US 'erodes' global human rights

[The Yosemite Bear]

Another bit of cuteness. Due to the rulings of SCOTUS and the interpretations of them by the Executive Branch and congress Gitmo is not considered US territory and as such could be invaded without genuine consequence.

Fidel we have a job for you.

[CJvR]

I'm wondering exactly which war are you waiting to finish before the all the untried prisoners are released?

AQ's surrender would do just fine.


Also regarding the NVA & US POWs.
The US aircrews were clearly POWs under the GenCon and efforts to portray them as something else is political BS. It should be noted that POWs can be prosecuted for warcrimes by their captors, the GenCon clearly says so. What you can't prosecute a POW for is the act of participating in the war.

[Admiral_K]

Article. III.
Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

This gives the supreme court the right to hear the case. It doesn't give them the authority to create laws that do not exist. It doesn't give it the power to extend rights to people outside of the United States, such as Habeas Corpus under the Constitution.

And even if it did, the President could suspend Habeus Corpus as terrorist attacks could be considered either Invasion or Rebellion which threatens the public safety.

Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

See above.

Clause 3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Emphasis mine. Defines jurisdiction, and scope of power. Jurisdiction over everything and very broad powers.

It gives jursidiction, it does not give them the right to indscriminantly grant rights to non citizens. If/when there is a trial, they can invoke jursidiction.

Article [V.]

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

That there defines requires due process and says "no person" without any reference to or requirement of US citizenship.

They aren't being charged with a crime they are being interrogated. Concession accepted.

Article [VI.]

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

The accused. Not citizen, just the accused, who can be anyone from anywhere.

[/quote]
This is not a criminal prosecution. The detained are being held for military interogation. Concession accepted.

Article [IX.]

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

If you really want to interpret this narrowly, it could be taken to mean citizens only, but in general practice it has not been applied narrowly.

The 14th amendment has already been quoted, and in it there is a restatement of the 5th amendment.

I've already addressed those points.

There, case closed, and both you and Admiral_K can just fuck off now. Him for being a fuckwit asshole who does not address the arguments made against him that attack the whole fucking premise he builds his house of cards on and you for backing up his demands while he had not answered the arguments against.

Edi

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is about the U.S. right to hold terrorists and deny them Habeas Corpus. Its also about the lack of Authority that the Supreme court has to extend Habeas Corpus to non citizens outside of the United States. Nothing you've posted above supports your point.

[Elfdart]

Admiral, you are one very dumb twat.

And even if it did, the President could suspend Habeus Corpus as terrorist attacks could be considered either Invasion or Rebellion which threatens the public safety.

You quote the Constitution, yet you can't read or comprehend it. Article 1 lists the powers of the Congress. Article 1, section 9 reads: "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. "

Congress did not suspend Habeus Corpus and nowhere in the Constitution is there anything giving the President the power to do so. Maybe you should apply for a job in Dubya's Justice Department. Your ignorance of the highest law means you'll fit in like Lyndie England's glowstick.

[Plekhanov]

I'm wondering exactly which war are you waiting to finish before the all the untried prisoners are released?

AQ's surrender would do just fine.

I'm sorry I wasn't aware that you could actually be legally at war with a largely mythical terrorist organisation, would you care to explain to me how this is possible?

Also what evidence is there that all the prisoners in Guantanamo had anything to do with Al Qaeda beyond being picked up in the country where the Bin Laden was?

[weemadando]

I'm wondering exactly which war are you waiting to finish before the all the untried prisoners are released?

AQ's surrender would do just fine.

I'm sorry I wasn't aware that you could actually be legally at war with a largely mythical terrorist organisation, would you care to explain to me how this is possible?

Also what evidence is there that all the prisoners in Guantanamo had anything to do with Al Qaeda beyond being picked up in the country where the Bin Laden was?

Or arrested because they were foreigners, muslim and in the general vicinity of US or "other" forces on a sweep.

Case in point, again, Mamdouh Habib, arrested on a bus in Pakistan, with no proof or cause for the arrest.

[Admiral_K]

You quote the Constitution, yet you can't read or comprehend it. Article 1 lists the powers of the Congress. Article 1, section 9 reads: "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. "

Congress did not suspend Habeus Corpus and nowhere in the Constitution is there anything giving the President the power to do so. Maybe you should apply for a job in Dubya's Justice Department. Your ignorance of the highest law means you'll fit in like Lyndie England's glowstick.

Its not nearly as simple as that. Read up on when Lincoln Suspended Habeas Corpus. While some think as you do, others believe that the President IS authorized by the constitution to suspend Habeas Corpus.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_mlaw.html


Because of this connection of the two concepts, it is often argued that only Congress can declare martial law, because Congress alone is granted the power to suspend the writ. The President, however, is commander-in-chief of the military, and it has been argued that the President can take it upon himself to declare martial law. In these times, Congress may decide not to act, effectively accepting martial law by failing to stop it...

