Habeus Corpus survives!!

[LibertyInJeopardy]

Wow - I am SO VERY GLAD to see that 5 of the Supreme Court justices are still defending things like habeus corpus even if the president and his associates have designated people "enemy combatants" (who may or may not actually have anything to do with terrorism). There are 4 who believe there should be exceptions to the principles of human liberty and the constitution itself - and that disgusts me.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080612/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guantanamo

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Wow - I am SO VERY GLAD to see that 5 of the Supreme Court justices are still defending things like habeus corpus even if the president and his associates have designated people "enemy combatants" (who may or may not actually have anything to do with terrorism). There are 4 who believe there should be exceptions to the principles of human liberty and the constitution itself - and that disgusts me.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080612/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guantanamo

We do need something other than 9 Popes sitting in over the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can be whatever it wants to be outside of how many numbers of them sit on the bench. It ought to try to be whatever it takes to insure we remain a government of the people, by the people, for the people. So, perhaps it should change.
Perhaps it could find it unconstitutional to sit in on legal matters on the Federal level. This would return legal issues to the state level where each state could compete with each other in trying to be the best government.
While it would be restricted to civil matters, perhaps the supreme court should also find it unconstitutional to charge money. The sum of each part making up the whole should never be greater than the whole itself. This change in policy would allow the Supreme Court to return power to the people away from the large parts that endanger the rule of the people like corporations, billionaires and so on.

[enjerth]

I don't exactly agree with the ruling.

One thing is for sure, they fall under the jurisdiction of SOME court, and the laws of that country. If they are neither military personnel, nor under US civil law, then they must be under the law and jurisdiction of the countries wherein they were captured and are subject to such laws and courts. I personally believe that they are not under US civil law, but under the law of those countries from wherein they were captured.

Guantanamo Bay is not the Twilight Zone.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I don't exactly agree with the ruling.

One thing is for sure, they fall under the jurisdiction of SOME court, and the laws of that country. If they are neither military personnel, nor under US civil law, then they must be under the law and jurisdiction of the countries wherein they were captured and are subject to such laws and courts. I personally believe that they are not under US civil law, but under the law of those countries from wherein they were captured.

Guantanamo Bay is not the Twilight Zone.

The people should rule over tyranny regardless. In this ruling, the people of the United States ruled against the tyrant Bush and his tyranny.

[acptulsa]

:D What's good for the Constitutional guarantee of habeus corpus protection is a major relief to me--and a good way to brighten the day! :o

[LibertyInJeopardy]

I don't exactly agree with the ruling.

One thing is for sure, they fall under the jurisdiction of SOME court, and the laws of that country. If they are neither military personnel, nor under US civil law, then they must be under the law and jurisdiction of the countries wherein they were captured and are subject to such laws and courts. I personally believe that they are not under US civil law, but under the law of those countries from wherein they were captured.

Guantanamo Bay is not the Twilight Zone.

I'd rather they have the right to challenge their imprisonment rather than have no right to challenge or even know why they are imprisoned.

You might argue that they belong in the jurisdiction of some other country, but that would have to be one of the options being considered. Besides, when people are not charged with any crime other than being turned in by local warlords, what exactly does a foreign court do with it?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I'd rather they have the right to challenge their imprisonment rather than have no right to challenge or even know why they are imprisoned.

You might argue that they belong in the jurisdiction of some other country, but that would have to be one of the options being considered. Besides, when people are not charged with any crime other than being turned in by local warlords, what exactly does a foreign court do with it?

The people ruled. Either the tyrant will bow to that ruling or he can pout about it and make things even worse.

[AutoDas]

The people ruled. Either the tyrant will bow to that ruling or he can pout about it and make things even worse.

We get it -- you're a commie. No need to reconfirm this suspicion with every post you make.

[acptulsa]

We get it -- you're a commie. No need to reconfirm this suspicion with every post you make.

Commies don't celebrate rulings by the people... :rolleyes:

[IRO-bot]

We get it -- you're a commie. No need to reconfirm this suspicion with every post you make.

How do you get a commie out of that? He said GW is a tryant because of the lack of habeus corpus.

[Kade]

We get it -- you're a commie. No need to reconfirm this suspicion with every post you make.

Wow. I'm far more liberal than Watkins, and I don't think you do anyone a service by calling people commies... seriously.

[AutoDas]

How do you get a commie out of that? He said GW is a tryant because of the lack of habeus corpus.

"The people have ruled"

People don't rule, law does.

[AutoDas]

Wow. I'm far more liberal than Watkins, and I don't think you do anyone a service by calling people commies... seriously.

wow ukay

Every single post he makes has some comparison to sitting at a dinner table and apparently forcing someone to eat at this table is not tyranny to him.

[acptulsa]

wow ukay

Every single post he makes has some comparison to sitting at a dinner table and apparently forcing someone to eat at this table is not tyranny to him.

You take Uncle Em much to literally. He seldom speaks in any but the deepest metaphors.

He's not forcing supper on anyone.

[Kade]

I don't think we make progress by constantly calling each other socialists and communists.

I wouldn't be here if I didn't agree with the breadth of this movement.

