Our military bases overseas are not our territory, but are leased from the host country via a basing agreement. Since they are maintained, operated and governed by the military, the UCMJ is the law of the land, not the U.S. Constitution. And even in our CONUS bases, I dare you to try to walk onto the flight line at one of our airbases or try to visit the submarine docks. You will be kissing concrete and possibly a bullet sans due process. You still believe the U.S. Constitution is still in effect on military bases?
Does the constitution apply to miliary personel? Also, note from the official Guantanamo Bay Navel Base website history page: "Thus it is clear that at Guantanamo Bay we have a Naval reservation which, for all practical purposes, is American territory.. Under the foregoing agreements, the United States has for approximately fifty years exercised the essential elements of sovereignty over this territory, without actually owning it. Unless we abandon the area or agree to a modification of the terms of our occupancy, we can continue in the present status as long as we like. Persons on the reservation are amenable only to United States legislative enactments. There are a few restrictions on our freedom of action, but they present no serious problem. We may not use the reservation for other than a naval station; we have agreed not to interfere with the passage of vessels engaged in Cuban trade; private enterprise is forbidden on the reservation; and we are obligated to prevent the smuggling of materials and merchandise into Cuban territory.
But the problem with that is that since the military is the governing body of GITMO, the UCMJ is the supreme law of the land there. But we've come to expect decisions like this from the 9th Circus Court of Appeals, which for some reason, is usually off the deep end. Appeal this decision to the Supreme Court to make sure these scumbags get none of the very constitutional protections they sought to destroy. I can't believe any rational or loyal American would consider extending our rights which our servicemen die for to a bunch of evil scumbags who only sought to destroy it.
ohhh bama bama bama...you know, you raise valid points in the first part of your post then you had to muck it up by adding in a standard, oft parroted, stale refrain of right wing criticisms of the 9th circuit. Now the 9th circuit isn't beyond criticism, yet empirical research reveals that its troubles are both 1. not nearly as bad as rightwing attack dogs make it seem, and 2. a consequence of certain external factors (size, workload, understaffing) that never get mentioned in any of the standard atttacks on it. (do a google search on it, I don't have time to look it up now) Anyway I don't want to devolve this thread into an argument about hte 9th circuit because that's not important to the issue being discussed Your posts are logical enough (most of the time) that you don't need to punch them up with a car chase and a fight scene.
I don't intend to be rude Mr. bammaslamma, but as far as I can tell, you didn't respond in any way that would be considered anything but bait and switch. Again, I don't intend to offend, but in saying this I mean that you did nothing to refute my basic point that the Constitution was applicable to Guantanamo Bay and that millitary law was not above the Supreme Court which you seem to have attempted to respond with a diatribe against the 9th Circut Court in what could be best analogised by a line from South Park: "Look at the silly monkey!" Sincerely, Ottomaton
I did completely refute your argument, because the UCMJ is the supreme authority at Gitmo and other military bases. I was in the USMC for over 10 years, I should know. Since the military and not civilians govern bases and since the Uniform Code of Military Justice is the law of the military, the Constituition I once swore to protect and defend is meaningless there. This decision because of that won't stand on appeal. Why would anyone care a whit if these bastards rot in that hot, humid wasteland that is Gitmo and let the banana rats eat their sorry carcasses anyway? I don't. Like I said before, if they're innocent, let them go. If not, screw 'em. They no more deserve constitutional rights than a pig needs wings. If I had my way, we'd interrogate them in the most painful means possible, get any information we could out of them and shoot their sorry asses. The longer they live, the more ideas they give the bleeding hearts to try to find a way to get them off the hook.
I must of missed it. I posted 1 document that states that people in the military are still afforded constitutional protections within the limits of military service. and I posted one document that states Gitmo is defacto US soil. I apologize, but I saw no further refutation than "No it isnt, and commie terrorist bastards are stupid and so is that whacky 9th circut court." I hope you can appreciate that this doesn't qualify IMHO as refutation. Any refrences would be appreciated. Also, regarding your statements regarding why anybody would care about terrorists is specifically the reason why appellate courts and supreme courts are so relevant. See my thread regarding Japanese people given life in prision because they were pimps that offended Chinese standards of good behavior.
EDIT: Of course, if you are just stating opinions, I can understand that as well, but I hope (again) that you can understand that the hand of justice is held to a higher standard than intelectual satisfaction. I find that this is a common fallacy of many of what would probably be described as the pantheon of conservitive AM radio talk show hosts.
One document that does not refute what I said. In fact, if you read, you'd realize that: A. the protections are less in some areas and more in others. In other words, it is a considerable modification of the U.S. Constitutional rules and if something is able to modify something else, it TRUMPS it. Gitmo may be considered sovereign U.S. territory, but.....and a big but, it is administered by the U.S. military, which means you are subject to the UCMJ, not the U.S. Constitution when upon its grounds. Explain why a base cop can search your car sans probable cause. Explain why when I was a Marine guarding nukes that if I simply perceived you as a threat to the security of those weapons, I could shoot you without so much as a Constitutional "Mother-may-I." It is the simple fact that military regulations, stemming from the rule of the UCMJ, determine our actions. I never said anything about our court system being irrelevant or did I say anything about "communists." I enjoy the Constitutional protections that my service and others have done/ are doing to ensure those freedoms. The terrorists being held in Gitmo don't deserve those same protections because A. they are under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ since they are being held on a military base B. they were captured in combat and are considered "enemy combatants," meaning they were captured in the act of FIGHTING OUR TROOPS! And yet you think giving these scumbag animals legal representation is the right thing to do? Give me a break!
Military Justice... "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth" These guys are going to get Tom Cruise to be their lawyer.
