Supreme Court backs rights for Guantanamo detainees

Originally posted by kelbtalfenek
The Bill of Rights does pertain to US Citizens, but from a commonly accepted understanding, the Rights of the individual, "inalienable rights" apply to all humanity.
Therefore if we treat alleged terrorists as if they have no applicable rights, aren't we just as guilty as they might be?

No to both counts. It does NOT apply to all humanity nor to terrorists trying to kill you.

Do most of you here actually read past that line in the Declaration of Independence regarding unalienable rights?
I guess not because after that line it states:
"That to secure these rights , Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

Now here comes the relevent part. It continues by saying:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it

Anyway, if you would actually read the entire Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, it does not afford foreigners trying to kill us any rights!!

reply to post by WhatTheory


Very well put indeed!

Its funny how those "opinion altering" passages always get left out by those who want to further their own agenda's

Best thing to do is treat them as prisoners and keep them in Gitmo until the war is over. Simple.

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by kosmicjack
Our nation's sacred contract, the Constitution, is the one thing that makes our country great above all others. If we trash it, we don't deserve our liberty no matter how much security we have.

Exactly, so please show me in the Constitution where terrorists are afforded the rights of U.S. citizens including Habeas Corpus?

The fascists are the 5 judges who ruled for this abomination and they should be tried for treason considering they apparently did not read the Constitution.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

And just for good measure:

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Notice it doesn't say "U.S. Citizens". Now, we know the framers KNEW this phrase, because they used it in the qualifications of President.

Any other questions?

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Notice it doesn't say "U.S. Citizens". Now, we know the framers KNEW this phrase, because they used it in the qualifications of President.

Any other questions?

Yes, is that in the U.S. Constitution or the worldwide Constitution?

They don't have to specify every paragraph with U.S. citizens because it's in the U.S. Constitution and not the worldwide foreigners Constitution.

Using your flawed logic, since you are projecting our U.S. Constitution to include every person on Earth, then I guess it's the responsibility of the U.S. to invoke itself in every little petty injustice done anywhere on the globe right? Of course not and this shows how ridiculous your argument is.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by WhatTheory]

reply to post by sir_chancealot


Go to the beginning buddy...

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by deltaboy]

Ahh, you just gotta love it!

Justice 5, Brutality 4

For years, with the help of compliant Republicans and frightened Democrats in Congress, President Bush has denied the protections of justice, democracy and plain human decency to the hundreds of men that he decided to label “unlawful enemy combatants” and throw into never-ending detention.

Twice the Supreme Court swatted back his imperial overreaching, and twice Congress helped Mr. Bush try to open a gaping loophole in the Constitution. On Thursday, the court turned back the most recent effort to subvert justice with a stirring defense of habeas corpus, the right of anyone being held by the government to challenge his confinement before a judge.

Anybody/Everybody should have the right to question why they are detained before a judge and to be able to argue their innocence! (People get thrown into prisons all the time who are innocent!)

Originally posted by WhatTheory

I agree if you are talking about the 5 justices who ruled in favor of this garbage. They ignored previous precedent and law.

They ignored the Military Commissions Act which states:

They didn't "ignore it",

Despite this, the Bush administration repeatedly tried to strip away habeas rights. First, it herded prisoners who were seized in Afghanistan, and in other foreign countries, into the United States Navy base at Guantánamo Bay and claimed that since the base is on foreign territory, the detainees’ habeas cases could not be heard in the federal courts. In 2004, the court rejected that argument, ruling that Guantánamo, which is under American control, is effectively part of the United States.

In 2006, the court handed the administration another defeat, ruling that it had relied improperly on the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 to hold the detainees on Guantánamo without giving them habeas rights. Since then, Congress passed another law, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that tried — and failed horribly — to fix the problems with the Detainee Treatment Act.

Now, by a 5-to-4 vote, the court has affirmed the detainees’ habeas rights. The majority, in an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, ruled that the Military Commissions Act violates the Suspension Clause, by eliminating habeas corpus although the requirements of the Constitution — invasion or rebellion — do not exist.

They found that they were s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g the meaning of the Suspension Clause to fit there needs/wants!

