SCOTUS Grants Guantanamo Prisoners Habeas Corpus

[flaja]

Originally Posted by deadbeater

Now this is something the Supreme Court has done right, alluding to a title on a thread on this board! If they ruled otherwise, Americans abroad, and every diplomat, is fair game for any despot, anybody who has a grudge. And the US couldn't do squat.

Diplomats have diplomatic immunity because of treaty agreements. The most any foreign government can do to diplomats is expel them from the foreign government’s country.

Since Congress has not declared war on any country, I don’t know of any treaty that would be applicable to the inmates at Gitmo. But since Congress has the constitutional power to define and punish offenses against the law of nations and to make laws governing capture on both land and sea, anyone whom we have captured in Iraq or Afghanistan would be under the jurisdiction of U.S. courts (if we were legally at war, then the Geneva Convention would kick in but I don’t know if POWs would have automatic access to U.S. civil courts- we have tried enemy espionage agents in civil courts during times of war).

Furthermore, there is something inherently dangerous about any government that takes it upon itself to lock-up someone indefinitely without charge or trial. The rightwing media pundits that are hinting that the President/military should ignore the court and continue to keep people jailed at Gitmo are little different than the SS and Gestapo that routinely took criminal defendants into “protective custody” after they had been acquitted by German courts.

[tw]

Originally Posted by flaja

Since Congress has not declared war on any country, I don’t know of any treaty that would be applicable to the inmates at Gitmo.

An additional point. George Jr attempted to suspend the constitutionally guaranteed right of Habeas Corpus. That right can be suspended only during war. George Jr's presidential signings (that we know about) have essentially declared America at war. This Supreme Court ruling says the writ of Habeas Corpus has not been suspended - implying that America is not at war.

Interesting question remains: what will the administration do this time to subvert the court's ruling.

This court ruling has suspended the July trial of Hamdan. This court ruling comes with cheers from virtually the entire Military Judge Advocate corp who have been appalled at the perversion of American laws, military justice, massive violations of basic human rights, and routine use of torture.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

and routine use of torture.

Supporting facts please for "routine".

[flaja]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Supporting facts please for "routine".

Does this means that you support occasional torture?

Any act of torture on the part of the U.S. or on behalf of the U.S. is deplorable.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by flaja

Does this means that you support occasional torture?

Any act of torture on the part of the U.S. or on behalf of the U.S. is deplorable.

So far this is not a discussion about torture. That would be another discussion. Don't change the subject. Answer my previous questions if you want to continue.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Supporting facts please for "routine".

Why bother? Your extremist wacko politics ignores facts anyway. You never provide supporting facts for what you post. You blindly believe what George Jr decrees. You have admited your intelligence does not comprehend anything beyond the first paragraph - sound byte logic. Why bother?

So TheMercenary still denies America was routinely performing torture and extraordinary rendition? Routine from anyone who worships George Jr.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

Why bother? Your extremist wacko politics ignores facts anyway. You never provide supporting facts for what you post. You blindly believe what George Jr decrees. You have admited your intelligence does not comprehend anything beyond the first paragraph - sound byte logic. Why bother?

So TheMercenary still denies America was routinely performing torture and extraordinary rendition? Routine from anyone who worships George Jr.

Correct. You have no evidence of "routine" torture or "routine" extraordinary rendition. If you do post your original source documents.

tw="You blindly believe what George Jr decrees."

You cannot support that satement either.

Further you have not answered to your statement:

Originally Posted by tw
TheMercenary - who even lied about his service record.…

So I would like you to post your facts surrounding this allegation. Like I said Tommy ole boy, put up or shut the fuck up.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Correct. You have no evidence of "routine" torture or "routine" extraordinary rendition.

