Houston]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Kyrie Eleison]

ousux:

You're ignorance literally made me laugh....

Trial lawyers bringing §1983 claims....you gotta be shittin' me. Talk about a sure-fire loser, there it is w/ sugar on top. And the amount of money it would take just to get a case like that thrown out on summary judgment would be immense IF you happened to escape the charges of barratry given that any civil lawyer would have to contact the detainee b/c the detainee neither has the means or method to contact a civil lawyer.

ousux, your trial lawyer boogeyman doesn't exist. I suggest you and your Sunday School class get together and find another one...maybe "the Mexicans" or "the gays."

No one here has addressed the simple little fact that there is one, and only one, jurisdiction that will hear these cases: the D.C. circuit. What we're going to see is rather consistent set of rulings.

And wash, this has been an entirely ad hoc procedure carried out by the Administration. They didn't want to name them POW's b/c Geneva would apply, and they didn't want to name them "criminals" b/c of the due process protections, so they literally invented a new category of detainee: "enemy combatant." And through that invent a new form of procedural due process that was missing one, essential element....habeas.

All this ruling does is put habeas back into the proceedings, nothing more.

It's the Rule of Law once again reigning supreme, nothing more, nothing less. And for those who fear the freedoms we enjoy held together by Rule of Law, take your ***** *** and move to China. We don't need or want you here.

 

[washparkhorn]

KE - you complete me.

In reply to:

---

---

 

[AustinBat]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[triplehorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[washparkhorn]

You are dumbing down the thread triple.

 

[Brisketexan]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[triplehorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[mia1994]

AustinBat, the asain americans in WWII were neither non-citizen nor were they caught on a battlefield.

We've been fear mongering douchebags who flaunt the law for the entire history of our nation, starting with our revolution, slave holding status, relocation of the indians, etc etc... I would not defend our dirty hands. That said, Gitmo is in fact unprecidented... it is a new kind of douchebaggery. It is has the flavor of past unlawful actions... but it is new.

 

[washparkhorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[HOOKMD]

Thank God...

All is not completely lost yet.

 

[triplehorn]

This is a good round-up of insights and basic explanations from multiple sources on this SCOTUS decision:

A Blow Against Tyranny



.

 

[Coelacanth]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[triplehorn]

Re Scalia:

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Coelacanth]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[washparkhorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[triplehorn]

washpark - you're being too smart by half. In the last quote you blocked, I used "enemy combatant" yet you reference "enemy alien". Clearly they are two different terms which I know you get, but your replacing one with the other in your last post makes no sense. "Enemy combatant" as it relates to the Military Commissions Act pertained to a term applicable to US citizens as well as non-citizens while "enemy alien" pertains to non-citizens only.
I have separate concerns about how we handle non-citizen unlawful combatants or 'enemy aliens', but by restoring habeas for any and all detainees, the SCOTUS took away something that Bush had the power to do for the past two years - declare a US citizen an "enemy combatant" and deprive him or her of their habeas rights. On a whim Bush could designate a US citizen an "enemy combatant" and have them detained indefinitely and subject them to torture.

Does Scalia directly account for this result of the SCOTUS decision in his dissent wrt to the effect is has on US citizens?

How you can continue to ignore this fact, washpark, is frankly concerning. It's un-American.

So I'll say it again: before the SCOTUS rendered its decision this week, if Bush declared washpark an "enemy combatant", he would be ****** and silenced without so much as a whimper.


.

 

[FondrenRoad]

Actually section 948a of the Military Commissions Act does not exclude US citizens from being termed "unlawful enemy combatants." It also does not explicitly deny US citizens from applying for a writ of habeas corpus however, on its face. It is actually silent on the matter.

Let's also not forget that the last word in the Padilla case is still that the US had the right to detain Padilla without charges. The Supreme Court had two chances to set the record straight on that, but failed to give an answer either time. First, by requiring that it be refiled in S. Carolina, and then by not reviewing the case from the 4th Circuit on certiorari. It is also probably not a coincidence that shortly after the 4th Circuit's decision, charges were suddenly brought against Padilla. The timing of it certainly took the pressure off the Supreme Court to address the habeas corpus question in the case, and surprise, surprise, they didn't.

So that's 3 years of being held without charges for a US Citizen, and the final say of the 4th Circuit was that it was fine. The Military Commissions Act did nothing to change that. This ruling does.

 

[TxStHorn]

In reply to:

---

---