Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yakk
So, the USA has passed a law saying "we feel it is right that the US President can kidnap and torture citizens of every other nation on the entire planet at a whim. This power should not be subject to any kind of judicial review, reasonable process, or congressional review. To every citizen of every other nation of the entire world: fuck you."
I just wanted to see if I understood the meaning of this law. Did I miss anything important, or otherwise misunderstand?
|
I still don't get how the Guantanmo Bay detentions stand as arbitrary. When you are arrested as an illegal combatant, which would provide for much gray area for "criminal status", you don't have to necessarily be afforded the right to a public trial.
Now perhaps someone can help me make sure I am up to speed on this, but the latest supreme court ruling effectively upholds the detentions still, only it allows the detainee's to challenge their status, correct?
Still the point of contention seems to be that people don't think the US military should be allowed to "arrest" people as illegal combatants. The catch with that issue is that there is no codified means of determining what makes one's status illegal, rather it is determined by a treaty one century old and what isn't codified in treaties such as geneva.
Again, if the courts state the men are allowed to challenge their status, would that not mean that Habeas stands? If that is the case, which the SC's decision seems to point to, I would take that as a big example that the detentions at Guantanamo Bay are completely legal and not arbitrary... so long as they allow the challenges to status.
I thought this might help, read the bold...
Quote:
|
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 offence 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; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
|