[...] The End Result Of The SCOTUS Gitmo Decision? [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Salvage, since you didn’t read the “Road to” the SCOTUS decision, which walks you thru most of the events, I will reiterate in response to your:

Aaaaaand how do you know they’re “Unlawful combatants”? Or what they are?

Geneva Convention breaks down enemy combatants into two categories… unlawful and lawful. Lawful are generally those fighting for a state/nation. Unlawful are rogue thugs, like terrorists, who belong not to a nation, but (in this case) to an ideology. I believe it was Curt or ChrisG that had a great post on this in another thread, if someone remembers where to dig it out for reference.

Detainees in Gitmo were either picked up on battlefields, or were turned over by informers. Many have already been released, and there are 70 some (mostly Algerians) are are refused re’entry into their home countries because they don’t want them back. They’re just living off the US tax payer because they have no where to go, but are actually free to leave. The US is working on that group’s quandary.

However they aren’t sitting there sans finding out “what they are”, as you suggest. Since this is a new type of enemy, US laws had to create something to give unlawful combatants some form of due process. Thus the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. They are run thru military tribunals, or CSRT (Combatant Status Review Tribunal) to determine status. If they are found to be unlawful combatants in that review, per the the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the detainees can could challenge that status in the District of Columbia circuit courts, with oversight by the SCOTUS.

SCOTUS blew out the MCA as un Constitutional because they said the CSRT process was not the equivalent of habeus corpus. And the argument is, why are they granted habeus corpus when Cuba is neither a territory, nor will it be considered as a US territory in the future. Cuba still retains full sovereignty over the Gitmo land, tho the US has full authority and power over the base. This is a totally unique arrangement compared to other foreign bases, and was created NOT by George W. Bush, but by Teddy Roosevelt back in 1903.

The SCOTUS, sans exact apple to apple precedent, refused to compare Gitmo to the 1950′s case of Johnson v Eisentrager (the closest comparison), and instead decided to treat Gitmo like a US territory and grant Constitutional rights to detainees. Thus the reason for the dissenting judges.

So:

1: detainees got military reviews to get status determined
2: could challenge that status in the District of Columbia courts (not the federal)
3: and if successfully won a change of status may have other options for legal recourse

SCOTUS tossed out a process created specifically for the new type of enemy thru Congress, and threw the legal due process world into a tizzy, while simultaneously granting stateless detainees/combatants, who have never set foot on US soil and detained on foreign soil, all the rights of a US citizen.

And to boot, they reversed a jurisdiction limitation imposed upon them by Congress (ala running thru DC circuit as opposed to federal system), as allowable via the Constitution, for what appears to be no legal reasononing.

Understand what happened a bit better now? It’s ain’t a “feel good” situation. It is all legal interpretations. In additional to creating legal due process mud and endangering US citizens by having these guys run through our court system, they have ignored all reasonable interpretations of prior decisions, running amok in a completely new direction. Having the highest court of the land making up new rules because they want to is a dangerous path.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Fit fit,

It seems you are being intellectually dishonest by purposely misinterpreting my words.

Am I mistaken?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

My liberty is completely unaffected by these people being detained at GTMO.

Hey, we finally agree! These people aren’t affecting our liberty!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

how do you know they’re “Unlawful combatants”? Or what they are?

Let me answer your question with a question:

Which ones were fighting in uniform?

That’s how you know. The applicable laws are very clear.

But the land of the brave is full of chickens these day who will cheerfully jettison liberty for security.

My liberty is completely unaffected by these people being detained at GTMO.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

But the land of the brave is full of chickens these day who will cheerfully jettison liberty for security.

Not totally full. Live Free or Die!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Aaaaaand how do you know they’re “Unlawful combatants”? Or what they are? Do you think it’s possible that some of the detainees are innocent of their charges or is detainment all you need to confirm guilt?

The U.S. is a signatory to several human rights documents, GitMo violates those treaties on several levels.

But the land of the brave is full of chickens these day who will cheerfully jettison liberty for security.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Seems our favorite Canadian is confused again.

Not a new situation though is it Salvage?

Have you ever even read the US Constitution? Probably a good idea.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Boy do you miss the point, Salvage.

Unlawful combatants (not criminals…) have never, in this country’s history, had Constitutional rights prior to this. America, in it’s compassion, granted them some legal recourse rights they did not possess via DTA/MCA. The SCOTUS decided those rights weren’t equivalent to habeus corpus, as they decided to classify the Cuban base as US sovereign territory… which technically it is not.

Yet full Constitutional rights are generally only granted, historically, to genuinely sovereign foreign territory and territories. Most of the time they used the foresight of whether the territory was anticipated to become a US state, or a completely sovereign nation. i.e the colony of Puerto Rico, which has it’s own Constitution and laws, but is still US territory and has a US federal court on the island. It was here that Ruben Berrios was tried.

Puerto Rico is understandable. But to equate Cuban detainees to Puerto Rico citizens? Gitmo’s unique situation is much more akin to the Germany base in Johnson v Eisentrager than it is to Puerto Rico, who also enjoy rights to vote in US elections.

The Supreme’s have decided to ignore precedents left and right, blazing a new trail and embarking the US legally on a new path, fraught with speed bumps and pot holes. They’ve left the legal system with conflicting precedents, and little guidance on how to rule. The Supreme’s shot from the hip on this one, and now they are giving that to the lower courts to do as well. Depending on what they decide, and how the appellate process goes, they willl end up revisiting the lower courts’ decisions to see if they shot from the hip, straight between the Constitution’s eyes.

And you consider deviation from precendents, and a foggy due process, a good thing?

I am never surprised at the bizarre and simplistic thought patterns demonstrated by all too many in this country.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Yeah! Stupid Founding Fathers, giving criminals rights! America should be like Iran, China, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the Soviet Union and all the other smart countries that know that rights and due process are just so unAmerican.

It’s a good thing bin Laden came along huh? Otherwise America still might be thinking that it’s wrong to torture people or lock them up forever without a trial.

Like or Dislike: 0  0