I don't. Like I said before, if they're innocent, let them go. If not, screw 'em. They no more deserve constitutional rights than a pig needs wings. How do you figure out if their innocent if they can't have a fair trial? Why would anyone care a whit if these bastards rot in that hot, humid wasteland that is Gitmo and let the banana rats eat their sorry carcasses anyway? Because there are some moral absolutes in this world, and one is that you treat people with a certain amount of humanity, no matter how evil they may be. At least, I'd like us to stand for that.
The communist phrase was a bit of a reference to a bygone era. In the 40's, 50's & 60's being a communist was about a large an inditement of your inherent evilness as could be possible. Yet, in spite of this Ethel and Julius Rosenberg were given a (more or less) fair trial. Under the rules that you seem to advocate (which I interpret as "They are all bad guys and we all know it, therefore why do they deserve rights?") we should have stuck the Rosenbergs in a big ol' hole on Gitmo and never let them out, but we didn't. The reason is that they have rights, as nice as it would be if they didn't. I apologise for not having the reference, but there is a Supreme Court decision from the 70's that is often quoted by the NRA types. I'm afraid I can't find it at the moment, but it was an arguement by an individual that was arrested as a drug dealer in the 70's in Mexico that his miranda rights weren't obeyed and therefore his arrest was invalid. The supreme court ruled that American citizens have some inherent rights, and people on American soil have some inherent rights, but this guy wasn't either and so he doesn't have American rights. Well, as nice as it would be to loophole american millitary bases around this, the body of judicial law has shown that people in the military are subject to the constitution under a revised set of rules that apply to the realities of military service. Given that people in the military are either volunteers, or draftees under situations of national duress, I would submit that these people give up their civilian rights under the constitution, or they are given up as a burden of citizenship. The detainees have neither given up their rights, nor are they burdened with service to their country in time of need. Therefore, as far as I can see, their rights are less subject to military forfiture than people who willingly give up their rights for their country. Regarding citizenship, are not people who enter the military seeking citizenship afforded the same rights as citizens? Would it not therefore extend to non military individuals on US soil? Again, you argue from a position of emotional strength. Bad guys are bad. Under these constraints your emotional "give me a break" plea is sage indeed. Unfortunately, the justice metted out by the supreme court is a justice of pure intelectual fairness. Under these conditions, and given that gitmo is defacto US soil, and that military justice is subject to an adjusted interpritation of the constitution, I still fail to see any compelling arguements on your part.
Major raises a valid point, BS. At least 100 of the detainees have been or are scheduled to be(quietly) released, apparently having committed no crime other than having been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Unfortunately, they got a two year jail term for their bad luck, rather than an 8 hour detention or whatever the standard is in the US. You proposal amounts to "screw it, they're enemy combatants, they have no rights, f them." The problem is that they evidently were not all enemy combatants. That's why some sort of procedure needs to be established to determine who is and who isn't. Right now, the US court system is the only one that we have; we've heard about these military tribunals form the adminstration for over two years now and we have yet to see anything develop. What happened to them? Was the admin too busy having fundraisers to bother? Meanwhile, innocent men were sitting in jail, waiting for them to get around to building a court system to let them out.
Yes. What does the applicability of a more specific law have to do with the constitution being in effect or not in effect? Your lack of understanding of the legal side of things coupled with your us of strong words is rather amusing.
I respect your service for your country, but quite obviously, you learned other things there than a basic understanding of law - if you say that just because a military code applies, it renders the constitution "meaningless". That lack of understanding is fine, as long as you don't try to pretend you are an authority on law. I understand your anger against these people and I am sure in many cases whatever happens to them is well-deserved from a "moral standpoint" ("do these crooks deserve any better anyway?". However, isn't one of the main points of the difference in values these "bastards" stand for and the Western world stands for how even those who disagree with you are treated? In other words, you are basically condoning torture and unlawful killings in order to achieve whatever goal you have in an interrogation. What makes you different from what they would do, then - are you still "the good guys" if you stoop down to that level? "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. I find this quote remarkable and admirable.
you took the words right out of my mouth...... er, fingers. and bama, as someone who has served this country, you seem to have little appreciation for the ideals this country was founded on. or at least that's how you come off.
SJC...I'm quoting from the Constitution...the preamble states that it was written to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Look through the historical commentary of the Founders regarding this, and you'll have a hard time finding an argument for this in an instance where the "criminals" are merely attackers who have declared war on the US. that's untenable and unmanageable. the closest analogy i can think of is the trial of the redcoats at the Boston Massacre...but that was in 1770, some 6 years before independence and another 16 before the Constitution was ratified. we were under the British crown then, and that was entirely domestic as British soldiers were the ones being tried. i'm not saying that we don't extend rights to aliens...i am saying i think this kind of issue probably falls under some international treaties dealing with prisoners of war. but i'm very hesitant..much more so than the 9th circuit...to just start reading in constitutional rights for everyone on the planet. particularly when we don't afford the same for our own soldiers in war.
I agree when we are talking about people who have declared war on us. The problem here is that they aren't considered POW's. If they were the U.S. would have to follow the Geneva conventions in regard to the prisoners. They aren't being held for trial in civilian court or they would be afforded the rights of the constitution. They are in some area inbetween, so I can see why everyone is confused about where the prisoners stand as far as what they are entitled to.
here's a question...have we invoked the judicial system for these fellas?? or have we talked about military tribunals, ultimately? legitimate question..i probably haven't followed this all as closely as i should have. is the united states planning on bringing these guys before the courts? the other problem here is the clandestine nature of al qaeda and similar groups...the group declares war, but its soldiers work in secret. that lends itself to an odd distinction, i suppose. i was thinking we were supposed to be following the Geneva Convention in regard to these guys. am i wrong?
