US 'erodes' global human rights

[Admiral_K]

Its not nearly as cut and dry as you portray. The idea of an extrateratorial constituation is hotly debated. Precedents from the supreme court are mixed as each generation seems to view things a bit differently. The Supreme court may disagree with me now, but for most of our history the Constituation ONLY applied to U.S. citizens. And there is nothing in the Counstituation that states it extends outside of the boundries of the United States (Making your statement that the Constituation disagrees with me false).

So. If I'm a Dutch tourist in the US and I carry marijuana, can I claim the protection of Dutch laws and consitution?

No if you are aprehended in the U.S., you are afforded some constituational protections. Quite frankly I don't understand why you would make such a statement based on what I wrote above.

Its not circular logic. You asked if they should be denied "due process" because they were non citizens. I said No, they should be denied due process because they've taken up arms against the United States in areas that are outside of our borders. AS the actions were taken outside of the United States, U.S. law does not apply. And by "due process" I mean giving them an American style court process with grand jury indictmnts etc.

Stravo is so going to kick your ass. Due process and so on means giving them a trial! You cannot hold someone indefinitely without charges or trial in the US.

Guantanom Bay is not part of the U.S. and the people held there aren't U.S. citizens. The supreme court has ruled (incorrectly I might add) that since the U.S. exercises control over Guantanamo Bay, that it is considered "U.S. soil". I guess then that Afghanistan, and Iraq were also U.S. soil.

If push comes to shove, the Army can get around the supreme court by simply moving them to another location in a friendly nation that isn't under "U.S. control", but rather is under U.S. supervision.

The Navy's own website calls it communist soil. We are tenants, not owners.

Then the navy is wrong.

The US has never. Repeat. Never considered any military base it owns as being seperate from US soil. Indeed, international law as sanctioned by the UN makes every diplomatic building and military equipment like aircraft the soverign territory of its owner. This was one of the main reasons why the USN was not allowed to remain in the Phillipines.

The land is owned by Cuba and is leased by the United States. Therfore, by your definition the land is Cuban sovreign territory.

[Edi]

You asked if they should be denied "due process" because they were non citizens. I said No, they should be denied due process because they've taken up arms against the United States in areas that are outside of our borders. AS the actions were taken outside of the United States, U.S. law does not apply. And by "due process" I mean giving them an American style court process with grand jury indictmnts etc.

I see our newest clown is still working hard to establish himself as the equal of the august Axis Kast in the ranks of morondom. You know, you really should rather keep your mouth shut and let people wonder whether or not you're a moron than open it and remove any doubts. You don't have the faintest clue about what you're talking about, and to nobody's surprise, you're just flat out wrong.

The protections of the US constitution extend to wherever the US has jurisdiction, and by taking over Iraq, that means that temporarily it applies to that area as well because you claim jurisdiction there.

Guantanom Bay is not part of the U.S. and the people held there aren't U.S. citizens. The supreme court has ruled (incorrectly I might add) that since the U.S. exercises control over Guantanamo Bay, that it is considered "U.S. soil". I guess then that Afghanistan, and Iraq were also U.S. soil.

So you, with no legal training whatsoever, with no grasp at all of any of even the most basic principles your nation's laws are built upon, know better than the SCOTUS how they should rule on a given case? Never mind one with such long-reaching consequences and important implications? You're on crack, heroin, PCP and amphetamine all at the same time.

Afghanistan and Iraq were not and are not US soil, but this does not exempt US troops there from following US laws in their dealings with the population when the US has invaded those countries. All of this is based on several different international treaties the US is signatory to (which means they have binding force of federal law). Guantanamo has the same status as embassies, it is leased from the Cuban government, it is under 100% US jurisdiction (even though it is not US government property) and therefore the USC applies there as well.

If push comes to shove, the Army can get around the supreme court by simply moving them to another location in a friendly nation that isn't under "U.S. control", but rather is under U.S. supervision.

This just means that the army would be guilty of obstructing justice in addition to their earlier violations. It does not remove the problem itself, which is the refusal of the US government to abide by its own laws. This is why your country is being so reviled, it claims to be the champion of human rights and refuses to extend even the most basic of those to anyone it deems undesirable. "Land of the Free" indeed...

Edi

[Stravo]

Guantanom Bay is not part of the U.S. and the people held there aren't U.S. citizens. The supreme court has ruled (incorrectly I might add) that since the U.S. exercises control over Guantanamo Bay, that it is considered "U.S. soil". I guess then that Afghanistan, and Iraq were also U.S. soil.

I'm glad you're here to tell us these things Admiral K. Can you enlighten us on any other legal decisions that are 'wrong' that were recahed by the SCOTUS. YOu know that body of legal scholars that have spent the majority of their lives practicing and studying the law. People that presidents of the US have deemed worthy of being the ultimate arbitors of legal questions. But damn, If not for you we would never know they were wrong.

So US embassies are not American soil, US warhips are not US soil?

If push comes to shove, the Army can get around the supreme court by simply moving them to another location in a friendly nation that isn't under "U.S. control", but rather is under U.S. supervision.

And considering the vast upswell of International support we've had of late what nation would that be?

The Navy's own website calls it communist soil. We are tenants, not owners.

Then the navy is wrong.

WOW. You are a gentlemen and a scholar. Not only is the SCOTUS wrong but the US Navy as well. Let me take a really wild guess and go out on a limb - you're always right, correct?

[Admiral_K]

Guantanom Bay is not part of the U.S. and the people held there aren't U.S. citizens. The supreme court has ruled (incorrectly I might add) that since the U.S. exercises control over Guantanamo Bay, that it is considered "U.S. soil". I guess then that Afghanistan, and Iraq were also U.S. soil.

I'm glad you're here to tell us these things Admiral K. Can you enlighten us on any other legal decisions that are 'wrong' that were recahed by the SCOTUS. YOu know that body of legal scholars that have spent the majority of their lives practicing and studying the law. People that presidents of the US have deemed worthy of being the ultimate arbitors of legal questions. But damn, If not for you we would never know they were wrong.

The judges weren't in unanimous agreement by any stretch. The more conservative ones tended to agree with me in my oppinion. My personal belief is that the ones who voted for it have interpreted the consitution incorrectly. It wouldn't be the first time they've made an incorrect decision, and hopefully they will corrrect this one as they have in the past.

So US embassies are not American soil, US warhips are not US soil?

Tell me what that has to do with anything regarding Guantanamo Bay? Its not an Embassy, nor is it U.S. property.

If push comes to shove, the Army can get around the supreme court by simply moving them to another location in a friendly nation that isn't under "U.S. control", but rather is under U.S. supervision.

And considering the vast upswell of International support we've had of late what nation would that be?

Iraq, Afghanistan etc.

The Navy's own website calls it communist soil. We are tenants, not owners.

Then the navy is wrong.

WOW. You are a gentlemen and a scholar. Not only is the SCOTUS wrong but the US Navy as well. Let me take a really wild guess and go out on a limb - you're always right, correct?

Read it again. I didn't say the Navy is wrong, that was the other guy. The Navy says that Guantanamo Bay is the only U.S. Base on Communist Soil. This lends credence to it NOT being "U.S. soil". I am in agreement with the Navy.

And no, I'm not always right, but I don't think just because the current incarnation of the Supreme court has decided to overstep its bounds and declare foreign soil "U.S. soil" because troops occupy it, doesn't make me wrong. Just because a group of people outvotes you on something doesn't mean that they are right.

[Coyote]

*tch* When the damaged US spy plane landed in China, the US government insisted that Chinese officials boarding the plane would be a violation of US sovereignty. The plane was like a tiny American state, parked on a Chinese tarmac.

If I commit a crime here in Iraq, I will be held accountable to US law.

[Admiral_K]

*tch* When the damaged US spy plane landed in China, the US government insisted that Chinese officials boarding the plane would be a violation of US sovereignty. The plane was like a tiny American state, parked on a Chinese tarmac.

If I commit a crime here in Iraq, I will be held accountable to US law.

The difference being that the U.S. plane was US property. The buildings in Guantanamo will revert to Cuban control should we end our lease and pull out.

As far as the criminal law goes, if you are a U.S. citizen the constitution follows you regardless of where you are in regards to dealing with the U.S. government. The same is not true of non citizens.

[Aaron]

The difference being that the U.S. plane was US property. The buildings in Guantanamo will revert to Cuban control should we end our lease and pull out.

