Shocked, Appalled, Disgusted, and Saddened...

[US Navy Diver]

I just posted this on my blog...


I know that most people just go about their lives, going to work, watching TV, playing X Box, raising their kids, etc, etc, etc...
Something happened today that should have every single person in the United States of America outraged, and yet, I am afraid that it will go by unnoticed by most.

Today, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling that gives military war prisoners in Guantanamo Bay detention the rights of American citizenship. That's right, prisoners of war were awarded rights and privileges in America as if they were citizens. Make no mistake about it... The Supreme Court committed treason today.

We are at war against an enemy that intends to do harm to Western Civilization in general, and the United States specifically. We have captured and detained operatives of the enemy, and they are being held in Guantanamo Bay. This is necessary for the security of our nation, and for the safety of our people. Every war in history has included holding prisoners of war. There is no way around it, other than to kill them all and take no prisoners.

For our appointed officials to hand down a decision to undermine the war effort is unacceptable. For our president to claim that he will accept the decision and abide by it, while in disagreement, is unacceptable. Where has the leadership of our great nation gone? I read about what is going on in our government, in our military, about current events in our country everyday. I no longer recognize the United States of America. I don't know where we are headed, but I see decisions being made that are not consistent with the Constitution, that are not consistent with the intent of the founding fathers, and I believe are doing great harm to our nation.

Most people don't notice, and probably don't care. As long as their TV works and they can make it to their kid's soccer game, then they are happy. If you care about where our country is headed, I would suggest you pay attention to what our courts are deciding, what is going on in our government, and how it will affect your lives.

'We the People' need to start looking out for ourselves, because our elected and appointed officials are failing us. By no means am I a conspiracy nut, even though this post might sound like it is headed in that direction. If you haven't heard about today's decision by the Supreme Court, I would suggest that you do a little research and develop your own thoughts about it. If average Americans remain disconnected from the decisions being made by our government, we will all be in trouble in the not so distant future.

"The lights are on but nobody's home" is a phrase that has always referred to crazy people. Unfortunately, it seems to be applying more and more to our population. I challenge you to learn about current events and make a decision about what you believe. Let your congressmen/senators know what you think. I'm pretty sure they won't care, but at least more people will be informed...

[BonesBrigade]

Repost..........................................................

[hank]

Man, there is already a thead about this.

I want to address a lot of what you've written but frankly you seem so passionate about it that I doubt it would do any good. Suffice it to say that many of your impassioned pleas aren't grounded in fact or law. Perhaps you should actually read the opinion and the constitution (especially the part about habeas corpus) and then reflect a little.

I do have to ask one thing. Do you know what treason is?

hank

[Hollis]

Repost..........................................................


There is another thread on this, plus a link to SCOTUS syllabus along with the majority and minority opinions.

[deagle]

its true our elected officials are failing us in some ways (and helpful in other ways)....should we start a revolution or something ???

[Semper Fi]

Man, there is already a thead about this.

I want to address a lot of what you've written but frankly you seem so passionate about it that I doubt it would do any good. Suffice it to say that many of your impassioned pleas aren't grounded in fact or law. Perhaps you should actually read the opinion and the constitution (especially the part about habeas corpus) and then reflect a little.

I do have to ask one thing. Do you know what treason is?

hank

There is a flaw in your argument. These people are 'combatants', not POW's because POW's are soldiers of another nation or government and generally abide by the Geneva Convention. They should not have the rights that American citizens do

[US Navy Diver]

There is a flaw in your argument. These people are 'combatants', not POW's because POW's are soldiers of another nation or government and generally abide by the Geneva Convention. They should not have the rights that American citizens do


OK, my original post might be an over-the-top rant.
The jist of it is I don't feel our government is making decisions in the interest of the American people, and in the interest of national security.

My overall understanding of the layers of legalities on this issue might be weak, but that is exactly what I am getting at. We should be making decisions during war that are best for our country, not the best way to interpret pages and pages and books and books of litigation.

I say leave the lawyers and politicians out of it and go win the war.
Yeah, I know...
That's not how it works.

[ronnieraygun]

I thank you for your service. Please understand that habeus corpus has been the bedrock of civilized Western society since the 1200's and King John of England. The SCOTUS is not selling you short, it's what the framers of our constitution imagined. Three different branches having different opinions to balance everything out. Scalia echoed your sentiment. If you feel strongly about this issue, check out his comments.

[CMNot]

There is a flaw in your argument. These people are 'combatants', not POW's because POW's are soldiers of another nation or government and generally abide by the Geneva Convention. They should not have the rights that American citizens do

If you're trying to spread Liberal Democracy, it helps to live by it. A bad example is a powerful example...

[TheBelgian]

There is a flaw in your argument. These people are 'combatants', not POW's because POW's are soldiers of another nation or government and generally abide by the Geneva Convention. They should not have the rights that American citizens do

They should have the rights that humans do, though. Read the International Declaration of Human Rights. Article 9 onwards is where it starts to get interesting...

[Mastermind]

its true our elected officials are failing us in some ways (and helpful in other ways)....should we start a revolution or something ???

We have a Revolution every four years.

[hank]

There is a flaw in your argument. These people are 'combatants', not POW's because POW's are soldiers of another nation or government and generally abide by the Geneva Convention. They should not have the rights that American citizens do

Semper Fi, I really don't want to get into an argument with you about this. Just so we are all on the same page. I am a lawyer. And there is a huge flaw in your statement which I'll explain below. I understand you disagree with the decision and that's fine. I'm not trying to convince you. But what I'm writing below is and has been the law in this country since the 1800's.

Non-US citizens have some but not all constitional rights (including Habeas Corpus) when they are in the US. Its always been that way. This decision is based on the fact that the detainees are essentially on US soil. So, just like an illegal immigrant is protected from illegal search and seizure and has a right to silence, the Court said these non-US citizens have habeas corpus rights. Their status as combatants or POWs is frankly not relevant to the discussion. why? Because the constitution doesn't differentiate between illiegal immigrants, citizens, detainees, or POWs on this issue.

hank

[Calanen]

Non-US citizens have some but not all constitional rights (including Habeas Corpus) when they are in the US. Its always been that way. This decision is based on the fact that the detainees are essentially on US soil. So, just like an illegal immigrant is protected from illegal search and seizure and has a right to silence, the Court said these non-US citizens have habeas corpus rights. Their status as combatants or POWs is frankly not relevant to the discussion. why? Because the constitution doesn't differentiate between illiegal immigrants, citizens, detainees, or POWs on this issue.

hank

Second that opinion counsel. As I stated in the other thread, if LAPD picks up an illegal Mexican, do they get to not read him his rights, deny him access to counsel and say that he gets a trial with no attorney? Of course not. Use some common sense people.

The issue is a complex one. Most people in the general public think they understand it, but they really dont. Its even hard for lawyers to understand.

[hank]

Second that opinion counsel. As I stated in the other thread, if LAPD picks up an illegal Mexican, do they get to not read him his rights, deny him access to counsel and say that he gets a trial with no attorney? Of course not. Use some common sense people.

The issue is a complex one. Most people in the general public think they understand it, but they really dont. Its even hard for lawyers to understand.

I had to argue this issue in 2 moot court problems in law school is the only reason I know anything about it. I certainly didn't learn much about Habeas Corpus in law school otherwise.

I said this in the other thread but this issue has been highly anticipated and a lot of scholars have said this would be the result. Its telling that I argued about it in law school moot court competitions in 2002 and 2003. Means that it was a fight that's been brewing a long time.

hank

[Winger]

I had to argue this issue in 2 moot court problems in law school is the only reason I know anything about it. I certainly didn't learn much about Habeas Corpus in law school otherwise.

I said this in the other thread but this issue has been highly anticipated and a lot of scholars have said this would be the result. Its telling that I argued about it in law school moot court competitions in 2002 and 2003. Means that it was a fight that's been brewing a long time.

hank

Hank,
Is Gitmo legally US soil?

[Calanen]

Hank,
Is Gitmo legally US soil?

No. It's a lease in perpetuity over Cuban land, negotiated with prior Cuban governments, and that Ike said, 'We aint moving' when Castro took over. The US has complete jurisdiction and control over the area within Guantanomo Bay, but Cuba retains sovereignty.

[little icebear]

Hank,
Is Gitmo legally US soil?

The President says no, this judge (and IMHO common sense) says it should be handled as if it was, since the USA is in full control of whatever happens in that area, leased over a hundred years ago.

[Ordie]

"Silent enim leges inter arma"
(Laws are silent in a time of war)
-Cicero 52 B.C.

[hank]

Hank,
Is Gitmo legally US soil?

That is the real rub, isn't it? If this is too detailed then you can stop reading. As I said I only know this because I briefed it twice in law school.

The short answer is its not sovereign US soil as others have said.

In the WWII decision that dealt with this issue (Johnson v. Eisentrager) SCOTUS found no habeas corpus right for POWs when held in German prison camps bc even though totally under US control the camps weren't "sovereign" US soil. That distinction was the law until now.

This case looks one level deeper and says that even though its not US soil its the practical equivalent. Cuba (or any other country) can't come in. Unlike a military base in Germany or Astan there is no agreements whereby the host country can come in and check on them. And unlike a military prison in the country of detainment we transported them solely for the purpose of getting them away from the conflict but not on US soil where we knew Habeas Corpus would apply. So in effect, the govt took advantage of the Eistentrager loophole. This decision punches through that and says that even though its not sovereign soil its the equivalent and therefore Habeas should issue.

As I have said here before I don't think this decision would come down the same if we had left them in Astan in a military detention facility. Without the fact that we caught them and took them to a place we totally controlled but we knew wouldn't give them habeas rights its pretty simple to me that they are war-time equivalent detainees, held where detained and therefore habeas shouldn't issue (like prisoners in Iraq don't have habeas rights). That is really almost beyond legal dispute.

In this situation, however, the govt essentially made a sneaky decision and got called out. For me its right. Obviously not everyone agrees. It will be interesting to see the response. The govt could have fixed this I think without giving them habeas if they just take them to a prison in Astan or somewhere similar. Of course now they have habeas rights and its probably too late. I'd imagine there lawyers are busy filing things right this minute asking for the DC Circuit to do this and that. Its going to be a mess now for sure. But its still the right decision IMHO.

hank

[dedbunniez]

I would agree with Hank. Though I am no lawyer and not nearly as eloquent. One of the most basic rights the right to a speedy and fair trial (habeas corpus). Even though they are not "on" U.S. soil they still deserve the right to be heard. This goes the same with the Patriot act. The fact that we have allowed law makers to put something so atrocious into law is unbelievable. And for those that are curious about what the law says about the illegal aliens on our soil who are deemed terrorists-
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001226---a000-.html

[Mordoror]

Just to make a statement but some assertions here take as truth that all Guatanamo bay prisonnes are guilty for terrorism. Do not want to defend them (i amaze myself to take that position) but here in France we say "not guilty until proven otherwise".
So if you do not give basic rights to the prisoners (whatever status they may have or not, POW/ennemy combattant or whatever....) how can they defend themselves and how the innocent ones (because some may be innocent as you can find in every prison through the whole world) can prove their innocence
that's a very slippery issue ......