Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No, because our rules of habeas corpus and constitutional rights are designated specifically for American citizens. If it is an American citizen, they should certainly be afforded these rights, but the 'enemy combatants' being held at Gitmo (assuming this is who you mean) are not American citizens, therefore, are not subject to protection of the constitution or habeas corpus.
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
I called that one!
By the way, the supreme court says you're wrong. They're essentially on American soil they decided and, ergo, fall under the umbrella of constitutional protection.
cawacko
Well-known member
What if it is people you think have killed our country men? Partisanship aside (sorry for the spelling) bin Laden supposedly says he will kill our people with airplanes. What do we do? No court in our country is going to convict him for that rhetoric right? Not a rhetorical question by me nor do I mean to be a smart ass. I am asking for real.
cawacko
Well-known member
Desh, in case you did not see.
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
It was a retaliation to the bombing of our embassy, smart guy.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Well, the Supreme Court once decided that black men were only 1/5 of a man, and could be traded as property. So, the Supreme Court is not always correct. The Supreme Court did not say I was wrong because I haven't argued anything before the Supreme Court. My position is based on the wording of the Constitution, which clearly doesn't apply itself to individuals who are not US citizens.
As a matter of fact, this is not the first time this issue has come up. Many years ago, we established military tribunals, so that even people not covered by constitutional rights could be given fair and impartial justice at times of war, in accordance with our own principles. What has recently transpired is a political ploy on part of liberals, who now control a majority on the court. It makes a very good argument for why we need originalist judges, and not activist legislators on the bench.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No court in the country is even going to hear such a case, because he can't be tried in an American court, he is obviously not here and is not a citizen of the US. It will be interesting, now that the SC has ruled about the enemy combatants at Gitmo, how the courts proceed with this. How do you bring charges against someone not a citizen of the US, and who you captured in the deserts of Afghanistan and Iraq? US courts are not International courts, they are for carrying out the justice of US citizens!
We had a system in place, Military Tribunals were established for just this very thing! People who do not fit the criteria of P.O.W. because they are not soldiers covered under the Geneva Convention, yet they pose a threat to the military efforts in a time of war. Enemy Combatant! Duh!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
It is a military base, where 'enemy combatants' would logically be held. There is no subversion of the Constitution in proper operation and function of a military base, unless we are holding American citizens there without cause or legal representation. That isn't being done. The Constitution has never applied to citizens of other countries who are combative toward our military in a time of war. You act like they have Abby Hoffman held at Gitmo!
Get over yourself, the vast majority of these thugs are terrorist sympathizers, and they were attempting to do harm to our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq! They were mostly apprehended there, and transported to Gitmo by the US Military, in accordance with Military procedure and our rule of law. The majority of them have been assigned lawyers to represent them, and they most certainly take the job seriously. In accordance with the law, they are given a military tribunal, and if they are found not guilty, returned to their homeland. There are, I think, 40 of them, who were captured inside the US, after intelligence was led to them following 9/11. They were all in the US on student visas, and are not American citizens. Again, we are not holding Cyndi Shehan and Jane Fonda at Gitmo!!!!
Among these 40 or so, was the mastermind of the 9/11 hijackings! And your liberal punk ass wants to give him Constitutional protections? You are out of your fucking mind! Bush should order them released immediately and sent to your house to stay!
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
And you can't know if they've been plotting to kill us. In fact, we've held many people there who were just released after years because there was no evidence against them. In fact, some men we tried to release we're still holding onto because their countries dont want them back.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
LOL... Yea, kinda sux they are on Cuban soil, huh?
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
Not according to the court.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Yes, I can know they were plotting to kill us! As I said, most of them were CAPTURED trying to do so! If their country doesn't want them back, what the fuck should that be telling you, stupid???? I mean... heeeellloooo??? Anybody home in there? Are you clearly so dense that you do not comprehend who these people are and what they are?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Yeah, you cling to the court you liberal loudmouth fraud. Let's see what the men in black robes do when we release those men in your neighborhood and let them terrorize your ass a little. Maybe they need to saw your momma's head off in your living room before you wake your stupid punk ass up to reality?
In the words of Andrew Jackson, they have made their ruling, now let them enforce it!
C
Cancel3
Guest
A couple of problems with your argument, Dixie.
First of all, any US Military base is American soil. Just like an embassy is US soil.
Second, as someone pointed out to me, we have captured enemy combatants and tried them in our courts. Noriega is the one that comes to mind. He did not commit any crimes in the USA. Yet he was captured in Panama, transported to the USA, and tried by a US court.
As for the US Supreme Court Justices being liberal, at least 5 of the 9 justices were put there by republican presidents. Reagan & the Bushes have put 4 on the bench. So if they are liberal justices they were put there by conservative presidents. Just because you disagree with their ruling does not make them liberal.
In one of your other responses you said that unless we have proof then we don't KNOW they are guilty. Yet you say you KNOW the men being held at Gitmo are guilty.
If we have proof then we should use it in a court. Or hell, use it in a military tribunal. But use it and do something. Some of those guys have been there for 5 or 6 years. Just being held. Thats nonsense.
For everyone else, just because they are on american soil does not necessarily put them under the US Constitution. In fact, being an american citizen and being on american soil does not necessarily put you under the US Constitution.
But the men being held in Gitmo either need to be tried under a military tribunal or under a US court.
First of all, any US Military base is American soil. Just like an embassy is US soil.
Second, as someone pointed out to me, we have captured enemy combatants and tried them in our courts. Noriega is the one that comes to mind. He did not commit any crimes in the USA. Yet he was captured in Panama, transported to the USA, and tried by a US court.
As for the US Supreme Court Justices being liberal, at least 5 of the 9 justices were put there by republican presidents. Reagan & the Bushes have put 4 on the bench. So if they are liberal justices they were put there by conservative presidents. Just because you disagree with their ruling does not make them liberal.
In one of your other responses you said that unless we have proof then we don't KNOW they are guilty. Yet you say you KNOW the men being held at Gitmo are guilty.
If we have proof then we should use it in a court. Or hell, use it in a military tribunal. But use it and do something. Some of those guys have been there for 5 or 6 years. Just being held. Thats nonsense.
For everyone else, just because they are on american soil does not necessarily put them under the US Constitution. In fact, being an american citizen and being on american soil does not necessarily put you under the US Constitution.
But the men being held in Gitmo either need to be tried under a military tribunal or under a US court.
Rev. Wright? I've been meaning to ask.
Did it work exactly as you planned it the year before when Obama "distanced himself" from your church?