As far as the criminal law goes, if you are a U.S. citizen the constitution follows you regardless of where you are in regards to dealing with the U.S. government. The same is not true of non citizens.

So by that line of thinking then US citizens are to be held accountable to the constittution even when abroad?

[Chmee]

The difference being that the U.S. plane was US property. The buildings in Guantanamo will revert to Cuban control should we end our lease and pull out.

As far as the criminal law goes, if you are a U.S. citizen the constitution follows you regardless of where you are in regards to dealing with the U.S. government. The same is not true of non citizens.

So by that line of thinking then US citizens are to be held accountable to the constittution even when abroad?

If you could find parts of the Constitution that referred to citizen obligations, not citizen rights ....

The Constitution lays out the restrictions on the powers of government, the inalienable rights of people subject to the powers of that government ... it doesn't speak to the powers of other governments.

[Admiral_K]

The difference being that the U.S. plane was US property. The buildings in Guantanamo will revert to Cuban control should we end our lease and pull out.

As far as the criminal law goes, if you are a U.S. citizen the constitution follows you regardless of where you are in regards to dealing with the U.S. government. The same is not true of non citizens.

So by that line of thinking then US citizens are to be held accountable to the constittution even when abroad?

No. They are simply afforded constitutional protections when dealing with the U.S. outside of U.S. Soil.

[Edi]

The judges weren't in unanimous agreement by any stretch. The more conservative ones tended to agree with me in my oppinion. My personal belief is that the ones who voted for it have interpreted the consitution incorrectly. It wouldn't be the first time they've made an incorrect decision, and hopefully they will corrrect this one as they have in the past.

Here's a hint for you: Restating your opinion as if it were fact still does NOT make it a fact. Now let's hear some actual objective reasons and answers based on the legal theories that undelie US legislation for why the SCOTUS has ostensibly been wrong. Unless you back your uninformed opinion up with some evidence, it is utterly irrelevant.

So US embassies are not American soil, US warhips are not US soil?

Tell me what that has to do with anything regarding Guantanamo Bay? Its not an Embassy, nor is it U.S. property.

Unfortunately for your argument, actual ownership of a given piece of land is irrelevant to whether or not a state's laws apply there, the defining criterion is control of said real estate. Guantanamo is under sole US control, therefore under US jurisdiction, therefore the USC applies.

Read it again. I didn't say the Navy is wrong, that was the other guy. The Navy says that Guantanamo Bay is the only U.S. Base on Communist Soil. This lends credence to it NOT being "U.S. soil". I am in agreement with the Navy.

Yes, the Cuban government owns the land, so the fuck what? See above.

And no, I'm not always right, but I don't think just because the current incarnation of the Supreme court has decided to overstep its bounds and declare foreign soil "U.S. soil" because troops occupy it, doesn't make me wrong. Just because a group of people outvotes you on something doesn't mean that they are right.

And just because you bleat out your uninformed, unsupported opinion as fact does not make it fact. Now back up this bullshit of yours with the legal theories and principles that contradict the SCOTUS ruling and support your position, or just shut the fuck up, because your mindless repetition is starting to get fucking annoying. You already sidestepped my first post because it apparently contained arguments too difficult for you and gave you no room to dance around the issue, how about this one? Or will you ignbore it like you did the earlier post because it's incovenient to the foundations of the fantasy world you live in?

Edi

[Admiral_K]

The judges weren't in unanimous agreement by any stretch. The more conservative ones tended to agree with me in my oppinion. My personal belief is that the ones who voted for it have interpreted the consitution incorrectly. It wouldn't be the first time they've made an incorrect decision, and hopefully they will corrrect this one as they have in the past.

Here's a hint for you: Restating your opinion as if it were fact still does NOT make it a fact. Now let's hear some actual objective reasons and answers based on the legal theories that undelie US legislation for why the SCOTUS has ostensibly been wrong. Unless you back your uninformed opinion up with some evidence, it is utterly irrelevant.

Since all we are dealing with here IS oppion, then what the fuck do you expect me to say? Nothing here is "fact" so to speak. As far as why the SCOTUS is wrong, well quite frankly it is wrong because no where in the constitution is the power granted to extend constitutional protections to foreign nationals, much less ones on foreign soil regardless of the presence or lack thereof of the U.S. military. There is no clause that the constituation "follows the flag" wherever we go. As for the Supreme Court decision, the vote on Guantanamo went down 6-3 in the Supreme court.

In a second case Monday, concerning the hundreds of noncitizens confined at the United States naval base at Guantanamo Bay, the court ruled 6 to 3 that federal judges have jurisdiction to consider petitions for writs of habeas corpus from detainees who argue that they are being unlawfully held.

The administration's position on the Guantanamo detainees was that under a World War II-era Supreme Court precedent, no federal court had jurisdiction to hear their cases because the base is outside the sovereign territory of the United States. But for a variety of reasons, the precedents the administration relied on did not govern the analysis, Justice John Paul Stevens said for the majority. A main factor was the nature of Guantanamo bay, "territory over which the United States exercises exclusive jurisdiction and control" under a 101-year-old lease, Justice Stevens said.

The majority's analysis suggested, in fact, that federal courts might have jurisdiction to hear claims of illegal detention from those held in other foreign locations as well. While Justice Stevens was not explicit on this point, his suggestion was enough to provoke Justice Antonin Scalia to complain in dissent that "the court boldly extends the scope of the habeas statute to the four corners of the earth." Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas joined the dissent


The court was divided 6-3. The majority opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens and hinged on the definition of "sovereignty." He argued that, even though Cuba retained "ultimate sovereignty", the United States exercised, in the words of the lease from Cuba, "complete jurisdiction and control" at Guantanamo Bay

Therefore federal jurisdiction applied there and "aliens, no less than American citizens, are entitled to invoke the Federal courts' authority."...

...Justice Scalia said that the "carefree" court's "spurious" ruling on Guantanamo was a "wrenching departure from precedent" and "boldly extends the scope of the habeas statute to the four corners of the earth."

The consequence, he said, was "breathtaking." It enabled "an alien captured in a foreign theater of active combat to petition the Secretary of Defense." It brought the "cumbersome machinery of our domestic courts into military affairs".

So I guess, Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas all must have uninformed oppinions as they would appear to agree with me.

So US embassies are not American soil, US warhips are not US soil?

Tell me what that has to do with anything regarding Guantanamo Bay? Its not an Embassy, nor is it U.S. property.

Unfortunately for your argument, actual ownership of a given piece of land is irrelevant to whether or not a state's laws apply there, the defining criterion is control of said real estate. Guantanamo is under sole US control, therefore under US jurisdiction, therefore the USC applies.

Please find some facts to back up your uninformed oppinion. Are you aware that Puerto Rican residents aren't afforded full rights given other citizens under the constitution? This, despite the fact that it is considered U.S. territory and under U.S. jurisdiction and that its residents are in fact considered U.S. citizens? You wanna know why? Because Puerto Rico is not a state. Not a state = does not recieve full constituational rights and protections. That would seem to throw a monkey wrench into your whole "under US jurisdiction, therefore the USC applies" theory.

Further, there is absolutely nothing in the constitution that says foreign nationals captured and held outside of the United States shall be given constituational protections.

Article IV Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

This establishes that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that Judges in every State are bound. No reference at all given to territories outside the United States. In the absence of this, the more liberal members of the court have apparently chosen to extend constituational protections outside of the United States. They have done this of their own volition, essentially creating a new law where none existed. This is a power that is not afforded them by the Constitution.

Read it again. I didn't say the Navy is wrong, that was the other guy. The Navy says that Guantanamo Bay is the only U.S. Base on Communist Soil. This lends credence to it NOT being "U.S. soil". I am in agreement with the Navy.

Yes, the Cuban government owns the land, so the fuck what? See above.

It means that its NOT U.S. soil.

And no, I'm not always right, but I don't think just because the current incarnation of the Supreme court has decided to overstep its bounds and declare foreign soil "U.S. soil" because troops occupy it, doesn't make me wrong. Just because a group of people outvotes you on something doesn't mean that they are right.

And just because you bleat out your uninformed, unsupported opinion as fact does not make it fact. Now back up this bullshit of yours with the legal theories and principles that contradict the SCOTUS ruling and support your position, or just shut the fuck up, because your mindless repetition is starting to get fucking annoying. You already sidestepped my first post because it apparently contained arguments too difficult for you and gave you no room to dance around the issue, how about this one? Or will you ignbore it like you did the earlier post because it's incovenient to the foundations of the fantasy world you live in?
Edi

Evidence presented Jackass.


