John McCain has called last week's Supreme Court ruling that extends the
right to challenge one's detention to detainees at Guantanamo Bay “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."
McCain said the decision highlighted the importance of nominating conservative justices to the court. McCain explained that although he still wants to close the prison and opposes torture, the decision threatens American security.
"These are enemy combatants, these are people who are not citizens, they are not and never have been given the rights that the citizens of this country have," the Republican nominee said. I wonder how a detainee could prove he is in fact an American citizen, without the right to challenge detention.
McCain eagerly distinguished himself from Barack Obama, who supported the decision saying: “This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus.”
Is it possible to simultaneously support the closing of Guantanamo, and detention without charge?
Butterfly
Bloch
Hush Puppies
"Is it possible to simultaneously support the closing of Guantanamo, and detention without charge?"
1Only if you use painfully twisted logic and ethics: We can kidnap people from all around the world, bring them to Guantanamo and pretend we're upholding the law by not allowing them to use the Constitution to fight for their freedom.
I have to say I agree with McCain on this one. Go ahead and crucify me.
2ok. I have a question. I'm no legal scholar, so here goes: when my husband came to America 9 years ago on a student visa, he was not an American citizen (obviously) which meant he did not hold the rights that we hold as American citizens. SO, if he were thrown in to jail, and demanded habeas corpus would the courts have to do so even if he wasn't a citizen.
Basically my question is, is it only a privilege for American citizens or does it apply to all detained regardless of status?
3(hf, I love how you do the drink emoticon after every serious comment)
4I have a drinking problem today sy.
5or maybe always have one?
just kidding!
drink up my dear!
6Actually I gave up all alcohol (and dairy for that matter) for the summer...so I'm living vicariously through sugar emoticons.
7why on earth would you do that?!
8I'm assuming when Bush and McCain say citizens they mean citizens, not legal residents. But, who knows what the intricacies are.
Your question syako reminded me again of the logical confusion/absurdity I mentioned in the post. If you have no right to challenge your detention, how do you protest that you do in fact have rights because you are an American citizen? Because the parallel body, which presumes all the government's evidence is true, says you're not a citizen you cannot get in court to prove you are!
(I'm referring to how it stood before the ruling.)
9I agree Liberty that there do need to be lines drawn.
10I'm preparing for an extremely difficult role and have to REALLY take care of my voice. It sucks....but it's part of the whole thing.
11I'm no legal scholar either, but I just googled immigrant and habeas corpus and it looks to me like traditionally, he would have been able to invoke habaes corpus. I found a case of a Chinese immigrant that went back to 1914. It has become more difficult since 9/11 and in 2006, 2 senators introduced the Habaes Corpus Restoration Act.
from wikipedia:
The bill was sponsored by Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy and Republican Senator Arlen Specter. Specter joined the Democrats in supporting the bill, which the Committee passed on a vote of 11 to 8, without debate. The bill would restore the right for Guantanamo captives to access the US court system under the principle of habeas corpus, a right that had been stripped from them by the Military Commissions Act of 2006.[3]
A version of the bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives (H.R. 1416) by Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Jane Harman (D-CA).
On June 29, 2007 the Supreme Court agreed to hear outstanding habeas corpus, opening up the possibility that they might overturn some or all of the Military Commissions Act.[5][6]
The Act was attached, as an amendment, to a Defense bill.[6] Debate began on the bill on September 17, 2007.
[edit] See also
12"Basically my question is, is it only a privilege for American citizens or does it apply to all detained regardless of status?"
I thought it applied to all people.
Right to trial is one of the basic principles America stands for, IMO. It is what seperates us from those countries where journalists go and are never heard from again.
I think that we NEED allies to help us combat terrorism, and when American looks as if it does not stand for justice, that hurts us in the end.
13so did you get the role!?!?!
14LOL tonight's the final callback for THAT role. I have an extensive dance call that I'm DREADING. I'm talking about a different role although both of them require you to live like a nun...sigh.
