Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 17, 2018, 08:34:37 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Debate (Moderators: Beet, Apocrypha)
| | |-+  Guantanamo Bay
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Guantanamo Bay  (Read 7120 times)
Nation
of_thisnation
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5585
United States


View Profile
« on: April 22, 2004, 03:35:18 pm »
Ignore

The case is up in front of the Supreme Court, and a ruling is expected to come soon -- the question is,


does the Constitution allow the US to hold all these "enemy combatants" indefinitely?


Here's the problem I see -- whether or not you think all these fellas locked up are dispicable, since the US is doing this, it leaves the option open for other countries who may capture our troops to do exactly the same thing -- declare them as "enemy combatants."

Now, the two situations may be completely different, but it makes OUR argument look a lot weaker, and creates problems. Kind of like the policy we used to have on assassinating world leaders -- other countries began to adopt the same policies, and it would only be a matter of time before the US President was taken down (very easy to do for someone who is determined to do it).

Logged
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17453
View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 22, 2004, 03:38:28 pm »
Ignore

not a lawyer, but I have been following this one closely.  my gut feeling is that it's a bad idea since it infringes on human rights and sets bad precedent.  My gut may be just below my bleeding heart, but my brain is a republican!  And so let me dig up a link for a nice precedent the bush administration attorneys are using.  it's a solid one, imho, and involves german prisoners around 1949.
Logged
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17453
View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 22, 2004, 03:48:36 pm »
Ignore

Johnson v. Eigentrager

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=339&invol=763

there are many editorials, on both sides, but you may want to get your mind out of the gutter long enough to read the original ruling first.  Then go to either whe Wall Street Journal or the New York Times, depending on who's gentle slow stroking feels better to you.
Logged
agcatter
agcat
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3743


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2004, 09:52:54 pm »
Ignore

they can rot there for all I care.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28752


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P P

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 24, 2004, 09:14:00 am »
Ignore

I dislike the Guantanamo idea. I'm sure that there are a tons of legal points to be made, but there are still important principles at stake here.
Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36719
United States


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 24, 2004, 02:46:29 pm »
Ignore

My cousin is at guantanamo.  He says it's disgusting.
Logged

I wanna contribute to the chaos
I don't wanna watch and then complain,
'cause I am through finding blame
that is the decision that I have made
??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31211
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 24, 2004, 03:11:55 pm »
Ignore

Good I hope they rot in those cells. IMHO they are getting to good of a treatment. They need to be fed to the sharks in the Carribean.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28752


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P P

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: April 24, 2004, 03:49:52 pm »
Ignore

Good I hope they rot in those cells. IMHO they are getting to good of a treatment. They need to be fed to the sharks in the Carribean.

You know that those people haven't been proven guilty in a court of law, right? They are innocent people legally, since they haven't been tried for any crime. You can't throw people who haven't done anything, that is have been proven to have done anything, to sharks. Last time I checked anyway, who knows what the next PATRIOT act will say... Tongue
Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31211
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: April 24, 2004, 07:46:11 pm »
Ignore

They are rogue criminals who do not fall under the rules of Geneva. They are mostly guilty of shooting at our troops and most are slowly being released.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28752


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P P

View Profile
« Reply #9 on: April 25, 2004, 06:48:25 am »
Ignore

They are rogue criminals who do not fall under the rules of Geneva. They are mostly guilty of shooting at our troops and most are slowly being released.

Guilty? A fundamental principle of justice is a little thing called 'innocent until proven guilty'. And guilt of what? I mean, since they haven't actually ben accused of anything, they can't be guilty, right? At least not in a demcoratic country with some sort of resepct for fundamental rights.
Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
Michael Z
Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4294
Political Matrix
E: -5.88, S: -4.72

View Profile
« Reply #10 on: April 25, 2004, 07:14:04 am »
Ignore

They are rogue criminals who do not fall under the rules of Geneva. They are mostly guilty of shooting at our troops and most are slowly being released.

How do you know they're guilty?
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31211
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #11 on: April 25, 2004, 11:07:19 am »
Ignore

If they are enemy combantants firing on our troops, I have to assume they are guilty. If I shoot at a cop and they arrest me I am guilty of a crime (Intent to murder). "Innocent until proven guilty" isn't really true either. This country is more like "guilty until proven innocent" whether we like that fact or not.
Logged
Michael Z
Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4294
Political Matrix
E: -5.88, S: -4.72

View Profile
« Reply #12 on: April 25, 2004, 11:27:14 am »
Ignore

If they are enemy combantants firing on our troops, I have to assume they are guilty. If I shoot at a cop and they arrest me I am guilty of a crime (Intent to murder). "Innocent until proven guilty" isn't really true either. This country is more like "guilty until proven innocent" whether we like that fact or not.

We can't say for sure what the circumstances were regarding their arrest.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2004, 02:34:57 pm by Michael Z »Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28752


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P P

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: April 25, 2004, 11:29:52 am »
Ignore

If they are enemy combantants firing on our troops, I have to assume they are guilty. If I shoot at a cop and they arrest me I am guilty of a crime (Intent to murder). "Innocent until proven guilty" isn't really true either. This country is more like "guilty until proven innocent" whether we like that fact or not.

That runs contrary to the principles of a just society.
Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
migrendel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1681
Italy


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: April 25, 2004, 11:32:07 am »
Ignore

After much study of the law and precedent, I have reached the conclusion that the detentionof prisoners without counsel at Guantanamo Bay is unconstitutional.

The precedents in Johnson v. Eisentrager and Ex Parte Quirin apply to places not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Because of an 1897 lease agreed to under the Cuban government, Guantanamo is under U.S. jurisdiction. Therefore, the detainees have habeas corpus rights. This is justified by the Zdayavas case, which extended due process to noncitizens, Ex Parte Milligan, which ruled that civil courts must be used instead of military tribunals when available, and Duncan v. Kahanamoku, which prohibited the imposition of military law. In addition, the Hirabayashi and Korematsu cases which allowed for detention were overturned by Writs of Error Coram Nobis in 1983.

Therefore, there is no legal tradition to support this practice. While the Supreme Court can maintain Johnson and Quirin and ban this practice, I would encourage it  to take the additional step of overturning them.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2004, 11:33:15 am by migrendel »Logged

Economic Left/Right: -10.00
Social Left/Right: -10.00

Registered in Massachusetts as a Democrat for Fantasy Elections, though now living in Rome.
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17453
View Profile
« Reply #15 on: April 27, 2004, 11:18:06 pm »
Ignore

johnson v eigentrager apply to places not in USA.  outstanding!   my first thought, too.  but, the council for the USA will argue that it is irrelevant, right?  after all, the case before us is not a matter of territoriality, since our arrangement with Cuba is sound and secure wrt guantanamo.  it is a matter of government's power to interrogate American captives without allowing them access to a lawyer or the judicial system on the grounds that they may pose a future threat or know about pending terrorist attacks.  Jurisdiction is beyond the scope.  Don't get me wrong, I hope the defense comes up with a good argument since this sets a terrible precedent, but so far I see none.

gustaf is right that the burden of proof, in US criminal law, lies with the prosecution and not with the defense.  You already know this statesrights.  
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines