SCOTUS Grants Guantanamo Prisoners Habeas Corpus

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by deadbeater

Sigh. 'Unlawful combatant' status override diplomatic immunity. The way the Bush administration had it, once you are declared an unlawful combatant, no diplomatic immunity, no US citizenship, nor right to habeas corpus can save you. The SC at least granted a hearing regarding habeas corpus.

Although I am not sure I ever agreed with it I can see why they did it at the time and there was some value in using the term Unlawful Combatant in a legal sense. If you look at the Law of Land Warefare there is a bit about uniformed organized armies and others. We encountered something all together different.

[headsplice]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

We encountered something all together different.

True. However, just because there are new types of combatants, doesn't mean we get to ignore the law. Why not come up with workable definitions that didn't come skirt legal lines? Or, for that matter, that we some built-in checks and balances (like, you know, the REST of the goverment) to make sure that even if we were detaining really bad people, that we were sure they were, in fact, really bad people. I don't think anyone really wants the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks running around Washington D.C. However, we imprisoned people from Afghanistan that were working on our side and were ratted out as 'terrorists.'
Is that too much to ask to make sure that we've got the right people?

[flaja]

Originally Posted by headsplice

True. However, just because there are new types of combatants, doesn't mean we get to ignore the law. Why not come up with workable definitions that didn't come skirt legal lines? Or, for that matter, that we some built-in checks and balances (like, you know, the REST of the goverment) to make sure that even if we were detaining really bad people, that we were sure they were, in fact, really bad people. I don't think anyone really wants the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks running around Washington D.C. However, we imprisoned people from Afghanistan that were working on our side and were ratted out as 'terrorists.'
Is that too much to ask to make sure that we've got the right people?

If terms like unlawful combatant can be defined by the people in power at the moment for the sake of their own convenience, what happens if a president someday decides to classify people as unlawful combatants simply because they picket the White House or do something like going to church?

As soon as our political leaders decide that they are above the law, the law will cease to protect all of us. You may not be on the great leader’s enemy list today, but what about tomorrow?

[flaja]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Although I am not sure I ever agreed with it I can see why they did it at the time and there was some value in using the term Unlawful Combatant in a legal sense. If you look at the Law of Land Warefare there is a bit about uniformed organized armies and others. We encountered something all together different.

What were the Americans that fought the British during the Revolutionary War? What status did they have under international law at the time?

Not every American soldier had a uniform- and I doubt that any of the crewmen that manned privateers to fight the British Navy and merchant marine had uniforms. The Americans who fought at Lexington and Concord did not have the sanction of any national government- and were they all legal members of a legally-organized militia force or were they just unlawful combatants?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by flaja

What were the Americans that fought the British during the Revolutionary War? What status did they have under international law at the time?

Not every American soldier had a uniform- and I doubt that any of the crewmen that manned privateers to fight the British Navy and merchant marine had uniforms. The Americans who fought at Lexington and Concord did not have the sanction of any national government- and were they all legal members of a legally-organized militia force or were they just unlawful combatants?

I'm sorry but I don't buy your examples from 200 years ago. Much has changed as a direct result of each successive conflict, esp in the 20th Century. What happened at Lexington and Concord is interesting but not as relevant. L&C was in April of 1775 and the Constitution was written in its final form in Sept of 1787, 12 years later. The Constitution is a living breathing document. We have been through this with another poster on here and if you are going to assume a dogmatic position and not take into account any of the changes over the past 200 years then we can't continue to debate the merits of any decision made or event that has occured since.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I'm sorry but I don't buy your examples from 200 years ago. Much has changed as a direct result of each successive conflict, esp in the 20th Century. What happened at Lexington and Concord is interesting but not as relevant. L&C was in April of 1775 and the Constitution was written in its final form in Sept of 1787, 12 years later. The Constitution is a living breathing document. We have been through this with another poster on here and if you are going to assume a dogmatic position and not take into account any of the changes over the past 200 years then we can't continue to debate the merits of any decision made or event that has occured since.

In other words you have no respect for the rule of law if it doesn’t mean what you personally want it to mean.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by flaja

In other words you have no respect for the rule of law if it doesn’t mean what you personally want it to mean.

No, it means you can't twist around my words or the Constitution, current law, or advancements in law so it can mean what you want it to mean.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

No, it means you can't twist around my words or the Constitution, current law, or advancements in law so it can mean what you want it to mean.

I haven’t twisted anything. You are the one trying to make the Constitution mean something that its plain wording does not mean.

BTW: Can you cite anything in Madison’s Notes or the Federalist Papers to show that the people who actually prepared the Constitution thought it means what you say it means regarding restricting legal due process to citizens?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by flaja

I haven’t twisted anything. You are the one trying to make the Constitution mean something that its plain wording does not mean.

BTW: Can you cite anything in Madison’s Notes or the Federalist Papers to show that the people who actually prepared the Constitution thought it means what you say it means regarding restricting legal due process to citizens?

No, no one can including you. This is an area where there is much discussion. Plain wording? Please. People which much greater credentials than you or I have been having these debates for 200 years.

You have mistaken me for someone who is here to convince you of my position. I am not. I certainly don't support your position and you are not going to change my mind on my view of it.

btw, you still have not answered this question, "Does everyone believe that we as humans have a Creator, a higher being, a God that made us what we are?"

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by flaja

What were the Americans that fought the British during the Revolutionary War? What status did they have under international law at the time?

Not every American soldier had a uniform- and I doubt that any of the crewmen that manned privateers to fight the British Navy and merchant marine had uniforms. The Americans who fought at Lexington and Concord did not have the sanction of any national government- and were they all legal members of a legally-organized militia force or were they just unlawful combatants?

They were 'unlawful combatants' in British eyes, as were the Texas volunteers during the war with Mexico. Santana certainly thought so after the Battle of the Alamo.

When the firing ended, Santa Anna joined his men inside the Alamo. According to many accounts of the battle, between five and seven Texians surrendered during the battle, possibly to General Castrillon. Edmondson speculates that these men might have been sick or wounded and were therefore unable to fight. Incensed that his orders had been ignored, Santa Anna demanded the immediate execution of the survivors. Although Castrillon and several other officers refused to do so, staff officers who had not participated in the fighting drew their swords and killed the unarmed Texians.

There's always someone willing to do the job.