|
|
#100319 - 06/14/08 12:07 PM
Supreme Court and Prison Ships
|
Agnostic
Member
Registered: 06/28/03
Posts: 3078
Loc: Chennai, TN, India
|
There has been a lot of discussion about the US Supreme Court granting Gitmo detainees access to habeas corpus with conservatives and liberals attacking and supporting the Supreme Court decision.
Wouldn't it be a simple way to circumvent the law by spiriting all those detainees to some of your world-famous prison ships?
That would teach these officious judges...
_________________________
Harry
-----
A black cat crossing your path signifies that the animal is going somewhere.
Groucho Marx
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100709 - 06/19/08 12:01 AM
Re: Supreme Court and Prison Ships
[Re: Agnostic]
|
ABMT
Member
Registered: 06/07/07
Posts: 836
Loc: IL, USA
|
with the supreme court jumping out of their jurisdiction as defined by the constitution who knows. They seem to think that they can make the laws, not Congress. We are at their mercy with no recourse as they are appointed for life.
_________________________
Ann
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100738 - 06/19/08 07:59 AM
Re: Supreme Court and Prison Ships
[Re: ABMT]
|
tropsicleAfter
Member
Registered: 10/30/06
Posts: 2053
Loc: MS Gulf Coast
|
Ann, could you enlighten me as to how they are "jumping out of their jurisdiction" and how they seem to think they can make the laws in their rulings about Gitmo?
_________________________
tropsicle
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100742 - 06/19/08 09:35 AM
Re: Supreme Court and Prison Ships
[Re: tropsicleAfter]
|
ABMT
Member
Registered: 06/07/07
Posts: 836
Loc: IL, USA
|
It is job of Congress to make the laws, it up to the supreme court to interpret the constitution. The law that they overturned was written by congress and the president after one was submitted and the supreme court told them what changes needed to be made to make their law consitutional. They made the recommended changes and now the supreme court says THAT is not constitutional. It is the job of Congress and the president in all matters of war, not the judiciary, according to the constitution. Giving the rights of American citizens to foreigners not even on American soil is preposterous.
_________________________
Ann
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100748 - 06/19/08 10:11 AM
Re: Supreme Court and Prison Ships
[Re: ABMT]
|
tropsicleAfter
Member
Registered: 10/30/06
Posts: 2053
Loc: MS Gulf Coast
|
OK, a couple of things...
First, Gitmo IS American soil, just like the land of any American Embassy.
Second, when you refer to matters of war, that phrase refers to declared wars, of which we have none.
Third, the changes made to the original (two) pieces of legislation have been interpreted as still not meeting constitutional standards.
So, what I read from your post and answer to my question is that you don't like their ruling, and that is perfectly within your rights. You find it preposterous that rights under the rule of law are extended to foreigners. However, these are your feelings, and your feelings are not a matter of law. Your feelings do not make your ascertation that the Supreme Court is outside its jurisdiction, and you have offered no support for your statement that they seem to think they can make law.
_________________________
tropsicle
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100751 - 06/19/08 10:19 AM
Re: Supreme Court and Prison Ships
[Re: tropsicleAfter]
|
ABMT
Member
Registered: 06/07/07
Posts: 836
Loc: IL, USA
|
Actually Gitmo is leased under certain conditions and is not considered American soil.
The revised law was according to the recommendations of the Supreme Court and they overturned their own precedent.
It is also contradictory to the Geneva convention.
And yes, I do think it is wrong to extend American rights to foreigners whose only purpose is to kill us because we do not adhere to their beliefs. I know that this last paragraph is my opinion. Isn't America great that as of today I still have the right to express them.
_________________________
Ann
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100759 - 06/19/08 11:37 AM
Re: Supreme Court and Prison Ships
[Re: ABMT]
|
tropsicleAfter
Member
Registered: 10/30/06
Posts: 2053
Loc: MS Gulf Coast
|
Yes, America is great, and no one wants to take away your right to express your opinions, Ann. It would be best, though, if your opinions, as expressed, are consistent with the truth of matters and not put out like statements of fact.
Gitmo is leased, true, but is considered American soil for all intents and purposes. The Supreme court issues opinions with their decisions, they do not make recommendations as to how to 'fix' unconstitutional legislation that comes before them. They look at each case as a separate matter, sometimes relying on previous rulings and other judicial precedents. The bottom line is that the case just before them, the topic of this thread, was found by a majority of the court to be unconstitutional, as argued by the best lawyers in the country.
The Geneva convention applies only to prisoners of war, and, again, there is no declared war, so I'm not sure where you were trying to go with this statement. If you really want to bring in the Geneva Convention, they you open up all that nastiness about torturing prisoners we have done.
It simply has not been established that the detainees at Gitmo have the only purpose to kill us. The vast majority of them have not been charged with anything. If our government really had anything on these people, it seems to me common sense that they could demonstrate it with evidence and indictments to back up these allegations. This ruling by the Supreme Court should be considered a good thing, since it will bring to light what, exactly, these detainees have done. Without this kind of oversight by the Supreme Court, your precious right to express your opinion could very well be taken away from you, under conditions not that hard to imagine.