And what pray tell, did I "sidestep"?

[Stravo]

Ademiral Kocksucker - You wanna play the ol' "Not enumerated in the Constituion game? Cool. Let's play.

Let's start by taking away your right to privacy. Whoops. That damned SCOTUS reading things into the Constitution that isn't there.

You like black kids and white kids going to school together? WHoops. Nowhere in the Constitution is segragation addressed. Save of course to let us know that blacks constitute 3/5 of a person.

A woman's right to choose? Nope. BZZZZTT not there.

Hey, that criminal needs to be read his rights....wait NO he doesn't. That pesky SCOTUS and there interpretative powers. You would think the Consitution GAVE them that power.

Listen up, just because you don't like a decision does not make it wrong asshole. If I followed your logic I would be attending the anti-inauguration of President John Kerry. If this country followed your logic the blue states would have seceded because obviously the red states were wrong.

[Admiral_K]

Oh I see now. I never answered you. Thats not sidestepping moron. But allow me to address some of your moronic "points" that I didn't get in my previous post.

The protections of the US constitution extend to wherever the US has jurisdiction, and by taking over Iraq, that means that temporarily it applies to that area as well because you claim jurisdiction there.

This is another example of someone thinking that there are constitutional protections that simply do not exist. Maybe you should actually fucking READ it before spouting your ignorant bullshit.

HERE: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Please quote the sections of the constituation that say Constitutional protections are extended anywhere we exercise military control.

So you, with no legal training whatsoever, with no grasp at all of any of even the most basic principles your nation's laws are built upon, know better than the SCOTUS how they should rule on a given case? Never mind one with such long-reaching consequences and important implications? You're on crack, heroin, PCP and amphetamine all at the same time.

I know that the more liberal members of the SC seem to feel they have the power to create law if they feel it should exist. Thats why you have dissenting oppinions. It doesn't take a "legal expert" to see that there is nothing in the constitution that extends constitutional protections beyond our boders. Nor is there anything giving the SCOTUS the power to do so either, yet this is a power they have "acquired" in their capacity of "interpreting" the constitution. Fortunately, the court itself has the power to change its oppinion when it realizes it has made a mistake.

Afghanistan and Iraq were not and are not US soil, but this does not exempt US troops there from following US laws in their dealings with the population when the US has invaded those countries. All of this is based on several different international treaties the US is signatory to (which means they have binding force of federal law). Guantanamo has the same status as embassies, it is leased from the Cuban government, it is under 100% US jurisdiction (even though it is not US government property) and therefore the USC applies there as wel

The only relevant international treaty regarding our treatment of foreign prisoners is the Geneva convention. And it has already been established that the "enemy combatants" held at Guantanamo are not subject to the provisions of the Geneva convetion.

[Admiral_K]

Ademiral Kocksucker - You wanna play the ol' "Not enumerated in the Constituion game? Cool. Let's play.

So now we've resorted to calling names Shitvo?

Let's start by taking away your right to privacy. Whoops. That damned SCOTUS reading things into the Constitution that isn't there.

"Right to privacy" is essentially provided in Amendment 4.

You like black kids and white kids going to school together? WHoops. Nowhere in the Constitution is segragation addressed. Save of course to let us know that blacks constitute 3/5 of a person.

The fact that there is nothing in the constitution doesn't support your argument. While black kids and white kids going to school together is all well and good, the SCOTUS is not the branch of federal government that should've enacted it. Thats what CONGRESS is supposed to be there for.

You can argue the "ends justifying the means" all you want, but the fact is this is yet another example of the SCOTUS taking power it is not supposed to have.

A woman's right to choose? Nope. BZZZZTT not there.

See above

Hey, that criminal needs to be read his rights....wait NO he doesn't. That pesky SCOTUS and there interpretative powers. You would think the Consitution GAVE them that power.

It gives them the power to interpret. It does not give them the power to invent law because they "think it would be right". Thats not their Job.

The job of the SCOTUS is to make sure that the President, or Congress, or a State Legislature etc. doesn't violate the constitution through their actions. When their "interpretations" extend into the area of modification or de facto creation of law, they essentially negate one of the "checks and balances" of our system.

Listen up, just because you don't like a decision does not make it wrong asshole. If I followed your logic I would be attending the anti-inauguration of President John Kerry. If this country followed your logic the blue states would have seceded because obviously the red states were wrong.

Temper Temper

I'm not arguing whether something is morally "right" or "wrong".

However, I'm a strict believer in the seperation of powers as depicted in the constitution. If you have the SCOTUS assuming legislative power, which it has done multiple times over the course of its history, it essentially becomes too powerful.

I want the court to go back to what it is supposed to be doing: Interpreting constitutional law not writing it. And making sure that other federal laws (i.e. The Patriot Act) passed by congress don't violate the constitution.

[The Yosemite Bear]

My view is, if you knowingly and willingly work with terrorist organizations you give up your "human rights". I'm in favor of extracting information from these scum by any means neccessary.

Err, I have donated money to what I thought at the time were good enviornmental causes, and indirectly supported Earth First, My mom was a former member of the Students for a Democratic Society. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_f ... ic_Society

we have pols that are in the republican and democratic parties that have recieved patronage at one time from such terrorist groups as The Klan, The IRA, or the bush family's connections with south american anti-communist mass murderers.

[Admiral_K]

My view is, if you knowingly and willingly work with terrorist organizations you give up your "human rights". I'm in favor of extracting information from these scum by any means neccessary.

Err, I have donated money to what I thought at the time were good enviornmental causes, and indirectly supported Earth First, My mom was a former member of the Students for a Democratic Society. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_f ... ic_Society

we have pols that are in the republican and democratic parties that have recieved patronage at one time from such terrorist groups as The Klan, The IRA, or the bush family's connections with south american anti-communist mass murderers.

Thus hte "knowingly and willingly" clause...

[Edi]

Stravo: In case I've got some of the stuff wrong, point it out (I think I've got everything covered, but just in case). That dickweed Admiral K doesn't know his arse from his elbow where the legal profession is concerned, so I'd like the second opinion of someone who is a REAL professional.

Since all we are dealing with here IS oppion, then what the fuck do you expect me to say? Nothing here is "fact" so to speak. As far as why the SCOTUS is wrong, well quite frankly it is wrong because no where in the constitution is the power granted to extend constitutional protections to foreign nationals, much less ones on foreign soil regardless of the presence or lack thereof of the U.S. military.

And this is you demonstrating again that you have absolutely zero grasp of the legal theory and principles that are taken as axiomatic assumptions that all of your other laws and rules are built upon. Many of those principles underlie the very USC, and you have no idea whatsoever of what they are and their implications, and you just wave them away.

The whole concept of jurisdiction is dependent on control, either de factor, or nominal. Enforcing it requires de facto control. US personnel are bound by US laws even when operating abroad, and guess what, as representatives of the government, they are constrained by the limits set on the government by the USC and its amendments. This assumes that these personnel have control over the environment, which is the case in e.g. Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of those limitations are for example due process, and I do believe the amendments go to quite some detail about it. Furthermore, your claim that the protections that are not specifically restricted to citizens (such as the right to vote) do not apply to foreigners is just handwaving. If it were true, foreign nationals could be tortured, murdered, robbed, raped, kidnapped and whatever else by Americans with impunity and no consequences because they would not be under the protection of US laws (for which the USC is the basis!). This is manifestly not the case.

There is no clause that the constituation "follows the flag" wherever we go. As for the Supreme Court decision, the vote on Guantanamo went down 6-3 in the Supreme court.

Yes, a two thirds majority outvoted the guys who agree with you, and we'll examine your snippets in a bit. Concession accepted.

In a second case Monday, concerning the hundreds of noncitizens confined at the United States naval base at Guantanamo Bay, the court ruled 6 to 3 that federal judges have jurisdiction to consider petitions for writs of habeas corpus from detainees who argue that they are being unlawfully held.

The administration's position on the Guantanamo detainees was that under a World War II-era Supreme Court precedent, no federal court had jurisdiction to hear their cases because the base is outside the sovereign territory of the United States. But for a variety of reasons, the precedents the administration relied on did not govern the analysis, Justice John Paul Stevens said for the majority. A main factor was the nature of Guantanamo bay, "territory over which the United States exercises exclusive jurisdiction and control" under a 101-year-old lease, Justice Stevens said.

