Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 18 of 18
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    874
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1558

    Default

    They get NO protection from our Constitution, their only protection is under the GC. And that is pretty shallow as the GC doesn't cover terrorists.

    Geneva conventions aren't the only treaties we've signed that bear on the issue. USA has signed and ratified other treaties protecting any person, part of a war or not, from being held indefinitely without trial.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    47,736
    Thanks (Given)
    23999
    Thanks (Received)
    17509
    Likes (Given)
    9742
    Likes (Received)
    6188
    Piss Off (Given)
    85
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    204 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DannyR View Post
    They get NO protection from our Constitution, their only protection is under the GC. And that is pretty shallow as the GC doesn't cover terrorists.

    Geneva conventions aren't the only treaties we've signed that bear on the issue. USA has signed and ratified other treaties protecting any person, part of a war or not, from being held indefinitely without trial.
    Got some links?


    "The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill


  3. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    In a house
    Posts
    1,690
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    7239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kathianne View Post
    Got some links?
    Try this, the detainees never had any rights until the US Supreme Court gave them to them through a reversal of established law.

    The court reversed the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which had held that the Supreme Court's 1950 decision in Johnson v. Eisentrager barred Guantanamo detainees from bringing actions challenging their detentions in U.S. courts because they were foreign nationals outside U.S. sovereign territory.
    Eisentrager involved German nationals who, in the closing days of World War II, violated the terms of Germany's surrender by continuing to wage war against the allies in the Pacific theater. The Eisentrager plaintiffs had been tried and convicted by a military commission (with some of their alleged confederates acquitted), and imprisoned at a U.S. military base in Germany. Eisentrager was an arguably tangled opinion in which the Supreme Court purportedly declined to recognize petitioners' right for habeas corpus review, only in fact to review the facts of their case. It set out elements detailing why the Eisentrager petitioners were not entitled to further threshold procedural steps such as habeas corpus, finding among other things that they were enemy aliens duly charged and convicted for violating the laws of war by a lawfully constituted tribunal.
    http://www.cdi.org/news/law/gtmo-sct-decision.cfm
    "The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."
    ---Thomas Jefferson (or as Al Sharpton calls him: Grandpappy)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums