No amtter if they are suspects in terrorist plots, they still have rights. Good to see the courts weighed in on this. Court: Terror Suspects Must Get Lawyers By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer SAN FRANCISCO - A federal appeals court ruled Thursday for the first time that prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba should have access to lawyers and the American court system. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news -web sites)' 2-1 decision was a rebuke to the Bush Administration. The administration maintains that because the 660 men held there were picked up overseas on suspicion of terrorism and are being held on foreign land, they may be detained indefinitely without charges or trial. The Supreme Court last month agreed to decide whether the detainees, picked up in Afghanistan and Pakistan, should have access to the courts. The justices agreed to hear that case after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the prisoners had no rights to the American legal system. The San Francisco appeals court, ruling Thursday on a petition from a relative of a Libyan the U.S. military captured in Afghanistan, said the Bush administration's indefinite detention of the men runs contrary to American ideals. "Even in times of national emergency — indeed, particularly in such times — it is the obligation of the Judicial Branch to ensure the preservation of our constitutional values and to prevent the Executive Branch from running roughshod over the rights of citizens and aliens alike," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the majority. "We cannot simply accept the government's position," Reinhardt continued, "that the Executive Branch possesses the unchecked authority to imprison indefinitely any persons, foreign citizens included, on territory under the sole jurisdiction and control of the United States, without permitting such prisoners recourse of any kind to any judicial forum, or even access to counsel, regardless of the length or manner of their confinement." link to story
They're not U.S. citizens, so the Constitutional protections afforded citizens do not apply to them. Ridiculous.
"Even in times of national emergency — indeed, particularly in such times — it is the obligation of the Judicial Branch to ensure the preservation of our constitutional values and to prevent the Executive Branch from running roughshod over the rights of citizens and aliens alike," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the majority.
They're not U.S. citizens, so the Constitutional protections afforded citizens do not apply to them. Ridiculous. Where exactly does it say the right to a fair trial is only for US citizens? And if case law has made it only for US citizens, if a foreign national commits a speeding offense here, do we have the right to summarily execute him because the Constitution doesn't say he has to be treated fairly?
a Constitution is a compact between the government and the people it governs. it starts with, "We the People of the United States..." With rights come responsibilities...we don't impart the responsibilities of being US citizen on others...and we also don't hand out the rights in our Constitution to others...particularly when their sole nexus with the United States is that they attacked it.
Case law does not apply to foreign nationals. When a foreign national gets a speeding ticket, the police just let them go. That's why US fines are so high. It's to make up for the Germans who drive autobahn speeds on the interstates.
So I guess that whenever we fight in a war with someone, we're going to extend our constitutional protections to the enemy combatants now? These people were fighting to destroy our nation and yet we're going to give them acess to the very freedoms they sought to destroy?! Utter horse puckey. Interrogate the sonuvabitches, send back the innocent ones, execute the rest and tell Amnesty International and all of those other, whiney, leftist "human rights" organizations to stick it where the sun doth not shine.
a Constitution is a compact between the government and the people it governs. it starts with, "We the People of the United States..." With rights come responsibilities...we don't impart the responsibilities of being US citizen on others...and we also don't hand out the rights in our Constitution to others...particularly when their sole nexus with the United States is that they attacked it. Fair enough. I thought we believed in things like a right to a fair trial because it is the decent, human thing to do, though. I think of that as something bigger than us. We give people a right to a trial because not because some document tells us to, but because it's our moral obligation as a country that believes in doing what's right. The same applies with us giving people to other countries to torture. If we don't torture because we believe it to immoral, what moral justification do we have to let someone else do it for us. If that's acceptable to us, we might as well torture them ourselves. Case law does not apply to foreign nationals. When a foreign national gets a speeding ticket, the police just let them go. That's why US fines are so high. Foreigners in our country cannot just break the law at will. If a foreigner steals something or commits murder, we don't just let them go. In that scenario, are we legally OK with just summarily executing them without a trial?
Yes it does. Look up the sixth amendment. It says in "All criminal prosecutions....", it doesn't say in "all criminal prosecutions US citizens, or "in all criminal prosecutions of the People" That's the way the amendment is written up; 6th amendment rights apply in any criminal case against you whether you were born in Paris, Texas or Paris, France, that's the way the law has been interpreted for a hundred years or more. There is no alternative system of criminal procedure for aliens or foreign nationals. Now, the argument of the Bush Administration in the instant case is (or should be, rather) that it is not a criminal prosecution within the meaning of the 6th amendment. That is a separate issue. Simply because its difficult to get a German to pay a traffic ticket in practice and not cost effective is irrelevant as to this particular issue.
I am fairly certain the reason fines go up is twofold, to raise revenue and discourage people from breaking the law per safety considerations. Xenophobia against one nation or another doesn't help your argument. Immunity only applies in special circumstances, not to all citizens of foreign countries. I did a quick search and found evidence that even diplomats can get parking tickets, so one would assume the more serious moving violations are enforced as well. http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9701/23/russia.traffic/ New York mayor angered Also in early January, New York Mayor Ralph Giuliani accused the ambassador of Belarus of telling "a pack of lies" relating to an incident on December 29 in which two policemen got into an altercation with a diplomat from that republic. Ambassador Alyksandr Sychou said the diplomat was roughed up, his arm and glasses were broken and his clothes torn, even though he offered no resistance. A Russian diplomat who was riding in the car complained of similar treatment by police. Both men said they were unfairly targeted by U.S. authorities. Police say the Belarus diplomat was drunk, parked illegally in front of a fire hydrant and punched an officer. Giuilani said Belarus diplomats owe $41,000 for 828 traffic summonses issued in the first half of 1996.
Woofer, Sam and Major: Sorry guys. Should have put the sarcasm meter on. Did not expect to be taken seriously on this. Guess I had more Rums at lunch than you had.
I don't really know what to think. If these guys were soldiers for teh Taliban, shouldn't they be treated the same way enemy soldiers have always been treated? I don't really know what the protocol is. If these guys weren't terrorists before, they sure are now, if they get sent back home that is.
Little episode, when I was driving to Albany, NY to take the bar exam there, some friends in the car who were also taking it, I was caught for speeding (yeah, we DO drive fast sometimes). (By the way, I made sure I kept my hands on the steering wheel when the officer approached the car because I was told that some German student that had been caught for speeding wanted to reach into his glove compartment to take out the papers (as you would do in Germany and normally, police would not look at it as a threat at all since we have much fewer handguns and police are safer on average in Germany from being attacked). Anyway, the guy was kind of hectic and nervous and reached into the glove compartment really fast, so he ended up being shot by the police officer because the police officer thought he was reaching for a gun.) Anyway, the idiot that I am, I showed the officer my Texas driver's license and only when he had already written the ticket I told him "or do you want my German driver's license"...then he said "oh, if you had told me you are from Germany, I would probably not have written a ticket". Whatever, anyway, of course when I was back in Germany, I didn't really think about paying the fine because I thought it was excessive (don't remember, but it was around $ 200 or so). Of course, unfortunately, when I passed the bar exam, one of the questions on the questionnaire for being sworn in was "do you have any unpaid trafic tickets in the state of NY". Then I got scared that it could somehow be on my record and they would not swear me in and paid the damn ticket. Anyway, morale of the story: If you are speeding, at least drive fast enough not to get caught (and if you do, keep your hands on the steering wheel).
MadMax, I am surprised that you make such blanket legal statements which are not entirely correct. Would it not be more correct to say (in more or less layman's terms) that some rights in the constitution protect everyone, whereas some are reserved for citizens?
Sorry, once bamaslammer starts up on a topic I'm generally prepared to read even the most far flung theories...
Within the borders of the United States, every person is protected by the Constitution, and it has long been established that "person" even includes aliens who are unlawfully present. See, e.g., United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. 828 (1987); Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982); Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896). For further reading, if any of the lawyers is interested, one of the older articles I found interesting: 100 Yale L.J. 909 Yale Law Journal January, 1991 WHOSE CONSTITUTION? Gerald L Neuman One quote from there: From its inception, the very text of the Constitution has suggested inconsistent readings of its intended scope. The Preamble arguably speaks the language of social contract, perhaps even narrowing what follows by emphasizing that "We the People of the United States, in Order to . . . secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." On the other hand, the supremacy clause gives a different characterization of the document-- "This Constitution . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land"--and Article III appears to "establish Justice" for foreign citizens, subjects, and even ambassadors by designing tribunals that will decide their cases impartially.
But they are not within the borders of the U.S. They are on a military reservation, where the Uniform Code of Military Justice is the applicable law, not the U.S. Constitution. Gitmo the last time I checked is not part of the U.S. or even U.S. territory, but territory leased from the Cubans.
Personally, I'd still say that this should not change anything - say someone is in your house and you beat the crap out of them (I know/think this is not what is happening in Guantanamo, just giving a graphic example) - does it matter if you rent the house or if you own it? Not really, right? Plus, this point is completely different from what you said in your first post . What you just stated basically reflects the administration's standpoint, what you said in your first post was just not really accurate.
Sorry, in fact, as you wrote it, it was accurate as a general statement, since you said "the constitutional protections afforded citizens do not apply to them" - in general, this is true as they are not citizens, but I guess the debate is also about whether the protections in question are reserved for US citizens and US soil.