There, plain as day, the issue of jurisdiction and de facto control as I said above.

The majority's analysis suggested, in fact, that federal courts might have jurisdiction to hear claims of illegal detention from those held in other foreign locations as well. While Justice Stevens was not explicit on this point, his suggestion was enough to provoke Justice Antonin Scalia to complain in dissent that "the court boldly extends the scope of the habeas statute to the four corners of the earth." Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas joined the dissent

Yes, that is indeed the logical conclusion from the premises outlined by the USC and principles it is founded upon. The fact that Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas disagreed indicates more that they simply do want to rule in a way that hampers their preferred outcome. For a comparison, if Finnish soldiers were to perpetrate crimes such as illegal detention in foreign locations, their victims sure as hell could ask Finnish courts to order their release, and that would happen.

You see, it is a pretty fondational principle of international law (not talking about specific treaties, but the framework assumptions that enable any kind of jurisprudential cooperation between different nations) that jurisdiction is NOT solely defined by the physical boundaries of the country. The jurisdiction of a court of a nation generally extends to:

• acts committed within the nation's borders
• acts committed against the nation outside its boundaries (but you need to get hold of the perps first)
• acts committed against citizens of the nation abroad (same requirement as above)
• acts committed by citizens of the nation abroad (unless the country where the actions occurred gets its hands on them first)
• acts committed by foreign nationals on other foreign nationals abroad under certain circumstances that touch the nation

There may be a couple of other situations as well, but those cover all the essentials, and it neatly decapitates Scalia's argument and shows it to be mere handwaving. Yes, if US soldiers commit crimes abroad, then their victims can seek redress in US courts.

...Justice Scalia said that the "carefree" court's "spurious" ruling on Guantanamo was a "wrenching departure from precedent" and "boldly extends the scope of the habeas statute to the four corners of the earth."

Scalia is obviously full of shit in this case and simply whining about his preferred outcome not being implemented because it is illegal, something that 6 of the 9 judges obviously also noticed.

The consequence, he said, was "breathtaking." It enabled "an alien captured in a foreign theater of active combat to petition the Secretary of Defense." It brought the "cumbersome machinery of our domestic courts into military affairs".

So I guess, Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas all must have uninformed oppinions as they would appear to agree with me.

And they were a minority of 3 out of 9, which just goes to show that even judges are fallible, and their objection is not backed by anything resembling logical argument, just pure handwaving about inconvenience, which is not a valid argument.

Unfortunately for your argument, actual ownership of a given piece of land is irrelevant to whether or not a state's laws apply there, the defining criterion is control of said real estate. Guantanamo is under sole US control, therefore under US jurisdiction, therefore the USC applies.

Please find some facts to back up your uninformed oppinion. Are you aware that Puerto Rican residents aren't afforded full rights given other citizens under the constitution? This, despite the fact that it is considered U.S. territory and under U.S. jurisdiction and that its residents are in fact considered U.S. citizens? You wanna know why? Because Puerto Rico is not a state. Not a state = does not recieve full constituational rights and protections. That would seem to throw a monkey wrench into your whole "under US jurisdiction, therefore the USC applies" theory.

I'vce backed my opinion up above, and as far as Puerto Rico goes, it doesn't affect my argument at all. Puerto Rico is not a state, therefore its inhabitants cannot obviously exercise the rights enumerated in the USC where the requirement for exercise is that the place they live in be a state in the US. As far as I know, they are afforded the protections in the Bill of Rights, and those are the ones we're talking about. Amendments they may be, but they have equal weight to the rest of the USC.

Further, there is absolutely nothing in the constitution that says foreign nationals captured and held outside of the United States shall be given constituational protections.

No, because the situation where US personnel hold foreign nationals captive abroad assumes jurisdiction (de facto at least) on their part, hence the protections apply automatically and the US personnel are still bound by US laws. Obviously simple concepts like these are far too much for single non-functional synapse to handle.

Article IV Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

This establishes that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that Judges in every State are bound. No reference at all given to territories outside the United States.

I've read the USC and its amendments several times, and I understand the document a hell of a fucking lot better than you do, because unlike you, I've had actual training in the principles and legal theories underlying the whole structure of laws that governs our societies. This bullshit argument of yours is addressed above, see the bulleted list.

In the absence of this, the more liberal members of the court have apparently chosen to extend constituational protections outside of the United States. They have done this of their own volition, essentially creating a new law where none existed. This is a power that is not afforded them by the Constitution.

It is a power clearly afforded them, to interpret the USC, and it is not creating a new law, it is setting boundaries on how the existing stuff applies. I hear this kind of whining every time the scope of laws that grant any sort of benefit to anyone is broadened, always from nitpicking conervatives like you who would like things to be artificially constrained to the narrowest possible definition so they can feel good about themselves when they and their supporters do bad things to other people.

It means that its NOT U.S. soil.

Repeating yourself does not make your argument any more valid. Ownership of a piece of land means precisely dick if you have de facto control, and the SCOTUS agrees with me on this, so suck it down. Concession accepted.

Edi

[Admiral_K]

Stravo: In case I've got some of the stuff wrong, point it out (I think I've got everything covered, but just in case). That dickweed Admiral K doesn't know his arse from his elbow where the legal profession is concerned, so I'd like the second opinion of someone who is a REAL professional.

Don't go crying to Stravo to save your pathetic argument.

Since all we are dealing with here IS oppion, then what the fuck do you expect me to say? Nothing here is "fact" so to speak. As far as why the SCOTUS is wrong, well quite frankly it is wrong because no where in the constitution is the power granted to extend constitutional protections to foreign nationals, much less ones on foreign soil regardless of the presence or lack thereof of the U.S. military.

And this is you demonstrating again that you have absolutely zero grasp of the legal theory and principles that are taken as axiomatic assumptions that all of your other laws and rules are built upon. Many of those principles underlie the very USC, and you have no idea whatsoever of what they are and their implications, and you just wave them away.

Lots of fancy words, but nothing of any substance. Essentially, you have no facts or precedence and you are hoping to "dazzle" me with alot of flower language. Not going to work pal.

The whole concept of jurisdiction is dependent on control, either de factor, or nominal. Enforcing it requires de facto control. US personnel are bound by US laws even when operating abroad, and guess what, as representatives of the government, they are constrained by the limits set on the government by the USC and its amendments.

U.S. personel are bound by certain U.S. laws even while abroad, however these laws are for the most part NOT in the constitution. There is nothing in the constitution that grants protections to non citizens abroad, even if dealing with U.S. personel.

This assumes that these personnel have control over the environment, which is the case in e.g. Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of those limitations are for example due process, and I do believe the amendments go to quite some detail about it. Furthermore, your claim that the protections that are not specifically restricted to citizens (such as the right to vote) do not apply to foreigners is just handwaving.

You "do believe"? I gave you link! Why don't you go read it. How about you quote some hard evidence rather than say "I don't know for sure, but I think there is something about 'due process' in the constitution".

Let me drop a little constitutional knowledge on you:
Section 9 Clause 2: 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.

Even if I were to grant you that constituational law applies (which I'm not), I believe you could confidently file "terrorism" under either Rebellion or Invasion, so take your pick.

If it were true, foreign nationals could be tortured, murdered, robbed, raped, kidnapped and whatever else by Americans with impunity and no consequences because they would not be under the protection of US laws (for which the USC is the basis!). This is manifestly not the case.

Foreign nationals are protected by international law and treaty, not the U.S. constitution. Enemy combatants have no protection under the geneva convention, nor do they have any "government" support in that regard.

There is no clause that the constituation "follows the flag" wherever we go. As for the Supreme Court decision, the vote on Guantanamo went down 6-3 in the Supreme court.

Yes, a two thirds majority outvoted the guys who agree with you, and we'll examine your snippets in a bit. Concession accepted.

Just because it is a two thirds majority doesn't make it right. By "Concession accepted" you better be talking about some nachos you bought at a soccer game. I stand by my statement that the ruling was a bad one that oversteps the courts authority, and one which has a good chance of being overturned in the future.

In a second case Monday, concerning the hundreds of noncitizens confined at the United States naval base at Guantanamo Bay, the court ruled 6 to 3 that federal judges have jurisdiction to consider petitions for writs of habeas corpus from detainees who argue that they are being unlawfully held.

