PDA

View Full Version : US: Guantanamo Prisoners Not 'Persons'




NYgs23
12-21-2009, 05:13 PM
Another giant leap towards 1984...


Channeling their predecessors in the George W. Bush administration, Obama Justice Department lawyers argued in this case that there is no constitutional right not to be tortured or otherwise abused in a U.S. prison abroad.

The Obama administration had asked the court not to hear the case. By agreeing, the court let stand an earlier opinion by the D.C. Circuit Court, which found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act – a statute that applies by its terms to all "persons" – did not apply to detainees at Guantanamo, effectively ruling that the detainees are not persons at all for purposes of U.S. law.

US: Guantanamo Prisoners Not 'Persons' (http://original.antiwar.com/fisher/2009/12/15/us-guantanamo-prisoners-not-persons/)

Icymudpuppy
12-21-2009, 05:15 PM
So, we are all just considered livestock now.

CCTelander
12-21-2009, 05:18 PM
So, we are all just considered livestock now.

Nothing new about that! Welcome to life on the "farm."

devil21
12-21-2009, 05:22 PM
So humans are no longer persons, but corporations are. Weird shit going on these days.

Liberty Star
12-21-2009, 06:03 PM
Is Obama a "person" under these laws?

torchbearer
12-21-2009, 06:35 PM
So humans are no longer persons, but corporations are. Weird shit going on these days.

Orwell.

Isaac Bickerstaff
12-21-2009, 11:02 PM
Calm down. . .

No they are not statutory persons. Neither are you unless you want to be. The claim is valid but it does not preclude them from Constitutional protections. As sovereign human beings, our lawful government must treat them with respect. If it does not, it is in breach of contract with those of us who consider ourselves under the Constitution and is opening itself up to all sorts of nasty things that people in power do not wish to experience.

We need to forcefully explain these things to our elected.

What was the definition of "person" when our Constitution was written and adopted?

dannno
12-21-2009, 11:23 PM
Is Obama a "person" under these laws?

Win!

Isaac Bickerstaff
12-21-2009, 11:43 PM
Actually, I cracked open my Constitution and some legal dictionaries, and this is great news!!

From my new favorite website, http://duhaime.org/home/lk/br.aspx, a legal definition of "person"


An entity recognized by the law as separate and independent, with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law.

Individuals are "persons" in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity.

Many laws give certain powers to "persons" which, in almost all instances, includes business organizations that have been formally registered such as partnerships, corporations or associations.

For example, the US Code defines "person" as follows (at Title 1, Chapter 1, ¶1):

"The words person ... include(s) corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals."



The US Constitution states in the 14th Amendment, section 1:


Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Did you catch that?
An individual is not a person only where the US does not have jurisdiction.
If these individuals are not "persons" they must not be within the jurisdiction of the United States.
The US government just admitted that they do not have jurisdiction over the territory known as "the several states"!!

devil21
12-22-2009, 01:45 AM
I understand and appreciate the effort to clarify the term "person" but you kinda miss the heart of the issue. Obama's lawyers successfully argued that anyone held as an enemy combatant at a foreign US prison is not considered a "person" under the Section 1 definition you posted above, and is therefore not entitled to Constitutional protections.

My understanding is that this includes US citizens! In other words, declare someone an enemy combatant (for whatever reason you choose, even a secret reason), take them outside of the US to Gitmo or a CIA black site, and then they can do whatever they want to you because suddently the 14th Amendment does not apply to you anymore.

Even more concerning to me is that it appears that the Executive is now able to successfully lobby the Judicial to not rule on certain cases that the Executive deems "sensitive to national security". So much for the Separation of Powers....

Isaac Bickerstaff
12-22-2009, 08:49 AM
This ruling set precedent.
The Federal government has no jurisdiction outside of DC. We can use this to our advantage for everything from income taxes to mandatory "health" insurance.

Once a court sets precedent, it would take the devil himself to overturn it.