SCOTUS Grants Guantanamo Prisoners Habeas Corpus

[flaja]

Originally Posted by spudcon

Why does a group who purposely murder innocent women and children deserve the same rights as a soldier engaged in battle, defending his country, and following orders from his legitimate government?

Would you like to comment on the allied fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo? Women and children are often legitimate targets in a defensive war. The trouble with Islamic terrorists is that they believe they are fighting a defensive war.

They especially do not have the same rights as U.S. citizens. There were even wimps here in this country who didn't want us shipping them out to other Moslem countries, for fear their brethren would execute the poor dears.

U.S. Constitution
5th Amendment
“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 offense 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…”

The Constitution makes no distinction between a citizen of the United States and all other persons. If we are holding the people at Gitmo under a treaty that the U.S. has signed, then these people must be treated in accordance with the treaty. If we are holding these people under U.S. law, they are entitled to the same legal due process that our own citizens are entitled to.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by flaja

The Constitution makes no distinction between a citizen of the United States and all other persons.

I believe it does.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

No where does it say we the people of the United States establish this Constitution for all people of the world under any conditon.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I believe it does.

"We the people of the United States,

Did we the people include women people who could not vote in America until 1920? Or did this country routinely fine, jail and execute women without giving them their due process rights? Women had no role in preparing the Constitution and thus could not be construed as being any part of “We the People”, but women still had the same legal due process rights that citizens of the United States enjoyed.

So what makes you so certain that the Persons to which the 5th Amendment is applicable is limited to U.S. citizens?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by flaja

Did we the people include women people who could not vote in America until 1920? Or did this country routinely fine, jail and execute women without giving them their due process rights? Women had no role in preparing the Constitution and thus could not be construed as being any part of “We the People”, but women still had the same legal due process rights that citizens of the United States enjoyed.

So what makes you so certain that the Persons to which the 5th Amendment is applicable is limited to U.S. citizens?

It is obvious things have morphed since the beginning, no doubt. The situation was the same for blacks and American Indians. But the Constitution was never intended to address people not in the US.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

It is obvious things have morphed since the beginning, no doubt. The situation was the same for blacks and American Indians. But the Constitution was never intended to address people not in the US.

Then why does the Constitution grant Congress the power "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations"?

If Congress can make laws that are applicable to non-U.S. citizens, how can we not grant U.S. legal due process to these non-U.S. citizens?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by flaja

Then why does the Constitution grant Congress the power "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations"?

If Congress can make laws that are applicable to non-U.S. citizens, how can we not grant U.S. legal due process to these non-U.S. citizens?

Because they are not US Citizens. Quite simple.

[Aliantha]

If Congress can make laws that are applicable to non-U.S. citizens, how can we not grant U.S. legal due process to these non-U.S. citizens?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Because they are not US Citizens. Quite simple.

Do you see the double standard here Merc? If your country (any country, not just the US) makes laws concerning non citizens, then there must be some recourse for those non-citizens. It's ok to say that people must live by the law of the land etc, but if there's two sets of laws, that seems a little bit unbalanced and unstable.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Because they are not US Citizens. Quite simple.

You are the most obtuse person that I have encountered on the net in quite a while. The 5th Amendment says person, it does not say citizen. You have yet to present anything other than your own opinion as evidence that the Constitution limits legal due process to citizens.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I believe it does.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

No where does it say we the people of the United States establish this Constitution for all people of the world under any conditon.

Merc, perhaps you missed my point in my post which asked the question about inalienable rights. Are these particular rights only applicable to American citizens or do they apply to all human beings?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Merc, perhaps you missed my point in my post which asked the question about inalienable rights. Are these particular rights only applicable to American citizens or do they apply to all human beings?

I did not miss your point. This is a good discussion:

On second thought that link went into some Religon BS that I don't support

Certainly "all" men (and women for you people who want to split hairs) have certain rights. But all those rights are not guaranteed by our, the US Constitution, which I believe only pertains to US citizens. I am spit on a number of these issues. I have wrestled with a number of them in my head over the years as I have been involved in much of that as a member of the Armed Forces. The concepts are simple, the application is more difficult.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I did not miss your point. This is a good discussion:

On second thought that link went into some Religon BS that I don't support

Certainly "all" men (and women for you people who want to split hairs) have certain rights. But all those rights are not guaranteed by our, the US Constitution, which I believe only pertains to US citizens. I am spit on a number of these issues. I have wrestled with a number of them in my head over the years as I have been involved in much of that as a member of the Armed Forces. The concepts are simple, the application is more difficult.

So on what grounds do we have the people at Gitmo locked up? Are they not entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by flaja

So on what grounds do we have the people at Gitmo locked up? Are they not entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

I am not about to defend all of the enemy combatants captured and sent to Gitmo. Many should go home. If I have my way they will all go home to their home countries and let their own govenments do as they want with them. The way I understand it is there is only a handfull that should and will stand trial under US law, even if it is by Military Tribunal. Enemy Combatants are not entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness any more than a serial killer in the US or anyone else who is accused of a crime is entitled to such rights. You lose them when you take up arms against me.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I am not about to defend all of the enemy combatants captured and sent to Gitmo.

Without a trial with legal due process rights, how do you know which, if any, of the people held at Gitmo are enemy combatants?

The way I understand it is there is only a handfull that should and will stand trial under US law, even if it is by Military Tribunal.

You say that non-citizens have no legal due process rights in America, so why bother to give anyone at Gitmo a trial? Why not simply authorize you to go down there and bash all of their heads in because they are not U.S. citizens?

Enemy Combatants are not entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness any more than a serial killer in the US or anyone else who is accused of a crime is entitled to such rights.

You’d make a good Nazi since you would willfully deprive anyone who is merely accused of a crime (and I would presume by your statement that you include citizens and non-citizens alike) of their due process rights just because they have been accused.