15you're going to be INCREDIBLE tonight!
16ok. sorry for the tangent.
so are we not clear on whether it is a right for legal residents?
17Non-citizens get coverage too, here's a ruling from today and for me, it's more difficult to understand his protection:
The Supreme Court made it easier Monday for some foreigners who overstay their visas to seek to remain in the United States legally.
18The court ruled 5-4 Monday that someone who is here illegally may withdraw his voluntarily agreement to depart and continue to try to get approval to remain in the United States. Samson Dada, a Nigerian citizen, stayed beyond his tourist visa in 1998. He married an American... began trying to obtain a visa as an immediate relative of a citizen. Dada apparently failed to submit some documents, causing immigration officials to deny the visa. Dada has been trying again to obtain the visa, but immigration authorities meanwhile have ordered him to leave the country.
Thanks Sy!
It's latin dancing. hmmmm where's lain? I wonder if she has any tips. 
19"If you have no right to challenge your detention, how do you protest that you do in fact have rights because you are an American citizen?"
That is a great point.
20I have to respectfully disagree with Sen. McCain on this one. First of all he says "These are enemy combatants", no, these are suspected enemy combatants and the only way we will ever move on from the realm of suspicion to guilt or innocence is to proceed with an investigation, hearing and trial. If we were to simply leave the condition as is we would be imprisoning these individuals for life based on suspicion and that is wrong. If our task is made harder it is not because the majority of the Justices held true to the rule of law. It is because a certain Administration over reached it's power giving the Judiciary the task through the balance of power to politely slap their hand and say no no no.
As I've suggested before if America holds true to her own standard she will once again be respected around the world and the administration will not be in the position of being embarrassed and corrected for over stepping its authority.
21Harmony, I know you will do great tonight!
Work the hips in the latin dancing, and
shake it like there's no tomorrow!
22"these are suspected enemy combatants and the only way we will ever move on from the realm of suspicion to guilt or innocence is to proceed with an investigation, hearing and trial."
Very well said once again, Hypno!
23Thanks Jill
24My philosophy at dance calls is if I mess up I just shake my rack at them and give them lots of sass. LOL
'Habeas corpus' is the name of a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from unlawful detention of himself or another person.
I think it should be a means that we've decided our state (USA) is held accountable for its actions, since historically states have taken liberties in times of 'need' - WWII roundups of possible Asian spies - and looking back at history it seems like there will always be some danger on the horizon.
The Supreme Court historically has kept quiet through the war time, and then clarified later as to the parameters of the powers of the government. But right now, what exactly are we in? They've given the time and stayed out, and years are going by.
My focus isn't on who gets these rights, but on our govt having to answer - every time. B/c then we all can have faith in the system. More information and transparency (even if it is a closed hearing from the public) ensures that the people we lock up are there based on something.
"Right to trial is one of the basic principles America stands for" - I'm with Jillness on that.
25"As I've suggested before if America holds true to her own standard she will once again be respected around the world and the administration will not be in the position of being embarrassed and corrected for over stepping its authority."
again, hypno says it better...
26"My philosophy at dance calls is if I mess up I just shake my rack at them and give them lots of sass."
That is now going to be my LIFE'S philosophy. We need a rack shaking emoticon!!
27Hey HF I can teach you how to move them hips like a true Latina girl.
28I bet you can hypno!
29Good points meg, jill, and steph
30last time i shook my rack at someone i was rushed to the ER.
31McCain says:these are enemy combatants. So therefore they have no rights. They are actually suspected enemy combatants.
32And when he himself was a POW for 5 years, he was an enemy combatant to the North Vietnamese. He may have liked to have some rights!
YY, at least the other person didnt end up in the hospital.
33Is it possible to simultaneously support the closing of Guantanamo, and detention without charge?
