SCOTUS Grants Guantanamo Prisoners Habeas Corpus

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Because it list things that the government must, or must not, do, and doesn't say "except outside our borders".

And no where in the document does it say it includes all peoples outside of our borders any more than any other countries constitutional documents apply to US citizens while in their countries. It does not follow logic. All constitutions of all countries do not apply to everyone. All constitutions of all countries are applicable to the people who are citizens of each country. Why are you trying to make the US Constitution a world document? Maybe you think the UN should adapt our Constitution and make it the worlds.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Why are you trying to make the US Constitution a world document? Maybe you think the UN should adapt our Constitution and make it the worlds.

It's not a world document. It's a US. Government document, and it applies to the US Government wherever in the world it operates.

[BigV]

Hey mercy.... What law does apply at Guantanamo?

Be forewarned, an answer like "the military is in charge" will precipitate another question like this one, "What laws apply to the military?"

So, what do you think? What laws apply?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by BigV

Hey mercy.... What law does apply at Guantanamo?

Good question. I don't have the answer. Hence the pickle we are in now going back and forth with the courts. A better question is how do we catagorize the prisoners who are there? Some are known terrorists, others less so. Like I have said plenty of times on this forum in plenty of places, with some exceptions, if I had my way I would close it tomarrow and send them all back to their host countries and make it not our problem anymore. What their host countries choose to do with them is their business.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Good question. I don't have the answer. Hence the pickle we are in now going back and forth with the courts. A better question is how do we catagorize the prisoners who are there? Some are known terrorists,

By whose standards? If none of the people at Gitmo have been given a fair trial, how do you know which ones are terrorists?

And what right do we have to hold the ones that are not terrorists?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by flaja

By whose standards? If none of the people at Gitmo have been given a fair trial, how do you know which ones are terrorists?

Flip a coin, perhaps?

[flaja]

Originally Posted by classicman

Flip a coin, perhaps?

Justice should be reduced to a coin toss?

[DanaC]

By whose standards? If none of the people at Gitmo have been given a fair trial, how do you know which ones are terrorists?

Excellent question.

[classicman]

Ever heard of the word factitious?

[flaja]

Originally Posted by classicman

Ever heard of the word factitious?

I looked it up, but what’s your point?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by classicman

Ever heard of the word factitious?

Originally Posted by flaja

I looked it up, but what’s your point?

There was no point - it was a joke.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by classicman

There was no point - it was a joke.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/factitious

1: produced by humans rather than by natural forces
2 a: formed by or adapted to an artificial or conventional standard b: produced by special effort : SHAM <created a factitious demand by spreading rumors of shortage>


So what is the joke?

[glatt]

Originally Posted by flaja

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/factitious

1: produced by humans rather than by natural forces
2 a: formed by or adapted to an artificial or conventional standard b: produced by special effort : SHAM <created a factitious demand by spreading rumors of shortage>


So what is the joke?

You know damn well that classic meant "facetious."

You are going out of your way to be obtuse.

[DanaC]

humourless much?

[classicman]

What were we talking about again??? Did anyone find a coin yet to flip?