Slashdot Mirror
SCOTUS Grants Guantanamo Prisoners Habeas Corpus
beebee and other readers sent word that the US Supreme Court has, by a 5 to 4 majority, ruled that the Constitution applies at Guantanamo. Accused terrorists can now go to federal court to challenge their continued detention (the right to habeas corpus), meaning that civil judges will now have the power to check the government's designation of Gitmo detainees as enemy combatants. This should remedy one of the major issues Human Rights activists have with the detention center. However, Gitmo is unlikely to close any time soon. The NYTimes reporting on the SCOTUS decision goes into more detail on the vigor of the minority opinion. McClatchy reports the outrage the decision has caused on the right, with one senator calling for a Constitutional amendment "to blunt the effect of this decision."
Strange how the U.S. Soldiers have fewer rights then the terrorists we are fighting.
Bash Bush in 3...2...1...
Never mind that silly thing about being a citizen BEFORE you get constitutional rights.
Oh, blame global warming also, it's the universal excuse pairing.
So then a Constitutional amendment needs to be passed, clearly stating the Constitutional protections are not extended to non-citizens.
That won't change this decision, but will effectively prevent any future activist judges--including those who may be present in the US Supreme Court--from interpreting Constitutional protections for non-citizens.
I think you missed the point of that question. he is asking if we, the US, can take a POW without declaring a traditional war. nobody said vietnam POW's aren't POW's. Damn, read and breath before replying.
I finally updated my sig, but now it's lame.
He sounds like a lawyer who wants to tap more government funds to defend the government's enemies, to me. Just saying...
I find this troubling for many reasons:
First, why does the U.S. Constitution apply to foreign nationals captured and held in places that are not the U.S.? Usually when America tries to apply its laws abroad ("Screw your national sovereignty, you're following _our_ IP laws now") people complain, but in this case it's a good thing? Also, who picks and chooses which parts of the Constitution applies to foreigners abroad? They have the right to a speedy trial, remain silent, and protection from cruel and unusual punishment, etc. but not the right to vote in U.S. elections (yet), to bear arms, or the responsibility to pay U.S. income taxes. Who picks which applies?
Second, will Al Qaeda reciprocate? I'm thinking not. "Hi. We have kidnapped you and are planning on beheading you in our next propaganda video, but first you have the right to challenge being detained at this terrorist training camp in a court of law. Would you like a court-appointed Sharia expert to act as your attorney, or should we fly in private counsel for you?"
Also, how do you fight a war under rules that were designed for domestic law enforcement? Dust the battlefield for fingerprints, stick his AK-47 in an evidence bag, and make sure to read the guy who was firing the rocket launcher at you his Miranda rights in the correct Arabic dialect or he walks. And of course if Al Qaeda manages to kill off the solider who carried out the arrest, all the prisoners he's captured get released since they can no longer cross-examine the arresting officer.
300 people found with machine guns, bombs, suicide vests, trying to murder civilians and US troops and captured instead of killed. Not enough evidence for you? Dig up the bodies in Iraq and Afghanistan that they murdered and do autopsies on them and then give those 300 people a fair trial.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Any when they return to kill American soldiers, how many can die before it becomes not okay to grant constitutional rights to non-citizens? 5, 50, 100? How many US soldiers being killed is okay by you, cutecub?
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
Exactly. That it passed is scary. Constitutional rights are for American citizens and don't apply to the rest of the world. This issue was already decided, correctly I might add, repeatedly in the past. Look it up.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Suffering?
What a laugh! Wish I were suffering like they were. Gourmet meals three times a day. Don't have to work.
Even if that were true (and I believe Cheney has confirmed otherwise) are you suggesting that torture is acceptable, provided that only a few people get tortured?
Oh, and I hardly consider "Human Rights Watch" news. They are more of a left wing, anti American hate group. Here is where they got their "Cheney Endorses Torture" title: In a radio interview yesterday, Cheney agreed that subjecting prisoners to "a dunk in water" is a "no-brainer" if it could save lives. A dunk in water? IF IT SAVES LIVES? You can dunk ME in water if it saves lives! Hell, I've been dunked in water FOR FREE! To take that step a bit further, if it would save lives, I would gladly volunteer to be subjected to torture. That's a small price to pay so a little girl can see her daddy again.There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Not only will I do that, but I'll make sure I photoshop a picture of you burning the Qu'ran while cavorting with naked islamic women and eating a BLT. Then I'll give him the directions.
Dick.
I bet they will be absolutely _crushed_ to hear that.
The source is irrelevant, Cheney is widely quoted as making those remarks. He has never issued a correction/retraction/denial.
You really don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about, do you?
Go and play with your toys, and leave the serious conversation to the adults...
No one denied that Cheney made those remarks. I don't understand what was wrong with them. If on 9-10-01, you knew, without a doubt of someone who knew of the attacks and was going to let them go forward without telling anyone, would you torture this one man to save the lives of 3000 Americans if you were President of Vice President if that were the only way to get him to talk?I would. Sorry, I know it sucks, but I would in a heart beat. Like I said, if it would make things better, you could do the same to me, IF IT WOULD SAVE LIVES. It's math really. Torturing one is less than the deaths of 3000 + the torture their families had to endure.
Seriously, you wouldn't torture someone who knew of 9-11 and was willing to let it happen, in order to prevent it?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
If I didn't know, why would I say that we accomodate them? If you don't have even the slightest clue about the subject then there's no point in getting into it. I can't just wave a magic wand and make you absorb years of accumulated information in a few minutes, and I don't see why I should have to. In any case, even if I did go through the trouble of gathering links you'd just dismiss it all as xenophobic right-wing propaganda. As you people always do.
So much stupidity, so little time.
Tell you what. Please take a couple of actual history courses and read a couple of books. And as a special favor, please designate me a foe. One can never have too many imbeciles as foes.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.