That is really twisting McCain's position. His position is that we should close Gitmo and stop detaining without charge, partially to prevent legal problems like this one. I agree with him on this decision. I can't think of a country in history that has ever extended rights of citizenship to enemy combatants captured in war.
I don't know exactly how it works, but I do know that non-citizens arrested on civilian charges face trial just like citizens do. In fact, my no good dirtbag BIL has been arrested twice on assault charges - once for breaking my SIL's arm - and tried twice and jailed twice and never been deported. The bastid.
34Sister Mary Harmony France, living like a nun and shaking it.
35I agree with janneth. The whole enemy combatant specification can be stretched pretty far, and it seems odd that they would have less rights when being detained on foreign soil. I know I don't want that to be the case for our soldiers.
36LOL! janneth
37Mucho caliente nun!
38
39One thing that you guys are missing when you compare this particular set of enemy combatants with our soldiers, is that these enemy combatants are choosing not to operate by any International standards of war. The Geneva Convention should apply to our soldiers. Our soldiers adhere to the terms of the Geneva Convention and therefore are privy to their protections. One of the main reasons for having agreements like the Geneva Convention is to protect innocents from some of the ravages of war by extending protections to those combatants who agree to bide by the terms. Extending similar protections to those who choose not to nullifies the entire point and places everybody in greater danger.
40abide*
41"His position is that we should close Gitmo and stop detaining without charge, partially to prevent legal problems like this one."
But what about the people that have already been detained and still aren't charged? I agree with his position moving forward, but there are some big issues that we need to address about people who are currently in our possession.
(that is very sad about your SIL. Very sad)
42" is that these enemy combatants are choosing not to operate by any International standards of war"
How do we know what country, organization, etc. these people are working with/for? We would need to know that to see if the Geneva Convention applies. If they never get a trial, we don't know who they are or where they come from. I heard that there is a Canadian teenager being held at Guantanamo. Now, I don't remember the source so I take that with tons of salt, but I just don't trust that our government has tried to sincerely root out all of the people that were rounded up incorrectly. Wasn't there an al Jazeera camera man that was in Guant for 6 years?
43I was going to make a similar point Jillness, I agree.
44Jennifer, we have designated these people 'enemy combatants' but we have not brought charges - they have been detained in countries around the world, often by foreigners or contractors. They were not taken from the battlefield. We are not abiding by any 'international standards of war' - Thus the president had to have the Justice Dept come up with defenses for these actions, and has now been rebuked by the Supreme Court three times.
45jennifer, your claims about these detainees are just allegations. They have not been tried yet.
46so sorry about your SIL too.
as the supreme court ruling stated: "even in extraordinary times"
47If another country detained U.S. citizens under the same conditions we hold people in Guantanamo, do you think Senator McCain would think that was okay? No. I'm guessing he would authorize the use of military force to either have them extradited to the U.S.
Also, this is a great example of a post that would greatly benefit from threaded comments.
48I agree you guys, there are people being tortured without any trial or any legal clarification on their status. Now I love 24 and Jack Bauer as much as the next person(or maybe more), but torture in general is not within the Geneva Convention as I understand it. And the US have been disregarding many of its 'rules'. Here in Europe that gets talked about a lot. But feel free to enlighten me, because I don't know as much as I would like on this subject.
49Whoa everybody at once!
How do we know what country, organization, etc. these people are working with/for?
That's one of the requirements of the Geneva Convention. To qualify for the Convention's protections of prisoners of war, they are required to clearly delineate their allegiance and belong to "regular armed forces" with a clear chain of command and a recognizable uniform.
Those in Gitmo are technically civilians and therefore are only awarded the following protections:
As far as I know, we are abiding by the above requirements. The only one even possibly in question is the first. I do know that the Red Cross has been allowed in to Gitmo and that seems in accordance with the first.
Stephley - Your statement is full of at least as many unsubtantiated charges as Gitmo itself.
And thanks for the comments about my SIL. Just so you don't worry, he has disappeared himself and we're all hoping he stays that way.
50Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.