The administration's position on the Guantanamo detainees was that under a World War II-era Supreme Court precedent, no federal court had jurisdiction to hear their cases because the base is outside the sovereign territory of the United States. But for a variety of reasons, the precedents the administration relied on did not govern the analysis, Justice John Paul Stevens said for the majority. A main factor was the nature of Guantanamo bay, "territory over which the United States exercises exclusive jurisdiction and control" under a 101-year-old lease, Justice Stevens said.

There, plain as day, the issue of jurisdiction and de facto control as I said above.

What is plain as day is that the more liberal justices on the court chose to ignore their own legal precedant. That alone should tell you that their decisions are "not infallible". I'm confident that future incarnations of the court will find in the opposite direction. Your argument essential consits of a mini Argumentum ad numerum fallacy.

I challenge you AGAIN to SHOW ME WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION it states that constitutional protections are extended outside of its borders.

The majority's analysis suggested, in fact, that federal courts might have jurisdiction to hear claims of illegal detention from those held in other foreign locations as well. While Justice Stevens was not explicit on this point, his suggestion was enough to provoke Justice Antonin Scalia to complain in dissent that "the court boldly extends the scope of the habeas statute to the four corners of the earth." Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas joined the dissent

Yes, that is indeed the logical conclusion from the premises outlined by the USC and principles it is founded upon. The fact that Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas disagreed indicates more that they simply do want to rule in a way that hampers their preferred outcome. For a comparison, if Finnish soldiers were to perpetrate crimes such as illegal detention in foreign locations, their victims sure as hell could ask Finnish courts to order their release, and that would happen.

The reason they dissented is because they know there is nothing in the USC that gives the supreme court the authority to extend constitutional protections beyond the borders of the U.S. Finnish Law and how it applies are irrelvant because WE ARE NOT FINLAND.

You see, it is a pretty fondational principle of international law (not talking about specific treaties, but the framework assumptions that enable any kind of jurisprudential cooperation between different nations) that jurisdiction is NOT solely defined by the physical boundaries of the country. The jurisdiction of a court of a nation generally extends to:

• acts committed within the nation's borders
• acts committed against the nation outside its boundaries (but you need to get hold of the perps first)
• acts committed against citizens of the nation abroad (same requirement as above)
• acts committed by citizens of the nation abroad (unless the country where the actions occurred gets its hands on them first)
• acts committed by foreign nationals on other foreign nationals abroad under certain circumstances that touch the nation

There may be a couple of other situations as well, but those cover all the essentials, and it neatly decapitates Scalia's argument and shows it to be mere handwaving. Yes, if US soldiers commit crimes abroad, then their victims can seek redress in US courts.

None of your above statements are referenced anywhere in the constitution. If you have a specific treaty, or treaties in mind, bring them forth. I'd be interested to see who signed for the terrorists...

...Justice Scalia said that the "carefree" court's "spurious" ruling on Guantanamo was a "wrenching departure from precedent" and "boldly extends the scope of the habeas statute to the four corners of the earth."

Scalia is obviously full of shit in this case and simply whining about his preferred outcome not being implemented because it is illegal, something that 6 of the 9 judges obviously also noticed.

Argumentum ad numerum again.

Please disclose which sections of the consitution grant the SCOTUS the authority to extend U.S. constitutional law beyond the borders of the U.S.

The consequence, he said, was "breathtaking." It enabled "an alien captured in a foreign theater of active combat to petition the Secretary of Defense." It brought the "cumbersome machinery of our domestic courts into military affairs".

So I guess, Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas all must have uninformed oppinions as they would appear to agree with me.

And they were a minority of 3 out of 9, which just goes to show that even judges are fallible, and their objection is not backed by anything resembling logical argument, just pure handwaving about inconvenience, which is not a valid argument.

Again, you have failed to demonstrate to me where in the constitution the power to extend its authority beyond the borders of the U.S. is granted to the SCOTUS. Unless you can demonstrate where it does, then your Argumentum ad numerum simply doesn't fly.

Unfortunately for your argument, actual ownership of a given piece of land is irrelevant to whether or not a state's laws apply there, the defining criterion is control of said real estate. Guantanamo is under sole US control, therefore under US jurisdiction, therefore the USC applies.

Please find some facts to back up your uninformed oppinion. Are you aware that Puerto Rican residents aren't afforded full rights given other citizens under the constitution? This, despite the fact that it is considered U.S. territory and under U.S. jurisdiction and that its residents are in fact considered U.S. citizens? You wanna know why? Because Puerto Rico is not a state. Not a state = does not recieve full constituational rights and protections. That would seem to throw a monkey wrench into your whole "under US jurisdiction, therefore the USC applies" theory.

I'vce backed my opinion up above, and as far as Puerto Rico goes, it doesn't affect my argument at all. Puerto Rico is not a state, therefore its inhabitants cannot obviously exercise the rights enumerated in the USC where the requirement for exercise is that the place they live in be a state in the US. As far as I know, they are afforded the protections in the Bill of Rights, and those are the ones we're talking about. Amendments they may be, but they have equal weight to the rest of the USC.
[/quote]

Puerto Rico's rights are not provided by the constitution itself, rather they are provided by an act of congress which extends constitutional protections to them. This is how the reach of the constitution is SUPPOSED to be extended, not by overzealous supreme court justices who think that because something is "morally right" that they have the authority to enact it. This is not a power granted them by the Constitution and their job is not to be the Moral Arbiters of the United States. They are there to insure that the constitution is not violated which in the case of Guantanamo bay, it is not.

Further, there is absolutely nothing in the constitution that says foreign nationals captured and held outside of the United States shall be given constituational protections.

No, because the situation where US personnel hold foreign nationals captive abroad assumes jurisdiction (de facto at least) on their part, hence the protections apply automatically and the US personnel are still bound by US laws. Obviously simple concepts like these are far too much for single non-functional synapse to handle.

Obviously you are a fucking idiot. U.S. citizens are governed by U.S. law, and as Citizens they are granted constitutional protections. The people held at Guantanamo Bay are not U.S. citizens, and are not afforded constitutional protections.

Article IV Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

This establishes that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that Judges in every State are bound. No reference at all given to territories outside the United States.

I've read the USC and its amendments several times, and I understand the document a hell of a fucking lot better than you do, because unlike you, I've had actual training in the principles and legal theories underlying the whole structure of laws that governs our societies. This bullshit argument of yours is addressed above, see the bulleted list.

Your bulleted list has nothing whatsoever to do with the U.S. Constitution. If you are such a fucking constitutional expert, why haven't you come up with ONE SINGLE CLAUSE that supports your claim? Thats because nothing in the constitution supports your agument. I've asked you to demonstrate specific clauses granting it and you have utterly failed to do so.

In the absence of this, the more liberal members of the court have apparently chosen to extend constituational protections outside of the United States. They have done this of their own volition, essentially creating a new law where none existed. This is a power that is not afforded them by the Constitution.

It is a power clearly afforded them, to interpret the USC, and it is not creating a new law, it is setting boundaries on how the existing stuff applies. I hear this kind of whining every time the scope of laws that grant any sort of benefit to anyone is broadened, always from nitpicking conervatives like you who would like things to be artificially constrained to the narrowest possible definition so they can feel good about themselves when they and their supporters do bad things to other people.

It means that its NOT U.S. soil.

Repeating yourself does not make your argument any more valid. Ownership of a piece of land means precisely dick if you have de facto control, and the SCOTUS agrees with me on this, so suck it down. Concession accepted.

Edi

I'm not a hot dog vendor and you aren't getting any concessions from me. The fact that 6 out of 9 justices agree with you doesn't make you or them right. It is, as I've said several times, Argumentum ad numerum. The only way you could be proven right is to demonstrate where in the constitution it says that constitutional protections are extended to non citizens outside of its borders. Hell, you'd have a hard time finding a place where it says they are extended to non citizens at all.

Since you can't do that, you lose. PERIOD.

[Admiral_K]

It is a power clearly afforded them, to interpret the USC, and it is not creating a new law, it is setting boundaries on how the existing stuff applies. I hear this kind of whining every time the scope of laws that grant any sort of benefit to anyone is broadened, always from nitpicking conervatives like you who would like things to be artificially constrained to the narrowest possible definition so they can feel good about themselves when they and their supporters do bad things to other people.

Missed this one. Wouldn't want you crying about me "sidestepping" it.

You contradicted yourself in one sentence. Setting "boundries" for where the law applies IS essentially creating a new law.