Suspension Clause

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution is known as the Suspension Clause. It states:
“ 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. ”

A writ of habeas corpus commands that a body that has a person in custody, such as a police department, must let a court inquire into the legality of the detention. If the reason for detention is deemed invalid or unjust, the court may order the release of the person. The Suspension Clause prohibits Congress from suspending habeas corpus, except for public safety during times of rebellion or invasion.

State governments are also prohibited from suspending habeas corpus.

The only detainees in Gitmo that have invaded the US would have to have been caught on US territory, and as for rebellion, you would have to be the citizen of a government to rebel against it! Otherwise your just an invader!

These are, for the most part, people who have been caught on foreign soil, not invading our country, nor a citizen of the US rebelling against it.

As an after thought, I thought it was worth adding this quote from this editorial.

There is an enormous gulf between the substance and tone of the majority opinion, with its rich appreciation of the liberties that the founders wrote into the Constitution, and the what-is-all-the-fuss-about dissent. It is sobering to think that habeas hangs by a single vote in the Supreme Court of the United States — a reminder that the composition of the court could depend on the outcome of this year’s presidential election. The ruling is a major victory for civil liberties — but a timely reminder of how fragile they are.

Something else to think about when voting!

[edit on 6/13/2008 by Keyhole]

Good luck on getting rid of them is all I can say. They live and eat better in Guantanamo. They'll beg to stay if they're innocent, mark my words.

reply to post by Keyhole

Originally posted by Keyhole
As an after thought, I thought it was worth adding this quote from this editorial.

There is an enormous gulf between the substance and tone of the majority opinion, with its rich appreciation of the liberties that the founders wrote into the Constitution, and the what-is-all-the-fuss-about dissent. It is sobering to think that habeas hangs by a single vote in the Supreme Court of the United States — a reminder that the composition of the court could depend on the outcome of this year’s presidential election. The ruling is a major victory for civil liberties — but a timely reminder of how fragile they are.

Something else to think about when voting!

Who might be the next retiree from the Court? Stevens is the oldest at 88. I would suspect him.

I wonder if Pvt. Byron W. Fouty and Spc. Alex R. Jimenez are going to get their civil rights, and proper representation while in the hands of the insurgents?

I kinda f**kin' doubt it, tho.

reply to post by jerico65


Yeah, you're right. But we're SUPPOSED to be better than the enemy.

Besides, if it wasn't for the lying neo-con a-holes who got us into this Corp-Gov war for profit, our brave men and women in uniform wouldn't be over there putting themselves in harms way.

Originally posted by WhatTheory
I guess I will just have to show them my birth certificate, social security card and other paperwork proving I'm a U.S. citizen. Done. End of discussion.

And just where is your birth certificate, social security card and other paperwork proving you're a U.S. citizen?

Back in your home town!

[edit on 14-6-2008 by thepresidentsbrain]

PETITION TO AMERICAN LEADERS TO CLOSE GUANTÁNAMO BAY


"At the prison at Guantánamo Bay, convictions can be based on evidence derived from torture, hearsay and secret evidence. Many of the accused have been held in secret prisons, denied access to lawyers for years and even tortured.

The Guantánamo military commissions are a serious mistake. It's time to shut down Guantánamo Bay, and move proceedings to a civilian court of law or a traditional military court operating in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice where constitutional guarantees apply.

We must also end indefinite detention without charge. Detainees who are not charged or convicted must be sent to countries where they will not be tortured or abused. "

Call on America's leaders to shut down Guantánamo Bay and end the military commission system of injustice by filling out the information below.

Sign The Petition . (ACLU)



[edit on 14-6-2008 by thepresidentsbrain]

reply to post by WhatTheory

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court rebuked the Bush administration yesterday for a third time for its handling of the rights of terrorism detainees held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, saying those in custody there have a constitutional right to challenge their captivity in federal courts.

By a 5-4 vote that brought strongly worded and remorseful dissents from the court's conservative justices, the majority held that an alternative procedure designed by the administration and Congress was inadequate to ensure that the detainees, some of whom have been imprisoned for six years without a hearing, receive their day in court.

"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote. "Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law."

Looks like the supreme court really,really disagrees...

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by Keyhole

 

Originally posted by Keyhole
As an after thought, I thought it was worth adding this quote from this editorial.

