Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
The Constitution applies to more than domestic crime and more than just US citizens. The right of habeas corpus is a basic Constitutional right.
|
If habeas corpus was applied to military detainees during all of our wars every war time President in our history was in violation of the Constitution. Even the Supreme Court's ruling does not take this issue as far as your comment suggests.
Quote:
|
Unlike you, Bush has never attempted to apply the "Use of Force" resolution to the treatment of detainees/non-combatants. He just tried to unilaterally interpret the Constitution and US obligations under the Geneva Conventions (with a rationale provided by Alberto Gonzales)..and has been overruled by the the SCOTUS repeatedly.
|
Get your facts straight. Unilateral? If he had the help of Congress how is that unilateral? What was overturned was legislation, the legislation you reference below.
Quote:
After the SCOTUS ruled in 2004 (Rasul v. Bush) that detainees have the right to challenge the legality of their detention in US courts (applications for habeas corpus), he got the Republican Congress to enact the Detainee Treatment Act in 2005, which officially stripped the federal courts of any authority to hear detainee cases.
The SCOTUS overturned that law in 2006 (Humdi v Rumsfeld) when it ruled that military commissions at Guantanamo Bay violated the laws of war and international conventions.
...which resulted in another attempt to circumvent the Constitution and international conventions with the Military Commissions Act, that in effect was overturned by the most recent decision (Boumediene v. Bush). The court ruled that detainees have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in civilian courts.
"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system, they are reconciled within the framework of law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, part of that law." - Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinon
|
With support of some Democrats our government tried to bring clarity to this issue. You call it an attempt to circumvent the Constitution. In my eyes I see the process working as it should, even though I disagree with the latest ruling. It seems your assumption is that the people working on this had or have some motives that are not supported by any facts.
Quote:
|
Bush's war may be your war...it sure as hell isnt mine.
|
I assumed you are a US citizen. US citizens are paying a high cost for this war. Our elected political leaders authorized and are executing this war. Our sons and daughters are at risk in this war. Our tax dollars fund the war.
Quote:
The sooner we restore the rule of law, the better we will be as a nation."They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - attributed to Benjamin Franklin
"The practice of arbitrary imprisonments, in all ages, is the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny" - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 84
|
I am going to assume I don't understand this comment rather than relying on my initial reaction to it. My initial reaction is that you think all will be o.k. if those Guantánamo detainees are heard in Federal Court. I think we are an honorable nation and that we are treating these detainees in a humane fashion in accordance with our laws