For example: Lets suppose that Congress were to create a law stating that smoking marijuana is legal in California. Hell, lets say they even amended the constitution to create that law. Now, suppose someone is then busted for using marijuana in New York, then petitions the Court saying that because it is legal in California it should be Legal in New York.

What the SCOTUS should say is that there is nothing in the constitution allowing New Yokers to smoke Marijuana. However, if they acted as they have in this case, they would hand down a precedent that would extend the right to smoke Marijuana to states other than California, thus a defacto change of law. This is not a power afforded the SCOTUS by the constitution and is a violation of the checks and balances of U.S. government.

[Stravo]

Let's start by taking away your right to privacy. Whoops. That damned SCOTUS reading things into the Constitution that isn't there.

"Right to privacy" is essentially provided in Amendment 4.

Just where the HELL do you see a Right to Privacy enumerated in the 4th Amendment?

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.

Strictly interpretted as you adhere to shows that this only refers to search and seizure not some nebulous concept of right to privacy, And if you see that in there...gee...you're INTERPRETTING aren't you?

You like black kids and white kids going to school together? WHoops. Nowhere in the Constitution is segragation addressed. Save of course to let us know that blacks constitute 3/5 of a person.

The fact that there is nothing in the constitution doesn't support your argument. While black kids and white kids going to school together is all well and good, the SCOTUS is not the branch of federal government that should've enacted it. Thats what CONGRESS is supposed to be there for.

You can argue the "ends justifying the means" all you want, but the fact is this is yet another example of the SCOTUS taking power it is not supposed to have.

Glad to know that you would like to have 18th century American values and morals tyranize the 21st Century America. You ass, the Founding Fathers specifically gave the SCOTUS the powers of interpretation because unlike you they know circumstances change, laws need to be reinvented and reinterpretted. The Constitution is a living document to rule over a growing country in order to remain relevant. By your way of thinking we should have been lurching along with segregation because the SCOTUS should never have seen the right to equality should include the right to share the same facilities and go to the same schools. Afterall we all know how the legislature was just DYING to get rid of segregtaion.

It gives them the power to interpret. It does not give them the power to invent law because they "think it would be right". Thats not their Job.

The job of the SCOTUS is to make sure that the President, or Congress, or a State Legislature etc. doesn't violate the constitution through their actions. When their "interpretations" extend into the area of modification or de facto creation of law, they essentially negate one of the "checks and balances" of our system.

You know its easy for you to sit here in a time where you are reaping the benfits of a society that is built upon some of these freedoms that were 'interpretted' and criticize the court for their duties. I'm sure you were all thrilled when the SCOTUS elected Bush in 2000. Guess what? That was them exercising their powers of interpretation. The Law is not a science as much as it is an art.

However, I'm a strict believer in the seperation of powers as depicted in the constitution. If you have the SCOTUS assuming legislative power, which it has done multiple times over the course of its history, it essentially becomes too powerful.

I want the court to go back to what it is supposed to be doing: Interpreting constitutional law not writing it. And making sure that other federal laws (i.e. The Patriot Act) passed by congress don't violate the constitution.

Once again you have no clue what is involved in interpretation. Interpretation is not creating new law. When we revisit your example of clearly enumerated Right to Privacy we can see where interpretation comes in. Just as Gun Nuts view a Second Amendment clearly written to address the need for militias in a country that was in many ways saved by militias can interpret it to mean everyone has a right to firearms by focussing on the second part of the sentence in the amendment.

But let’s use two fine examples from our Civil Rights era (A time I’m sure you as a strict constructionist despise because of the infringement on states rights to be rascists)

The poll tax and other voter tests to black voters. Hmmm…how do we deal with this? The closest thing we can find is this little ditty:

Article XV.
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Nothing there about poll taxes and the like directly addressed. But I bet the SCOTUS can read into the abridgment language that such taxes and tests constitute such an abridgement. Look…interpretation in action.

Next we have the basis of Brown v. Board of Education (My how you must have HATED this decision)

Article XIV.
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.

Thanks to the court’s interpretation of the Equal protection clause women no longer have to fear sexual harassment, blacks can go to school with whites and no longer have to drink from drinking fountains marked “Colored”. And in the future gays may be allowed to marry because of this clause. You should be fucking thankful the court CAN interpret because we would be a much poorer and ghettoized society otherwise.

[Admiral_K]

"Right to privacy" is essentially provided in Amendment 4.

Just where the HELL do you see a Right to Privacy enumerated in the 4th Amendment?

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.

Strictly interpretted as you adhere to shows that this only refers to search and seizure not some nebulous concept of right to privacy, And if you see that in there...gee...you're INTERPRETTING aren't you?

Its clear the founders wished to protect people from having their personal lives violated without just cause. The entire concept of right to privacy isn't addressed by Amendment 4, but its basic concepts are. And I have never disputed that the Court can INTERPRET the constitution. My problem is that in the absence of anything to interpret, the court invents new law based on nothing more than their own personal feelings on the matter.

You like black kids and white kids going to school together? WHoops. Nowhere in the Constitution is segragation addressed. Save of course to let us know that blacks constitute 3/5 of a person.

The fact that there is nothing in the constitution doesn't support your argument. While black kids and white kids going to school together is all well and good, the SCOTUS is not the branch of federal government that should've enacted it. Thats what CONGRESS is supposed to be there for.

You can argue the "ends justifying the means" all you want, but the fact is this is yet another example of the SCOTUS taking power it is not supposed to have.

Glad to know that you would like to have 18th century American values and morals tyranize the 21st Century America. You ass, the Founding Fathers specifically gave the SCOTUS the powers of interpretation because unlike you they know circumstances change, laws need to be reinvented and reinterpretted. The Constitution is a living document to rule over a growing country in order to remain relevant. By your way of thinking we should have been lurching along with segregation because the SCOTUS should never have seen the right to equality should include the right to share the same facilities and go to the same schools. Afterall we all know how the legislature was just DYING to get rid of segregtaion.

OMFG. A strawman attack and an Argumentum ad misericordiam all in the same paragraph!

Regardless of the speed at which congress may or may not act is irrelevant. It can move pretty quickly when it needs to. But the bottom line is that there are certain powers designated to the Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches.

The founding fathers most certainly did NOT intend for the non elected Justices of the supreme court to create law based on their own judgement. Their powers of interpretation and review are there to protect the constitution from being abused, not to inflict the abuse themselves.

Yes the constitution is a living document, but the founding fathers NEVER intended for it to be changed by the supreme court. Thats what Article V is for. It sure as hell doesn't say "If the SCOTUS decides something should be different, then they can change the constitution at their whim". The constitution itself requires two thirds of both Houses, and 3/4ths ratification by the states. You honestly think they intended to give 9 appoint men the authority to do that with a simple majority vote? Using the power of "review" to effect de facto legislation is an abuse of judicial power.

It gives them the power to interpret. It does not give them the power to invent law because they "think it would be right". Thats not their Job.

The job of the SCOTUS is to make sure that the President, or Congress, or a State Legislature etc. doesn't violate the constitution through their actions. When their "interpretations" extend into the area of modification or de facto creation of law, they essentially negate one of the "checks and balances" of our system.

You know its easy for you to sit here in a time where you are reaping the benfits of a society that is built upon some of these freedoms that were 'interpretted' and criticize the court for their duties. I'm sure you were all thrilled when the SCOTUS elected Bush in 2000. Guess what? That was them exercising their powers of interpretation. The Law is not a science as much as it is an art.

Argumentum ad misericordiam, Red Herring, strawman.

I don't criticize the court for exercizing its "duties'. What I criticize is when it attempts de factor legislation through "interpretation" of law that simply is not valid.

Ironically enough, the example you painted is one where the Florida Supreme court overstepped its boundaries and in the guise of interpretation, attempted to re-write Florida election law, usurping the legislature's authority.

However, I'm a strict believer in the seperation of powers as depicted in the constitution. If you have the SCOTUS assuming legislative power, which it has done multiple times over the course of its history, it essentially becomes too powerful.

I want the court to go back to what it is supposed to be doing: Interpreting constitutional law not writing it. And making sure that other federal laws (i.e. The Patriot Act) passed by congress don't violate the constitution.