Further, the only thing ruled unconstituational by SCOTUS when Lincoln did it was that it as AMERICAN CITIZENS that it was done against.

[Edi]

Article. III.
Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

This gives the supreme court the right to hear the case. It doesn't give them the authority to create laws that do not exist. It doesn't give it the power to extend rights to people outside of the United States, such as Habeas Corpus under the Constitution.

Wrong in all relevant aspects, you fuckwit. It gives them the right to hear the case and to decide upon the findings of fact and law, which definitely includes defining the scope in which the law applies. Defining the scope of a law is not writing a new law, and extending the scope of one falls under "defining scope".

And even if it did, the President could suspend Habeus Corpus as terrorist attacks could be considered either Invasion or Rebellion which threatens the public safety.

Just because you say so? Fuck off, I already refuted that argument.

Emphasis mine. Defines jurisdiction, and scope of power. Jurisdiction over everything and very broad powers.

It gives jursidiction, it does not give them the right to indscriminantly grant rights to non citizens. If/when there is a trial, they can invoke jursidiction.

Fuck you, already refuted this bullshit in the above paragraph. It falls under defining the scope of a law, which is well within their rights.

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

That there defines requires due process and says "no person" without any reference to or requirement of US citizenship.

They aren't being charged with a crime they are being interrogated. Concession accepted.

You really are a fucking idiot, aren't you? Do you understand the function of the word "nor"? The part that says "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" is a separate rule in and of itself, as are all the others in that amendment that begin with a nor and end in a semicolon, they can each be invoked without the conditions of the other stuff being fulfilled. Due process must be satisfied before they can be detained and also during their detainment. That means among other things telling them what they are accused of, providing access to courts etc.

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

The accused. Not citizen, just the accused, who can be anyone from anywhere.

This is not a criminal prosecution. The detained are being held for military interogation. Concession accepted.

That they are being detained by the military does not mean due process is suspended. Besides, the US government has stated that they are being held on suspicion of terrorism, which is a crime that belongs into the jurisdiction of civilian courts anyway. You have no argument.

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

If you really want to interpret this narrowly, it could be taken to mean citizens only, but in general practice it has not been applied narrowly.

The 14th amendment has already been quoted, and in it there is a restatement of the 5th amendment.

I've already addressed those points.

Where? All you've done is wave your hands and state an unsupported opinion, as I already pointed out several times, and lying about it does nothing to help you. Go shove a rake sideways up your arse.

There, case closed, and both you and Admiral_K can just fuck off now. Him for being a fuckwit asshole who does not address the arguments made against him that attack the whole fucking premise he builds his house of cards on and you for backing up his demands while he had not answered the arguments against.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is about the U.S. right to hold terrorists and deny them Habeas Corpus. Its also about the lack of Authority that the Supreme court has to extend Habeas Corpus to non citizens outside of the United States. Nothing you've posted above supports your point.

Yes, it is very much about those subjects, and in light of the USC and its amendments, the only conclusion that does not lead to unconstitutional breaking of the law is that the US may not arbitrarily suspend the Habeas Corpus for non-citizens whenever it feels like it, and the SCOTUS most definitely does not lack the authority to interpret existing laws and possibly extending their scope if the wording allows it. Your bleatings on the subject are irrelevant.

I also think it is time for you to get an offensive custom title for being such a fuckwit, and this thread here provides all the ammunition needed. I'm quite sure there are many people here who will be happy to provide additional evidence from other threads when the permission for a title poll is granted.

Edi

[Elfdart]

Think hard Admiral. You just might figure it out...


Still no luck? I'll help you...

Lincoln... broke... the... law! Lincoln pulled his "right" to arrest people without ever charging them right out of his ass. The Supreme Court told him he had no right to do so. The Court literally threw a copy of the Constitution in his face. He then plotted to have Chief Justice Roger Taney "disappeared", but changed his mind before ordering Taney's abduction. Just because Honest Abe did something, doesn't mean it's legal or moral, numbnuts.

[The Yosemite Bear]

well let's see..

The midnight Judges resulted in the Supreme Court desisions and laws that later became the rattified "Lame Duck" amendment.

The Supreme court tried to enforce the US treaties with the American Indians, but to no avail.

Lincoln had trouble with the courts

Grant had trouble with the courts

Woodrow Wilson had trouble with the courts

the last president to violate the consitution as blantantly as Bush was FDR.

[CJvR]

I'm sorry I wasn't aware that you could actually be legally at war with a largely mythical terrorist organisation, would you care to explain to me how this is possible?

If AQ is largely mythical these days it is because much of it's infrastructure was destroyed in Afghanistan. Terrorists have always claimed to be at war with various nations, AQ is simply the first one that managed to commit attacks on such a scale that the nations agreed with them. I don't think there is any formal obstacle to waging war on non-state enemies, sending in the military is more a question of when the police run out of firepower.
Osama & co organized the international brigades of the Taliban regime, this very conveniently meant that all foreign fighters in Afghanistan became illegal combatants under the GenCon.