1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

SCOTUS: Gitmo prisoners have rights under Constitution

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by dixiehack, Jun 12, 2008.

  1. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    So if you travel to Spain and are arrested and thrown in jail for six years and are never allowed a trial or a lawyer you'd be OK with that since you aren't a Spanish citizen and aren't entitled to any rights?

    If this administration felt strongly that these folks didn't deserve any rights under the constitution, they wouldn't be playing games by holding them on "foreign" lands.
     
  2. alleyallen

    alleyallen Guest

    Still wading through Scalia's rather lengthy dissent, but so far he asserts that people have been killed by terror suspects the military deemed as not a threat and released. He then says the court's ruling will cause further "non-threats" to be released and then kill people.

    While I can understand the thinking behind that, what about those Americans who are released from prison because they aren't considered threats, then commit further, more egregious crimes? What's the response then? Why then doesn't Scalia come out against the release of prisoners from state facilities?

    Probably because the answer to that is when cases like this happen in the states, parole and release boards have to step up their efforts. Why then can't the same stepped up effort be applied to these detainees.

    I'm still reading but in no way has Scalia sold me on that. And that statement came almost at the very beginning of his dissent.
     
  3. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    How would you track a parolee once he leaves the country? We can't track the ones who live here.
     
  4. alleyallen

    alleyallen Guest

    You just made me point for me, although probably unintentionally.

    Even though we can't track parolees in this country, we still parole them, right?
     
  5. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    I don't know, Alley. I think AQB may be onto something.

    How about we imprison everyone until they can proof their honesty and patriotism by wearing a flag pin?

    Problem solved!
     
  6. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    Yep, if we're going to go down this route we need to fix our domestic parolee tracking problem before we start releasing terrorists to the wind.

    I also don't understand how it's a good idea to give a POW captured on a battlefield access to our court system. That's unprecedented and potentially changes the rules of engagement.

    Why should we take prisoners now? Just kill 'em when they surrender and save the legal headaches. This is a horrible precedent but hey, Bush is evil so it's a good thing.
     
  7. 2muchcoffeeman

    2muchcoffeeman Well-Known Member

    The Constitution primarily addresses what the government may and may not do. Habeas corpus was the only right enshrined in the first draft of the Constitution itself. In this case, the government is restricted from imprisoning someone without charging them with a violation of the law.

    Article I, Section 9:

    No one may be imprisoned if there are no charges against them, no matter what their passport or birth certificate says. In this case, there's no rebellion and no invasion. Hell, most of the Gitmo detainees weren't even detained in this country.
     
  8. PeteyPirate

    PeteyPirate Guest

    I would be willing to listen to this argument if the U.S. actually provided proof that this was the case with the prisoners at Guantanamo. But when you say that the battlefied is the whole world and that enemy combatants are who we say they are, then it loses some luster.
     
  9. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    I'm not saying all the prisoners at Gitmo were captured on a battlefield. But they weren't all captured walking down the street either. However, the way this reads ANY combatant, be it a soldier or a terrorist now has access to our court system. That's unprecedented.
     
  10. alleyallen

    alleyallen Guest

    Exactly. A large number of the detainees had no apparent ties to the enemy. But after being held under a hood in Gitmo for many months or years, don't you think that might actually fan a fire of hatred and make some of these guys who were on the fence actually step over it and start fighting? Just a thought.
     
  11. PeteyPirate

    PeteyPirate Guest

    It is, and I don't think we would have gone down this road if we hadn't made the mistake of just rounding up all suspicious people and imprisoning them without charges for years. Arrest the ones you believe you have a case against, try them transparently, and there isn't this problem. That to me is the definition of justice.
     
  12. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    POWs are supposed to have rights under the Geneva Conventions. The Bushies have declared that the people in Gitmo are not POWs, they are enemy combatants, and thus, are not entitled to the Geneva Convention rights. So where do they get their rights?

    From the U.S. Constitution.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page