There is an enormous gulf between the substance and tone of the majority opinion, with its rich appreciation of the liberties that the founders wrote into the Constitution, and the what-is-all-the-fuss-about dissent. It is sobering to think that habeas hangs by a single vote in the Supreme Court of the United States — a reminder that the composition of the court could depend on the outcome of this year’s presidential election. The ruling is a major victory for civil liberties — but a timely reminder of how fragile they are.

Something else to think about when voting!

Who might be the next retiree from the Court? Stevens is the oldest at 88. I would suspect him.

Just to let everybody know how each of our presidential nominees felt about this decision.

Guantanamo Detainees Have Constitutional Rights: Politicians React

The Supreme Court ruled today that detainees held in Guantanamo Bay have a constitutional right to challenge their detention. This is the third such ruling rebuking the Bush Administration over its handling of foreign terrorism suspects. Politician have begun to react to the Supreme Court's decision.

Here's how Obama felt about this decision!

Senator Barack Obama:

Today's Supreme Court decision ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice, while also protecting our core values. The Court's decision is a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain.

And what McCain thought about the ruling/decision.

McCain: Guantanamo Decision One Of the Worst Ever

"The Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country," McCain said.

Hmmm, "one of the worst decisions in the history of our country" to allow somebody to hear the charges against them and to defend themselves against those charges. Just throw people in jail and leave them there then!

Well, those are the statements made by our nominees for president.

You can decide for yourself which one would be the better candidate to fill a position in the Supreme Court with a judge who would UPHOLD OUR LAWS according to the Constitution.

[edit on 6/14/2008 by Keyhole]

Originally posted by kosmicjack
Yeah, you're right. But we're SUPPOSED to be better than the enemy.

Agreed, but how come the US is the only country that's suppose to follow the Geneva Convention, LOAC, etc, and everyone else gets a free pass to do whatever they want?

Man there are a bunch of people on this board like WhatTheory who have never studied what the founders had in mind.

These people want to throw out the Declaration of Independence which states that "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL and endowed with INALIENABLE RIGHTS".

You see, the British citizens had rights because they were British. And the colonists (more so the ones up north in Boston) felt as if their rights had been removed. Yet they were not in Britain, so this was a problem.

So, when the framers of our constitution wrote the declaration of Independence, the main point was that ALL people had these rights, regardless of where they were, or what they had done.

I can understand if you don't agree with the sentiment, but that would also make you Anti-American, and an enemy of my state. And by your own beliefs, *YOU WHATTHEORY* don't have any rights.

But since I am a strict constitutionalist, I believe that you do.

[edit on 14-6-2008 by Quazga]

"By granting the writ of habeas corpus, the Supreme Court recognizes a rule of law established hundreds of years ago and essential to American jurisprudence since our nation's founding."

Read that article I posted last what-t.....the only ones that agree with you were appointed by yer boy, or his poppy & croonies. I bet you had fun at Strom Thurmond's birthday party.

reply to post by Quazga

Originally posted by Quazga
Man there are a bunch of people on this board like WhatTheory who have never studied what the founders had in mind.

These people want to throw out the Declaration of Independence which states that "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL and endowed with INALIENABLE RIGHTS".

The actual verbiage is

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Originally posted by Quazga

You see, the British citizens had rights because they were British. And the colonists (more so the ones up north in Boston) felt as if their rights had been removed. Yet they were not in Britain, so this was a problem.

So, when the framers of our constitution wrote the declaration of Independence, the main point was that ALL people had these rights, regardless of where they were, or what they had done.

I don't see how you can bestow the rights outlined in our Constitution to the people in Biafra or Saudi Arabia.

The forefathers did not want to simply copy the laws of Britain verbatim. They wanted to create their own system of laws, as illustrated by the highlighted sections:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

What you are implying is that our laws cover any person on our soil. That is partially true, but not totally. A citizen has certain rights which are not bestowed to a foreigner.

It is an interesting discussion. What are the limits of rights extended to non-citizens?

Originally posted by jsobecky
What you are implying is that our laws cover any person on our soil. That is partially true, but not totally. A citizen has certain rights which are not bestowed to a foreigner.

It is an interesting discussion. What are the limits of rights extended to non-citizens?

True, US citizens DO have some rights that non-citizens have when on our soil, like the right to vote and such.

But when it comes to criminal law and the federal or state government is going to prosecute you, whether you are a citizen or not, all rights pertaining to our judicial system apply to both citizens and non-citizens.