Once again you have no clue what is involved in interpretation. Interpretation is not creating new law. When we revisit your example of clearly enumerated Right to Privacy we can see where interpretation comes in. Just as Gun Nuts view a Second Amendment clearly written to address the need for militias in a country that was in many ways saved by militias can interpret it to mean everyone has a right to firearms by focussing on the second part of the sentence in the amendment.

I understand perfectly what is involved in interpretation. And I know that it is a fine line that Judges must walk. Judge Richard A. Posner in a letter regarding the 2000 Florida election had the following to say:

The difference between interpretive and usurpative judicial "work" on statutes is subtle, but it is illuminated by comparison to the settled distinction in the law of labor arbitration between an arbitrator's interpreting a collective bargaining agreement, on the one hand, and, on the other, importing his own views of industrial justice in disregard of the agreement. The former is legitimate interpretation, and it is insulated from judicial review; the latter is usurpative, and it is forbidden.

But let’s use two fine examples from our Civil Rights era (A time I’m sure you as a strict constructionist despise because of the infringement on states rights to be rascists)

The poll tax and other voter tests to black voters. Hmmm…how do we deal with this? The closest thing we can find is this little ditty:

Article XV.
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Nothing there about poll taxes and the like directly addressed. But I bet the SCOTUS can read into the abridgment language that such taxes and tests constitute such an abridgement. Look…interpretation in action.

Next we have the basis of Brown v. Board of Education (My how you must have HATED this decision)

Lets continue with the strawmen and ad hominem attacks. YAY!

Ya know, for a lawyer, you'd think you'd do better research.

Amendment XXIV Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Article XIV.
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.

Thanks to the court’s interpretation of the Equal protection clause women no longer have to fear sexual harassment, blacks can go to school with whites and no longer have to drink from drinking fountains marked “Colored”. And in the future gays may be allowed to marry because of this clause. You should be fucking thankful the court CAN interpret because we would be a much poorer and ghettoized society otherwise.

Your attempt to strawman my argument into being against Supreme Court interpretation of law. The examples you just cited ARE legitimate and reasonable interpretations of the law. See the previous reply in Orange by the difference between interpretation and usurping legislative power.

And that clause is actually a major supporter of my argument. It states that:

"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"

No reference to extending protections beyond the United States. No reference to giving foreigners (illegal or otherwise) protections of the constitution. To be quite honest, I'd like to thank you for pointing that out to me.

[Elfdart]

So I guess, Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas all must have uninformed oppinions as they would appear to agree with me.

Yep.

[Elfdart]

The difference being that the U.S. plane was US property. The buildings in Guantanamo will revert to Cuban control should we end our lease and pull out.

As far as the criminal law goes, if you are a U.S. citizen the constitution follows you regardless of where you are in regards to dealing with the U.S. government. The same is not true of non citizens.

So by that line of thinking then US citizens are to be held accountable to the constittution even when abroad?

If (for example), a US citizen is caught in Canada trying to bribe a Canadian official, he can be tried under Canadian law -obviously, since he's in Canadian custody. But if he were returned to the US, he could find himself in the dock because bribing government officials by US citizens (no matter where) is against US law. That's what Marc Rich was in trouble for: bribing officials in Congo, I think.

Some crimes are considered international -no matter the nationality of the perpetrator, the victim, or the location of the crime, any government can try them if they catch them. This includes piracy on the high seas, slavery, war crimes and genocide.

[The Yosemite Bear]

My view is, if you knowingly and willingly work with terrorist organizations you give up your "human rights". I'm in favor of extracting information from these scum by any means neccessary.

Err, I have donated money to what I thought at the time were good enviornmental causes, and indirectly supported Earth First, My mom was a former member of the Students for a Democratic Society. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_f ... ic_Society

we have pols that are in the republican and democratic parties that have recieved patronage at one time from such terrorist groups as The Klan, The IRA, or the bush family's connections with south american anti-communist mass murderers.

Thus hte "knowingly and willingly" clause...

Then Byrd can be removed for his relationship with the Clan.
The Bushes CAN be removed for their relations with Deathsquads in south america, Pinochte ect.

The Kennedy Family CAN be bankrupted for their involvement with the IRA since 1914!

[Edi]

Stravo: In case I've got some of the stuff wrong, point it out (I think I've got everything covered, but just in case). That dickweed Admiral K doesn't know his arse from his elbow where the legal profession is concerned, so I'd like the second opinion of someone who is a REAL professional.

Don't go crying to Stravo to save your pathetic argument.

You're reading way more into this than it contains. I know full well that my reasoning is sound, and if I had been spouting obvious bullshit, Stravo would have straightened me out already. From what I have seen, he dislikes having bullshit spouted about his profession and he does not like seeing his friends make fools out of themselves either, and his conspicuous lack of criticism of my arguments speaks for itself. However, unlike you, I acknowledge that there is a possibility of mistakes and I like to have things set straight for me when there is someone more qualified to comment on an issue, in this case Stravo. Your credibility is on the level that everything you say can be assumed to be 99.5% pure bullshit unless actively proven otherwise.

And this is you demonstrating again that you have absolutely zero grasp of the legal theory and principles that are taken as axiomatic assumptions that all of your other laws and rules are built upon. Many of those principles underlie the very USC, and you have no idea whatsoever of what they are and their implications, and you just wave them away.

Lots of fancy words, but nothing of any substance. Essentially, you have no facts or precedence and you are hoping to "dazzle" me with alot of flower language. Not going to work pal.

No substance? Only to someone who has reading comprehension problems, i.e. you. Besides, it is rather dishonest to start claiming no substance when you've cut my text short so that you can attack a snippet which is part of a greater whole on its own, stripped of context. So fuck you.

The whole concept of jurisdiction is dependent on control, either de factor, or nominal. Enforcing it requires de facto control. US personnel are bound by US laws even when operating abroad, and guess what, as representatives of the government, they are constrained by the limits set on the government by the USC and its amendments.

U.S. personel are bound by certain U.S. laws even while abroad, however these laws are for the most part NOT in the constitution. There is nothing in the constitution that grants protections to non citizens abroad, even if dealing with U.S. personel.

Oh? Evidence, please? Because it certainly seems that e.g. crimes committed by US soldiers abroad can be pursued in US courts, which grants due process to foreigners. Concession accepted.

This assumes that these personnel have control over the environment, which is the case in e.g. Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of those limitations are for example due process, and I do believe the amendments go to quite some detail about it. Furthermore, your claim that the protections that are not specifically restricted to citizens (such as the right to vote) do not apply to foreigners is just handwaving.

You "do believe"? I gave you link! Why don't you go read it. How about you quote some hard evidence rather than say "I don't know for sure, but I think there is something about 'due process' in the constitution".

Fuck off, you arsegoblin. It shows how pathetic your arguments are when you need to resort to nitpicking rhetorical expressions, but very well: Due process is a right expressly granted in the BoR to everyone who deals with the US government in its areas of jurisdiction.

Let me drop a little constitutional knowledge on you:
Section 9 Clause 2: 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.

Even if I were to grant you that constituational law applies (which I'm not), I believe you could confidently file "terrorism" under either Rebellion or Invasion, so take your pick.

That's rich, you have no fucking idea of what you are talking about. Terrorism does not fall under the category of invasion of the US, and Habeas Corpus cannot be suspended willy-nilly when the US itself is the invader as it is in Iraq and Afghanistan (though the invasion of Afghanistan was legitimate, while the Iraqi one was not). Terrorism is not a case of rebellion either in this case, because it is not aimed at toppling the US government, it is merely aimed at killing Americans, which falls under the classification of murder and/or mass murder. The terrorists in Iraq do not just relinquish all their rights, because they are resisting an illegal invader (the US), though they can be tried for crimes they have committed against Iraqis for example, or against US personnel.

If it were true, foreign nationals could be tortured, murdered, robbed, raped, kidnapped and whatever else by Americans with impunity and no consequences because they would not be under the protection of US laws (for which the USC is the basis!). This is manifestly not the case.

Foreign nationals are protected by international law and treaty, not the U.S. constitution. Enemy combatants have no protection under the geneva convention, nor do they have any "government" support in that regard.

When inside US jurisdiction, the constitutional protection of due process applies to them, and I have SCOTUS to back me up in addition to the other arguments I've made, while you have fuck-all. Besides, the term enemy combatant has been applied far outside the (already almost meaninglessly nebulous) context of the WW2 era SCOTUS case which is the only instance prior to the Afghanistan war where it appears.