I believe I make valid critiques of certain policies, but those critiques do not mean that I am in any way, authoritarian, collectivist, or any combination.

Too many people keep up with this "Obamabot", "socialist", "Maoist" etc.. nonsense, that it is really kinda wearing me out.

[enjerth]

I'd rather they have the right to challenge their imprisonment rather than have no right to challenge or even know why they are imprisoned.

You might argue that they belong in the jurisdiction of some other country, but that would have to be one of the options being considered. Besides, when people are not charged with any crime other than being turned in by local warlords, what exactly does a foreign court do with it?

Well if there isn't any charge against them, I would expect that they would be released, after they are transferred to the authorities of the country of jurisdiction.

But you're right. I'm not saying that it'd be better if they rot in Guantanamo Bay indefinitely. If the US won't deliver them to foreign authorities, then they must fall under US law.

[anaconda]

Is Scalia simply an idiot, or is there something more sinister and New World Order-ish about him?

I thought he was supposed to be a "conservative" justice. Where does he get off saying something like "the nation is at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Have we just stepped into the Twilight Zone? Or maybe Dick Cheney's duck blind?

How many "lives" are at stake has (as far as I know...but please...help me out here...) NOTHING to do with interpreting the U.S. Constitution. Why is Scalia doing some kind of political editorializing dribble? HELP! INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW!!!

I thought a "conservative" justice would lean toward the letter and intent of the Constitution. Instead he wants to strip it of its basic tenets as part of a political and military strategy?

Scalia's job is not to decide if the Constitution is a good idea. His job is to "interpret" the document.

Or, has the new definition of "conservative" Supreme Court Justice now become "Neocon Activist Policy Setting" Supreme Court Justice?"

What is this bozo's problem? He should be impeached.

[Kade]

Is Scalia simply an idiot, or is there something more sinister and New World Order-ish about him?

I thought he was supposed to be a "conservative" justice. Where does he get off saying something like "the nation is at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Have we just stepped into the Twilight Zone? Or maybe Dick Cheney's duck blind?

How many "lives" are at stake has (as far as I know...but please...help me out here...) NOTHING to do with interpreting the U.S. Constitution. Why is Scalia doing some kind of political editorializing dribble? HELP! INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW!!!

I thought a "conservative" justice would lean toward the letter and intent of the Constitution. Instead he wants to strip it of its basic tenets as part of a political and military strategy?

Scalia's job is not to decide if the Constitution is a good idea. His job is to "interpret" the document.

Or, has the new definition of "conservative" Supreme Court Justice now become "Neocon Activist Policy Setting" Supreme Court Justice?"

What is this bozo's problem? He should be impeached.

A "conservative" judge is just a buzzword for idiot. The only good judges are the academic judges.

[acptulsa]

How many "lives" are at stake has (as far as I know...but please...help me out here...) NOTHING to do with interpreting the U.S. Constitution. Why is Scalia doing some kind of political editorializing dribble? HELP! INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW!!!

Have you ever heard the expression "where the rubber meets the road"? That is the Supreme Court in a nutshell. Basically the Constitution is all theoretical until the Supreme Court says, "This is where the Constitution draws the line."

Like it or not. Has to happen somewhere sometime.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Have you ever heard the expression "where the rubber meets the road"? That is the Supreme Court in a nutshell. Basically the Constitution is all theoretical until the Supreme Court says, "This is where the Constitution draws the line."

Like it or not. Has to happen somewhere sometime.

What is amazing is how in this government's infancy the Supreme court didn't serve to draw that line in the lessor parts of what made up the whole Constitution. That task was performed by the 2 party system which considered more the whole of the Constitution in regards to either ammending, abolishing or preserving it.
After the Constitution was tested during the war of 1812 and later during the Civil War and it persevered, then the the lessor parts of the whole were later considered by the Supreme Court.

[Aratus]

one can be a burkean conservative and heartily for habeus corpus...

[Mesogen]

I don't exactly agree with the ruling.

One thing is for sure, they fall under the jurisdiction of SOME court, and the laws of that country. If they are neither military personnel, nor under US civil law, then they must be under the law and jurisdiction of the countries wherein they were captured and are subject to such laws and courts. I personally believe that they are not under US civil law, but under the law of those countries from wherein they were captured.

Guantanamo Bay is not the Twilight Zone.

Guantanamo Bay is under US control. IMO, that makes it US jurisdiction.

Wherever the government has authority to act, then it must be constrained by law (the constitution).

Whether it's at GITMO, Abu Ghraib, or on some ship out at sea, the constitution applies.

Except Mukasey says we don't care what the Supreme Court says:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jHAPgOT61TznBgPm7JWkPAZ9AZgAD918VFG80


U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey says the Supreme Court's decision on Guantanamo detainees won't affect military trials against enemy combatants.

[kombayn]

A big thumbs up to the Supreme Court. That's a big step in the right direction, you know George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and PNAC are losing their minds over this. I expect William Kristol to write a column slamming the Supreme Court next week.

[enjerth]

Guantanamo Bay is under US control. IMO, that makes it US jurisdiction.

