why is gitmo bad ?

[jillian]

It's sorta Unconstitutional.

But most conservatives never bother to read it.

but they love the constitution...

and they're 'patriotic'.

and they're the 'pro-america parts of the country'.

 

[Revere]

The current regime is clueless about when it will close or what will take its place.

They know Gitmo is working as it should, and there's no substitute.

 

[jillian]

i'm sorry... the question? i missed the question

This was her question:

Do we have an obligation to enforce our own laws, protect enumerated rights and follow our own due process within our jurisdiction or not?

 

[washamericom]

It's sorta Unconstitutional.

But most conservatives never bother to read it.

but they love the constitution...

and they're 'patriotic'.

and they're the 'pro-america parts of the country'.

you sound bitter j.

 

[goldcatt]

When we're speaking of habeas and other enumerated rights as they apply to Gitmo, we're speaking specifically of liberties that are protected by law. In other words, enforcement of our constitution and laws promulgated under it.

So answer the question.

i'm sorry... the question? i missed the question

Of course you did.

One more time, for the hard of reading:

Do we have an obligation to enforce our own laws, protect enumerated rights and follow our own due process within our jurisdiction or not?

I'll give you a hint: The question does have a correct answer.

 

[boedicca]

GITMO is bad because it was implemented during the Bush Administration.

Obama hasn't shut it down because it is indeed useful.

 

[Vanquish]

There were unlawful combatants during WWII (or was it WWI)...some Germans tried to invade US soil...but they weren't wearing uniforms. There's case law about it, but it's stuck in the back of my brain. The Prize cases?

Basically Bush wanted to fuck over suspected terrorists in 2 ways:

1) suspected terrorists would be subjected to military targeting and detention just like more traditional combatants
2) that they were not entitled to the protections accorded to POWs in the Third Geneva
Convention

You can't have your cake and eat it too. The idea that just because we transport you or collect you off US soil is so hypocritical that it makes people's head spin. That's why it's bad.

don't even get me started on RENDITION

 

[washamericom]

When we're speaking of habeas and other enumerated rights as they apply to Gitmo, we're speaking specifically of liberties that are protected by law. In other words, enforcement of our constitution and laws promulgated under it.

So answer the question.

i'm sorry... the question? i missed the question

Of course you did.

One more time, for the hard of reading:

Do we have an obligation to enforce our own laws, protect enumerated rights and follow our own due process within our jurisdiction or not?

I'll give you a hint: The question does have a correct answer.

you can be condescending if you want to, that's all right, maybe i'm just not a smart as you.
do we have obligation, yes i blieve there is intent. in the case of execution, as in administration of border security by federal law (echoed by the new arizona law), maybe not so much. if we pick up a gang member on our side trying to kill an american, does he have the right to vote in an american election? i believe that your "constitutional" arguement citing article six is quite lame.
i don't think your question has a "correct" answer. if it did, we wouldn't be here doing this. i still don't think that enforcing our laws extends rights (and i assume you mean inalienable) to the bad guys. thanks for the faux lesson though,

 

[jillian]

It's sorta Unconstitutional.

But most conservatives never bother to read it.

but they love the constitution...

and they're 'patriotic'.

and they're the 'pro-america parts of the country'.

you sound bitter j.

not at all.

though i am perplexed by a mindset like yours which can't distinguish between legitimate criticism and some imagined 'bitterness'.

 

[Trajan]

can someone remind me why guantanamo is a bad thing?

the room service blows and the jacuzzi's have little to no pressure...

 

[Muad'hib]

There is a question of whether or not the US should extend constitutional rights to those who are not citizens.

The Supreme Court jurisprudence has mandated Habeas Corpus for any "person" on US soil.

The gitmo is not considered American soil, but it is controlled by the US military. It therefore is exempt from mandate of Habeas Corpus.

It is arguably constitutional given the current interpretation by the Supreme Courts.

Putting aside the question of its constitutionality, it essentially represents the US's willingness to compromise its own principles for security.

To those okay with this, I reference Orwell's 1984.

 

[ConHog]

i'm sorry... the question? i missed the question

This was her question:

Do we have an obligation to enforce our own laws, protect enumerated rights and follow our own due process within our jurisdiction or not?

ooh pick me pick me................

Of course we are obligated to enforce our own laws, protect enumerated rights and follow due process. BUT the part you are forgetting is that ALL of those things pertain to CIVILIANS. Our own military is exempt from many of the very same Constitutional protections that you wish to provide to the enemy. They are our very own soldiers and as a matter of LAW the COTUS does not apply to them, rather the UCMJ does. So, how do you possibly rectify THAT with saying that the USG can't specify a standard different from the COTUS for enemy combatants? Oh you can't. See the problem is that you want to look at this as strictly a police matter, and it isn't. It is a geopolitical military matter. One that requires a different set of rules.

 

[Sallow]

the right to vote? the right to healthcare for illegals "under u.s. jurisdiction"
how about any one that visits american soil, do they all have the same rights as we do? this is the kind of "it's that simple" logic that won you the white house

Since you are interested in playing "gotcha" I will post the amendment..since you also seem to be unfamiliar with it:

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It pertains to the law...persons have the right to things like a speedy trial, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, to challenge their incarceration and to representation..

Hope that clears it up.

 

[washamericom]

There is a question of whether or not the US should extend constitutional rights to those who are not citizens.

The Supreme Court jurisprudence has mandated Habeas Corpus for any "person" on US soil.

The gitmo is not considered American soil, but it is controlled by the US military. It therefore is exempt from mandate of Habeas Corpus.

It is arguably constitutional given the current interpretation by the Supreme Courts.

Putting aside the question of its constitutionality, it essentially represents the US's willingness to compromise its own principles for security.

To those okay with this, I reference Orwell's 1984.

there is no precedent for international war on u.s. soil (i don't know if any japanese pilots were "interviewed" once shot down at pearl harbor, before hawaii was a state), also gitmo the base is "american soil", is therefore guarenteed all inalienable rights of the consitution. and is obligated to enforce it's law (article six cotus)

 

[Muad'hib]

There is a question of whether or not the US should extend constitutional rights to those who are not citizens.

The Supreme Court jurisprudence has mandated Habeas Corpus for any "person" on US soil.

The gitmo is not considered American soil, but it is controlled by the US military. It therefore is exempt from mandate of Habeas Corpus.

It is arguably constitutional given the current interpretation by the Supreme Courts.

Putting aside the question of its constitutionality, it essentially represents the US's willingness to compromise its own principles for security.

To those okay with this, I reference Orwell's 1984.

there is no precedent for international war on u.s. soil (i don't know if any japanese pilots were "interviewed" once shot down at pearl harbor, before hawaii was a state), also gitmo the base is "american soil", is therefore guarenteed all inalienable rights of the consitution. and is obligated to enforce it's law (article six cotus)

Here is the key point:
In 1934, US president Theodore Roosevelt changed the terms of ownership of Guantanamo Bay from outright US ownership to a 99 year lease agreement between the Cuban and US Governments.

Unfortunately, you are technically incorrect. It is under US military control, but it is being officially leased to the US.

Interestingly enough, this lease agreement is against Cuba's will, but there is nothing Cuba can do about it (militarily). In fact, when the lease is up, Cuba symbolically refuses to sign it. The US ignores this and sends them the money as if they had accepted the lease. Cuba then symbolically refuses to take the money.

Because it is leased, it is not US "sovereign" soil, and therefore the US does not have to extend Habeas Corpus. This is actually an interesting case study in De Facto versus De Jure situation.

Again washamericom, I wish you were right, but as is the current interpretation of the courts, you are not.

 

[uscitizen]

can someone remind me why guantanamo is a bad thing?

Because it does not have a golf course for the prisoners?

If you do not know the answer to your question by now even God cannot help you.

 

[George Costanza]

the right to vote? the right to healthcare for illegals "under u.s. jurisdiction"
how about any one that visits american soil, do they all have the same rights as we do? this is the kind of "it's that simple" logic that won you the white house

Since you are interested in playing "gotcha" I will post the amendment..since you also seem to be unfamiliar with it:

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It pertains to the law...persons have the right to things like a speedy trial, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, to challenge their incarceration and to representation..

Hope that clears it up.

Sallow:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The thing these morons conveniently, and consistently, overlook is, that, while the first portion defines "citizens," the second portion - where it talks about due process of law and equal protection of the law - is not limited to "citizens." It clearly extends these protections to "any person," citizen or not.

 

[uscitizen]

Gitmo is within the jurisdiction of the USA.

 

[washamericom]

Gitmo is within the jurisdiction of the USA.

i don't think anyone disagrees with that.
even in the eyes of god, it seems as if there is sort a of a denial of the very existence of an enemy, by those who say "it's a terrible place". tell me how moving gitmo to illinois and trying ksm in new york is better.
and again, if the administration holds these truths to be self evident, and the right to a speedy trial so precious, how could they let these fine prisoners rot and suffer at guantanamo for yet another two years under their watch. what about the mixed signals. i've seen president bush on t.v. a lot the last few days, and he hasn't mentioned continuing to block the obama administration from the execution of their loftiest ideals. what's the story? gitmo was absolutely going to be closed within one year, i saw the big bill signing ceremony when they first took office. the supreme court rendered their decision, is it just a lot more obama wheel spinning. is it one of those things "we know it's bad, and when we have time we'll find a something better, but fist we'll have a big bill signing ceremony.
i don't see the logic here. usually when people get to that level of administration they have some ideas in mind of replacement that comes before broad sweeping "transformations". are they just the ideological posers i thought i spotted in 2006??
finally, perhaps a really nice golf course at gitmo might get the president obama to go to gitmo again to take another look. he could "not rest until it's resolved" and play golf at the same time.

 

[washamericom]

the right to vote? the right to healthcare for illegals "under u.s. jurisdiction"
how about any one that visits american soil, do they all have the same rights as we do? this is the kind of "it's that simple" logic that won you the white house

Since you are interested in playing "gotcha" I will post the amendment..since you also seem to be unfamiliar with it:


It pertains to the law...persons have the right to things like a speedy trial, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, to challenge their incarceration and to representation..

Hope that clears it up.

Sallow:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The thing these morons conveniently, and consistently, overlook is, that, while the first portion defines "citizens," the second portion - where it talks about due process of law and equal protection of the law - is not limited to "citizens." It clearly extends these protections to "any person," citizen or not.

first of all, i'm not a moron, just because i have you working so hard on this. i don't think # 14 applies to unlawful combatants. the supreme court does, but that could change. it's not cut and dry, it doesn't feel like "settled law" ... yet.
if it we're would gitmo be closed and all of it's residents processed?


Unfortunately, you are technically incorrect. It is under US military control, but it is being officially leased to the US.


this may be another technicality/problem