Guantanamo Bay
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 04:52:59 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Guantanamo Bay
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Guantanamo Bay  (Read 8247 times)
Nation
of_thisnation
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,555
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 22, 2004, 03:35:18 PM »

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
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 22, 2004, 03:38:28 PM »

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
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 22, 2004, 03:48:36 PM »

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: 3,740


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2004, 09:52:54 PM »

they can rot there for all I care.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 24, 2004, 09:14:00 AM »

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
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 24, 2004, 02:46:29 PM »

My cousin is at guantanamo.  He says it's disgusting.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 24, 2004, 03:11:55 PM »

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
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 24, 2004, 03:49:52 PM »

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
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 24, 2004, 07:46:11 PM »

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
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 25, 2004, 06:48:25 AM »

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
Michael Z
Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,288
Political Matrix
E: -5.88, S: -4.72

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 25, 2004, 07:14:04 AM »

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
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 25, 2004, 11:07:19 AM »

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: 4,288
Political Matrix
E: -5.88, S: -4.72

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 25, 2004, 11:27:14 AM »
« Edited: April 25, 2004, 02:34:57 PM by Michael Z »

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.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 25, 2004, 11:29:52 AM »

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
migrendel
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,672
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 25, 2004, 11:32:07 AM »
« Edited: April 25, 2004, 11:33:15 AM by migrendel »

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.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 27, 2004, 11:18:06 PM »

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]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.043 seconds with 12 queries.