Wherever the government has authority to act, then it must be constrained by law (the constitution).

Whether it's at GITMO, Abu Ghraib, or on some ship out at sea, the constitution applies.

Except Mukasey says we don't care what the Supreme Court says:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jHAPgOT61TznBgPm7JWkPAZ9AZgAD918VFG80

The only problem with that is that Guantanamo Bay is not where the offenses occurred.

Criminals are subject to the laws of the country wherein they were found breaking said laws. You are not subject to US civil law in a foreign country. Just because they were transferred to a US prison does not subject them to US law for their former crimes.

[kombayn]

^True, but it doesn't change the fact that the Bill of Rights were created for "ALL MEN" and those are not my words, those are the Founding Fathers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/02/guantanamo.humanrights

When shit like that happens, then we need to really refocus are foreign policy strategies. The Supreme Court did us justice.

[billyjoeallen]

McCain is ineligble to run-by his own argument!

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/13/politics/fromtheroad/entry4180901.shtml

If Guantanamo Bay is not to be considered U.S. soil for jurisdictional purposes, than neither is the military base in Panama where he was born. According to the U.S. Constitution, only "natural born" citizens are eligible to be President. Citizens born elsewhere (like California Governor Arnold Schwarzennegar) are ineligible.

The guy is digging his own legal/political grave.

[billyjoeallen]

Guantanamo Bay is under US control. IMO, that makes it US jurisdiction.

Wherever the government has authority to act, then it must be constrained by law (the constitution).

Whether it's at GITMO, Abu Ghraib, or on some ship out at sea, the constitution applies.

Except Mukasey says we don't care what the Supreme Court says:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jHAPgOT61TznBgPm7JWkPAZ9AZgAD918VFG80

If a foreign military base should not be recognized as American soil for jurisdictional purposes, then it stands to reason that Senator John McCain, who was born on a military base in Panama, is foreign born and therefor not eligible to be President.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

McCain is ineligble to run-by his own argument!

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/13/politics/fromtheroad/entry4180901.shtml

If Guantanamo Bay is not to be considered U.S. soil for jurisdictional purposes, than neither is the military base in Panama where he was born. According to the U.S. Constitution, only "natural born" citizens are eligible to be President. Citizens born elsewhere (like California Governor Arnold Schwarzennegar) are ineligible.

The guy is digging his own legal/political grave.

The people have a mediating power.
This means we shouldn't waste our time trying to control our government by hiring lawyers to take on their lawyers. When we do this we ultimately swim in a crap called legal precedence because, as we know, the defense attorney, the district attorney and the judge are all lawyers. We also tend to take care of the Lawyer's children while cheating our own. So, always remember that although lawyers are very important to our nation, they are always more important as salesmen to the used car industry.
The only way to take on our government is to start acting like Americans instead of like Chinese. In China, the humble people there are ruled by legal precedence so they never have to hear that they are being ruled by legal precedence.
In comparison, over here in the United States, our government claims legal precedence all the time. So, there must be a greater power in this nation than legal precedence. This is a very profound realization.
That greater power is the Civil Purpose in the Constitution because legal precedence in itself has no purpose other than to use it exploit the people rightfully or wrongfully through the establishment of laws, rules, regulations and so on.
As I have mention in this room often like a raving lunatic, the Civil Purpose in both the Declaration of Independence -- a divorce decree from tyranny -- and the U.S. Constitution -- a new marriage decree to a new king -- is easy to see when we all sit at the national dinner table. We don't desire to be just free as slaves for this just leaves us orphaned without a vision to be enslaved in prisons and unto chronic poverty while our welfare becomes a burden to society.
It is America who desires the slave to be freed to sit at the same dinner table as the master is bound to remain.

This is the people's mediating power.

[Mesogen]

The only problem with that is that Guantanamo Bay is not where the offenses occurred.

Doesn't matter. If the government was the one committing an action, that action is constrained by the constitution.


Criminals are subject to the laws of the country wherein they were found breaking said laws. Actually, that depends on the country. In some countries you are subject to the laws of your home country. But this is immaterial. If someone is acting in an official capacity in the name of the US government, then the constitution applies to them no matter where they are.


You are not subject to US civil law in a foreign country. Just because they were transferred to a US prison does not subject them to US law for their former crimes.
If the prison is a "US prison" that means it is an institution within the US government and it is subject to the constraints of the constitution.

The prison may also be subject to the laws of the land or territory in which it resides, but it is definitely under constitutional control.

[Mesogen]

If a foreign military base should not be recognized as American soil for jurisdictional purposes, then it stands to reason that Senator John McCain, who was born on a military base in Panama, is foreign born and therefor not eligible to be President.

Someone I know was born on base in Germany. They had to be naturalized later as a US citizen. They weren't born a US citizen. The constitution clearly states "natural born citizen." If McCain had to be naturalized later, then he was not a natural born citizen and is not eligible to be president.

This needs to be brought up about 2-3 weeks before the convention and then go to a floor vote of the delegates.

[acptulsa]

Someone I know was born on base in Germany. They had to be naturalized later as a US citizen. They weren't born a US citizen.

Both parents U.S. citizens?