POLITICS - SCOTUS

[Bridger158]

When will they make their ruling? I am anxiously awaiting.

[CowboyTutt]

+1!!!!!

-Tutt

[Old Ironsights]

They already made a ruling that non-citizen unlawful combatants are/should be/will be affordered the Rights of a Citizen.

That doesn't bode well...

I guess the next ROE for the Army/Marines will have to be "take no prisoners"...

[FWiedner]

If they don't want U.S. law to appy to U.S. prisoners , they shouldn't put them in U.S. facilities inside U.S. territories.

[Charles]

Mr. Weidner is 100% correct.

[Charles]

Mr. Weidner is 100% correct.

[Old Ironsights]

If they don't want U.S. law to appy to U.S. prisoners , they shouldn't put them in U.S. facilities inside U.S. territories.

Tried that. The Leftists cried foul when we rendered POWS to non-US holding/interrogation facilities.

AFAIC, if SCOTUS wants POWs to be treated as if they were subject to the Constitution, fine. We'll try them for Treason rather than treat them under Geneva. They can't have it both ways.

(This ruling has far greater consequenses than just for the current conflict...)

[Andrew]

They can't have it both ways.

They're trying pretty blankity-blank hard to from what can tell.

[RSY]

If they don't want U.S. law to apply to U.S. prisoners, they shouldn't put them in U.S. facilities inside U.S. territories.

The Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay is most definitely not US territory. It is "leased" from Cuba, as it has been since 1902; even though they haven't taken payment for it since around 1961. That's exactly why we have them there: It AIN'T the USA.

scott

[FWiedner]

If they don't want U.S. law to apply to U.S. prisoners, they shouldn't put them in U.S. facilities inside U.S. territories.

The Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay is most definitely not US territory. It is "leased" from Cuba, as it has been since 1902; even though they haven't taken payment for it since around 1961. That's exactly why we have them there: It AIN'T the USA.

scott

Guantanamo Bay most certainly IS a U.S. territory and was established as such by the Cuban-American treaty of 1903.

Even if it were not, the U.S. Naval Base and the detention camp are operated by U.S. military forces, which are wholly subject to the law under the U.S. Constitution.

[505stevec]

you know? it always saddens me when people the scream "You violated my civil rights!" are the first ones to forget others civil rights. Remember that those rights are what sets us apart from other so called Democracies.

[Leverdude]

I always thought the Constitution just spelled out rights everybody had anyway, it doesn't give them to us.

[sw41mag]

If they don't want U.S. law to apply to U.S. prisoners, they shouldn't put them in U.S. facilities inside U.S. territories.

The Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay is most definitely not US territory. It is "leased" from Cuba, as it has been since 1902; even though they haven't taken payment for it since around 1961. That's exactly why we have them there: It AIN'T the USA.

scott

Guantanamo Bay most certainly IS a U.S. territory and was established as such by the Cuban-American treaty of 1903.

Even if it were not, the U.S. Naval Base and the detention camp are operated by U.S. military forces, which are wholly subject to the law under the U.S. Constitution.

And if the Cuban military base isn't a US territory then McBush can't run for President since he was born in Panama on a military base and can't be considered a real US citizen. Which would be nice because he ain't worth much anyways. Maybe then the Repubs could come up with a real candidate.

[RSY]

Guantanamo Bay most certainly IS a U.S. territory and was established as such by the Cuban-American treaty of 1903.

Even if it were not, the U.S. Naval Base and the detention camp are operated by U.S. military forces, which are wholly subject to the law under the U.S. Constitution.

It is definitely open to some debate, but not much in my eyes: http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0320/p03s01-usju.html

When I was the guard chief at the Barracks there on the Windward side, my researched notes that I used to give public tours at the NE Gate/Post 31 with were based on the Platt amendment, itself. It is technically a lease: $10,000 a year from 1903 'til 1961 (Castro supposedly made the mistake of cashing the first couple of checks, thus "validating" the agreement under the new communist government).

Whatever the case and agreeable or not, it was an astute move to put camp X-Ray there.

scott

[Old Ironsights]

you know? it always saddens me when people the scream "You violated my civil rights!" are the first ones to forget others civil rights. Remember that those rights are what sets us apart from other so called Democracies.

The Rights of hostile, non-citizen combatants have ALWAYS been different than the rights of Citizens. Even moreso when the combatants are "illegal" under Geneva.

Hell, the rights of Citizen SOLDIERS are different than the rights of Citizens.

Like I said, if they want to treat Hostile Illegal (ununiformed) cmbatants as if they were US Citizens, fine. Try them for Treason. Otherwise, treat them like the violent hostile non-citizends they are... using no more and no less than required by Geneva. As Ununiformed Illegal Combatants it's more than they deserve anyway.

[Blaine]

Even if it were not, the U.S. Naval Base and the detention camp are operated by U.S. military forces, which are wholly subject to the law under the U.S. Constitution.

I don't think so......The Uniformed Code Of Military Justice comes to mind......and SOFA; believe it or not, we have a SOFA with Cuba, IIRC.

[FWiedner]

Even if it were not, the U.S. Naval Base and the detention camp are operated by U.S. military forces, which are wholly subject to the law under the U.S. Constitution.

I don't think so......The Uniformed Code Of Military Justice comes to mind......and SOFA; believe it or not, we have a SOFA with Cuba, IIRC.

The UCMJ governs the discipline of the members of the U.S. Armed Forces.

Article II section 2 of the Constitution establishes the president as commander in chief the Army and Navy of the United States. Placing an official created by the Constitution as the supreme officer in command, fixes the organization itself under the purview of the Constitution.

I can't address a status of forces agreement with Cuba.