_________________________
tropsicle
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100762 - 06/19/08 11:57 AM
Re: Supreme Court and Prison Ships
[Re: tropsicleAfter]
|
ABMT
Member
Registered: 06/07/07
Posts: 836
Loc: IL, USA
|
Okay, then let's let them all go as so many have been let go and went right back to the NON war and killed American soldiers. Better yet, when Bin-laden is caught, and as per this decision, is given American rights, although he is not American he can go before a jury of his peers with the presumption of innocence. If found not guilty (don't even scoff at that possibility) he can then file civil suits and hit his next target.
From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6518979.stm an article dated April of 2007:
The court's majority opinion was that "the will of Congress" should prevail and that habeas corpus did not apply to foreign nationals being held at Guantanamo Bay because it is not US soil.
Sounds like a reversal to me.
The war on terror is a real war, whether you agree or not.
I never said America was perfect. But I will take it
considering the alternatives.
_________________________
Ann
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100773 - 06/19/08 12:25 PM
Re: Supreme Court and Prison Ships
[Re: ABMT]
|
ABMT
Member
Registered: 06/07/07
Posts: 836
Loc: IL, USA
|
Justices Say U.S. Must Follow Geneva Conventions
The impact of the case is expected to go well beyond Guantanamo as the justices ruled that the so-called war on terror must be fought under international rules. Legal experts say the ruling challenges the Bush administration’s legal defense of harsh interrogation methods, the CIA’s secret prisons and the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program. The court ruled that the Geneva Convention must apply to detainees captured in the war on terror. [The Los Angeles Times reported “The real blockbuster in the Hamdan decision is the court’s holding that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention applies to the conflict with Al Qaeda—a holding that makes high-ranking Bush administration officials potentially subject to prosecution under the federal War Crimes Act.”] In Thursday’s ruling, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote “the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails in this jurisdiction.”
I guess that the supreme court says the geneva convention applies.
_________________________
Ann
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100777 - 06/19/08 12:49 PM
Re: Supreme Court and Prison Ships
[Re: ABMT]
|
tropsicleAfter
Member
Registered: 10/30/06
Posts: 2053
Loc: MS Gulf Coast
|
So, after all of this, some of the Court's decisions you like, some you do not. I get it.
_________________________
tropsicle
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100778 - 06/19/08 12:58 PM
Re: Supreme Court and Prison Ships
[Re: tropsicleAfter]
|
ABMT
Member
Registered: 06/07/07
Posts: 836
Loc: IL, USA
|
LOL I am sure that there are some decisions you agree with and some you do not, but yes, it is obvoius to me that if someone is caught on a battlefield trying to kill Americans that they are taken as POWs and are subject to the Geneva convention.
Does your last comment mean that you agree with every decision the supreme court has come down with?
_________________________
Ann
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100782 - 06/19/08 01:56 PM
Re: Supreme Court and Prison Ships
[Re: ABMT]
|
sheepshearinglady
Member
Registered: 03/26/04
Posts: 192
Loc: Nebraska
|
I am sure my opinion is terribly naive, but if any of our citizens were held in another country in which we were engaged in some military action, wouldn't we be screaming bloody murder if they were treated the way we have been treating some of the people our government is detaining? Splitting hairs on whether we are actually in a war and if the soil is actually American is just people trying to justify despicable acts. Holding people for years without any charges is not right. If they have committed crimes, they should be charged and punished to the fullest extent of the law. If not, they should be returned back to their countries.
Sue
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100789 - 06/19/08 02:41 PM
Re: Supreme Court and Prison Ships
[Re: sheepshearinglady]
|
Piglet
Member
Registered: 01/22/08
Posts: 602
Loc: Cromwell, CT
|
I don't think it naive at all. My thoughts as well. Most of the detainees are Iraqi citizens and not known terrorists anyway. It doesn't pay to forget that these people are someone's loved ones.
There is such a thing as conducts of war. The United States should not be torturing POWs and US companies should not be profiting from war either.
I think we should be taking the high road when dealing with the matter of the detainees and release the majority of them as a good faith effort of trying to resolve some differences.
I am glad there are people out there forcing it out into the open. Too much is going on behind closed doors.
_________________________
Unapologetically me.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100794 - 06/19/08 03:12 PM
Re: Supreme Court and Prison Ships
[Re: sheepshearinglady]
|
Phyllis Nilsson
Member
Registered: 05/04/00
Posts: 828
Loc: Toledo, Ohio USA
|
Our forces in Iraq would be very happy if, when captured, they were treated as well as we treat the prisoners in Gitmo. Those men have good food, recreation, free medical care better than some of our own citizens can afford, and freedom to practice their religion. In return, the guards are spit upon and have urine and feces thrown in their face.