Again TheMercenary denies that torture and extraordinary rendition was ongoing. After all, that is the George Jr administration line. His storm troopers will repeat that lie forever. Extremists - a threat to the American culture, American way of life, and stability of the world. TheMercenary is again exposed spouting Cheney's political agenda. Was America torturing in Guantanamo? Then when General Miller was transferred to Abu Ghraib, torture did not happen there - according to TheMercenary. Denial is the wacko extremist line that even includes changing the definition of torture to justify it. But why rehash well published history. TheMercenary is so wacko extremist as to still deny it.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

This court ruling comes with cheers from virtually the entire Military Judge Advocate corp who have been appalled at the perversion of American laws, military justice, massive violations of basic human rights, and routine use of torture.

ORLY - Proof please, again - We can't take all your unfounded accusations as gospel. You keep stating things as fact then never back them up.

Originally Posted by flaja

Does this means that you support occasional torture?

Occasionally.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

Again TheMercenary denies that torture and extraordinary rendition was ongoing.

Wrong again, you are the wacko. I quoted you and as you have done with other who try to nail you down and get you to post original source supporting documents you have failed.

You have no evidence of "routine" torture or "routine" extraordinary rendition. If you do post your original source documents.

tw, note your use of the word ROUTINE. This is what I expect you to prove. Since you seem so sure of yourself it shouldn't be to hard.

:
tw="You blindly believe what George Jr decrees."

You cannot support that satement either.

Further you have not answered to your statement:

:
Originally Posted by tw
TheMercenary - who even lied about his service record.…

So I would like you to post your facts surrounding this allegation. Like I said Tommy ole boy, put up or shut the fuck up.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by tw

An additional point. George Jr attempted to suspend the constitutionally guaranteed right of Habeas Corpus. That right can be suspended only during war. George Jr's presidential signings (that we know about) have essentially declared America at war. This Supreme Court ruling says the writ of Habeas Corpus has not been suspended - implying that America is not at war.

Interesting question remains: what will the administration do this time to subvert the court's ruling.

This court ruling has suspended the July trial of Hamdan. This court ruling comes with cheers from virtually the entire Military Judge Advocate corp who have been appalled at the perversion of American laws, military justice, massive violations of basic human rights, and routine use of torture.

Habeas corpus is not an absolute right, and a declared state of war isn’t the only reason for suspending habeas corpus:

U.S. Constitution Article I

“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.”

9-11 could be construed as an invasion and thus habeas corpus could be suspended. But the problem here is how do we know when the invasion is over? The way GWB is fighting his so-called war on terror means that victory parameters don’t exist. Thus we could theoretically be perpetually in danger and habeas corpus could be suspended indefinitely.

[deadbeater]

Originally Posted by flaja

Diplomats have diplomatic immunity because of treaty agreements. The most any foreign government can do to diplomats is expel them from the foreign government’s country.

Since Congress has not declared war on any country, I don’t know of any treaty that would be applicable to the inmates at Gitmo. But since Congress has the constitutional power to define and punish offenses against the law of nations and to make laws governing capture on both land and sea, anyone whom we have captured in Iraq or Afghanistan would be under the jurisdiction of U.S. courts (if we were legally at war, then the Geneva Convention would kick in but I don’t know if POWs would have automatic access to U.S. civil courts- we have tried enemy espionage agents in civil courts during times of war).

Furthermore, there is something inherently dangerous about any government that takes it upon itself to lock-up someone indefinitely without charge or trial. The rightwing media pundits that are hinting that the President/military should ignore the court and continue to keep people jailed at Gitmo are little different than the SS and Gestapo that routinely took criminal defendants into “protective custody” after they had been acquitted by German courts.

If the Supreme Court ruled otherwise, diplomatic immunity, Geneva conventions, treaties, etc are considered null and void, under the banner 'unlawful combatant.'

[flaja]

Originally Posted by deadbeater

If the Supreme Court ruled otherwise, diplomatic immunity, Geneva conventions, treaties, etc are considered null and void, under the banner 'unlawful combatant.'

A Supreme Court ruling in this country would not keep a U.S. diplomat from being expelled from a foreign country if he violates the law. And whether or not a U.S. diplomat is an enemy combatant or a criminal in another country depends on what that country's courts say, not ours.