Just because it is a two thirds majority doesn't make it right. By "Concession accepted" you better be talking about some nachos you bought at a soccer game. I stand by my statement that the ruling was a bad one that oversteps the courts authority, and one which has a good chance of being overturned in the future.

So, we can all ignore all SCOTUS and other court decisions if we don't like them? It doesn't work that way, and you still have not demonstrated one piece of evidence to support your claim that the SCOTUS has overstepped its authority. I don't see the decision overturned anytime in the near future unless upon the retirement of current justices the court is packed with spineless political shills who are willing to ignore the USC in order to pander to a political agenda.

What is plain as day is that the more liberal justices on the court chose to ignore their own legal precedant. That alone should tell you that their decisions are "not infallible". I'm confident that future incarnations of the court will find in the opposite direction. Your argument essential consits of a mini Argumentum ad numerum fallacy.

I challenge you AGAIN to SHOW ME WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION it states that constitutional protections are extended outside of its borders.

I challenge you to pull your head out of your arse so that you won't be looking out of your mouth into your colon, you worthless trolling turd. The issue of the applicability of constitutional protections need not necessarily be spelled out for each different instance, because they rely on axiomatic assumptions without which the whole system of government and courts is completely meaningless. There are a lot of these assumptions, starting with the definitions of state, sovereignty and jurisdiction. Another meaningful ones are equality before law, and the list is a lot longer than these, but they will suffice for now. You contest the very assumptions that define your whole fucking system of justice and government (and ironically, thus your own argument) and then demand proof that these axioms be specifically written in a document that could not exist without them being assumed to be true. Do you have any idea of how ridiculous that makes you look?

True, some of the stuff on my list is specifically enumerated in the USC because discussing them is necessary for the setup of separation of powers and other such basics, but these things are still all assumptions that derive from the definitions of state, sovereignty and jurisdiction, which you do not seem to understand.

The reason they dissented is because they know there is nothing in the USC that gives the supreme court the authority to extend constitutional protections beyond the borders of the U.S. Finnish Law and how it applies are irrelvant because WE ARE NOT FINLAND.

By this logic it is completely okay for the US government to order e.g. blanket nuclear bombing of North Korea and Iran, biological weapons attacks on Syria, indiscriminate machine gunning of Iraqis non-violently protesting the occupation and whatever atrocity comes to mind, and it's all perfectly legal and above board and nobody can be prosectued for it because it did not happen within US borders. Gotcha. You are so flat out wrong it isn't even funny. The SCOTUS is perfectly empowered to interpret the USC and other existing laws (which all rely on the authority of the USC), and part of that interpretation is deciding where, when and how these laws apply, including how broadly or narrowly. A very, very basic legal principle is that an interpretation that widens the scope of laws to grant rights to more people than a narrow interpretation would allow does not necessarily require justification at all if the wording of he statutes is open to interpretation, but narrow definitions that curtail rights require stringent justification, and the strigency requirements basically go up an order of magnitude if there is a precedent that grants rights. When talking about such basics as due process of law, liberal precedents are VERY hard to change back to more narrow ones.

You see, it is a pretty fondational principle of international law (not talking about specific treaties, but the framework assumptions that enable any kind of jurisprudential cooperation between different nations) that jurisdiction is NOT solely defined by the physical boundaries of the country. The jurisdiction of a court of a nation generally extends to:

• acts committed within the nation's borders
• acts committed against the nation outside its boundaries (but you need to get hold of the perps first)
• acts committed against citizens of the nation abroad (same requirement as above)
• acts committed by citizens of the nation abroad (unless the country where the actions occurred gets its hands on them first)
• acts committed by foreign nationals on other foreign nationals abroad under certain circumstances that touch the nation

There may be a couple of other situations as well, but those cover all the essentials, and it neatly decapitates Scalia's argument and shows it to be mere handwaving. Yes, if US soldiers commit crimes abroad, then their victims can seek redress in US courts.

None of your above statements are referenced anywhere in the constitution. If you have a specific treaty, or treaties in mind, bring them forth. I'd be interested to see who signed for the terrorists...

Again you demonstrate total ignorance. A country that is signatory to a ratified treaty is required to follow the restrictions of the treaty even when another party that has not ratified it does not hold to those conventions. Furthermore, that list of mine derives directly from the axiomatic definitions of state, sovereignty and jurisdiction which must be assumed to be true for the USC to be anything more than toilet paper with squiggles on it.

...Justice Scalia said that the "carefree" court's "spurious" ruling on Guantanamo was a "wrenching departure from precedent" and "boldly extends the scope of the habeas statute to the four corners of the earth."

Scalia is obviously full of shit in this case and simply whining about his preferred outcome not being implemented because it is illegal, something that 6 of the 9 judges obviously also noticed.

Argumentum ad numerum again.

Please disclose which sections of the consitution grant the SCOTUS the authority to extend U.S. constitutional law beyond the borders of the U.S.[/quote]
See above. Now it's my turn, why don't you provide me with a reference from the USC, its amendments or the foundational principles and axioms behind it that restricts the ability of the SCOTUS to interpret existing laws? Extending constitutional law outside US borders in situations where the US is in control is well within the scope of interpreting existing law, and none of your handwaving and bullshit changes that fact.

Again, you have failed to demonstrate to me where in the constitution the power to extend its authority beyond the borders of the U.S. is granted to the SCOTUS. Unless you can demonstrate where it does, then your Argumentum ad numerum simply doesn't fly.

Arguments for curtailing rights (which yours are) bear a greater burden of proof than ones that grant them. Provide me with a reference from the USC, its amendments or the foundational principles and axioms behind it that restricts the ability of the SCOTUS to interpret existing laws.

Puerto Rico's rights are not provided by the constitution itself, rather they are provided by an act of congress which extends constitutional protections to them. This is how the reach of the constitution is SUPPOSED to be extended, not by overzealous supreme court justices who think that because something is "morally right" that they have the authority to enact it. This is not a power granted them by the Constitution and their job is not to be the Moral Arbiters of the United States. They are there to insure that the constitution is not violated which in the case of Guantanamo bay, it is not.

Another argument you pulled out of your arse, I see. The rights of Puerto Rico as an administrative district are distinctly separate from the rights of the people who live there when the whole fucking place is under US jurisdiction. Your handwaving does not affect my argument in the least.

Obviously you are a fucking idiot. U.S. citizens are governed by U.S. law, and as Citizens they are granted constitutional protections. The people held at Guantanamo Bay are not U.S. citizens, and are not afforded constitutional protections.

Just because you say so? The SCOTUS disagrees with you, with a decisive majority no less, and I have provided detailed arguments as to what their reasoning is based on, while youhave done nothing but wave your hands and repeat your thoroughly refuted arguments.

I've read the USC and its amendments several times, and I understand the document a hell of a fucking lot better than you do, because unlike you, I've had actual training in the principles and legal theories underlying the whole structure of laws that governs our societies. This bullshit argument of yours is addressed above, see the bulleted list.

Your bulleted list has nothing whatsoever to do with the U.S. Constitution. If you are such a fucking constitutional expert, why haven't you come up with ONE SINGLE CLAUSE that supports your claim? Thats because nothing in the constitution supports your agument. I've asked you to demonstrate specific clauses granting it and you have utterly failed to do so.

That's rich, you want me to provide justification for why anything in the constitution should have any meaning in the first place and then refute it as you are trying to do? Sorry, but you have to do your own work. The definitions of state, sovereignty and jurisdiction all go pretty much hand in hand, and de facto control largely establishes them. Where there is control by a state, there is jurisdiction, and that jurisdiction must follow the laws of the state, of which the USC is supreme. This is the very basics, or there is complete anarchy. And equality before the law, as defined in the BoR means that if some people have the rights enumerated in a given area that falls under jurisdiction, then so must the others or your system is just a pretense of justice.

I'm not a hot dog vendor and you aren't getting any concessions from me. The fact that 6 out of 9 justices agree with you doesn't make you or them right. It is, as I've said several times, Argumentum ad numerum. The only way you could be proven right is to demonstrate where in the constitution it says that constitutional protections are extended to non citizens outside of its borders. Hell, you'd have a hard time finding a place where it says they are extended to non citizens at all.

Since you can't do that, you lose. PERIOD.

You're just repeating your bullshit again, and it has been refuted several times over, by myself, by Stravo and by others, and your delusions to the contrary do not change that fact. Now be a good little troll and fuck off back into the Bizarrolandia that passes for your excuse for distorted reality.

Edi