When our citizens were captured their heads were cut off!
The Geneva Convention was specifically designed for warfare between nations. That is why uniforms of the nation being fought for is specificallly stated. These people at Gitmo were not fighting for any nation, were not wearing uniforms of any country, and are not entitled to Geneva Convention protection. They are thugs and terrorists, and when released have gone right back to the battle fields and killed more of our citizens.
It is the wimps of this country who want to stretch protection to people who don't deserve it and for who it was never intended. Why? So they can appear to be "morally superior" to the rest of us, or more "enlightened", or maybe "more educated in the ways of war"? They disgust me.
Or perhaps they just want people to think the moral high road is what we should always travel even when people are trying to cross our borders to kill more of us.
Moral high ground my Aunt Sally! Don't tell me that allowing people to die when we can help stop it is the moral high ground. Don't tell me that capturing people on the battlefield and keeping them from killing more isn't the moral high ground. And don't tell me these poor, misunderstood men in prison at Gitmo really didn't do anything wrong they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The Constitution tells us how to treat people in this country, not other countries, and no Gitmo is not U.S. soil because Castro hasn't cashed any of our rent checks in 44 years so the soil is still his!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100795 - 06/19/08 03:18 PM
Re: Supreme Court and Prison Ships
[Re: Phyllis Nilsson]
|
ABMT
Member
Registered: 06/07/07
Posts: 836
Loc: IL, USA
|
Sue,
Interestingly enough We have tried to send many of them back to their own countries. They would not take them!!
_________________________
Ann
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100796 - 06/19/08 03:33 PM
Re: Supreme Court and Prison Ships
[Re: Phyllis Nilsson]
|
bobbcat
Member
Registered: 03/27/03
Posts: 5577
Loc: My office.
|
Phyllis, thanks again for the well said. Saved me the trouble.....
_________________________
Bottom line, it's either M-TEC or Andrews.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100797 - 06/19/08 03:34 PM
Re: Supreme Court and Prison Ships
[Re: sheepshearinglady]
|
14tonks
Member
Registered: 10/25/01
Posts: 5931
Loc: Only 3rd world country in US
|
I am sure my opinion is terribly naive, but if any of our citizens were held in another country in which we were engaged in some military action, wouldn't we be screaming bloody murder if they were treated the way we have been treating some of the people our government is detaining? Splitting hairs on whether we are actually in a war and if the soil is actually American is just people trying to justify despicable acts. Holding people for years without any charges is not right. If they have committed crimes, they should be charged and punished to the fullest extent of the law. If not, they should be returned back to their countries.
What she said.
The Geneva Conventions do not have a clause that says "this applies only to people who aren't really your enemies."
The Constitution has no clauses that say "only when it is convenient, or only if the majority agree with the views of the person or people in question and/or deem them 'deserving'."
Hmmm, yes, I'm sure Jefferson really meant for the Declaration of Independence to read, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that only men who are citizens of our nation are created equal, that only the deserving among them are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Edited by 14tonks (06/19/08 03:54 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100798 - 06/19/08 03:40 PM
Re: Supreme Court and Prison Ships
[Re: ABMT]
|
Piglet
Member
Registered: 01/22/08
Posts: 602
Loc: Cromwell, CT
|
Two wrongs don't make a right, EVER. Violence just begets more violence.
Unless you want your children and your children's children subscripted into a constant state of war in the ME, we better figure out a different way of handling the situation.
You can take your statements of wimpiness and shove them where the sun don't shine, because it takes a lot more balls to forgive and move forward than it does to strike out in anger and fear.
We are not being targeted for no reason. There is always a reason. Perhaps you just too busy reacting to action itself rather than asking why.
_________________________
Unapologetically me.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100800 - 06/19/08 03:45 PM
Re: Supreme Court and Prison Ships
[Re: ABMT]
|
14tonks
Member
Registered: 10/25/01
Posts: 5931
Loc: Only 3rd world country in US
|
I never said America was perfect. But I will take it
considering the alternatives.
I never cease to be amazed by the number of our citizens who laud our country as the best in the world, who freely admit there is nowhere else they could live with as much freedom and as much legal protection for that freedom--and then immediately express their desire to have that country freely engage in the despicable acts common in so much of the rest of the world and to have its government restrict everybody's freedoms and remove everyone's legal protections as rapidly and thoroughly as it can be managed.
It does not compute.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#100801 - 06/19/08 03:49 PM
Re: Supreme Court and Prison Ships
[Re: 14tonks]
|
ABMT
Member
Registered: 06/07/07
Posts: 836
Loc: IL, USA
|
What does not compute is taking terrorists arm and arm and singing kumbaya while they want to kill us. What does not compute is people naievely beliving that they can talk sense into people wearing bombs that are willing to kill their own people. What does not make sense is that 3000 people died when madmen flew planes into buildings. What does not compute is to sit idley by and say that there must be a good reason they did these things. After all why they hate us is because we do not believe as they do.
_________________________
Ann
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
