By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay may challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

In its third rebuke of the Bush administration's treatment of prisoners, the court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the constitutional rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The court's liberal justices were in the majority.

May the Farce be With You...

Where does it end? Non-citizens afforded the rights of citizens...bah. Only in the modern US.

--M

The liberals don't form a majority on the U.S. Supreme Court. Obviously, at least one conservative agreed.

Secondly, does the Constitution address the rights of PERSONS or CITIZENS, under the law?

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Conservatives on these boards hate having the Bill of Rights thrown in their face unless someone is trying to take their deer rifle from their house.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Wehr:
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Conservatives on these boards hate having the Bill of Rights thrown in their face unless someone is trying to take their deer rifle from their house.

So, this part of the Constitution has been ignored by the Bush Administration up until this point. You're right, 755. Only in the modern U.S. can Republicans ignore the Constitution.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention, and thanks to the Supreme Court for correcting this situation.

Still....no one has explained that "liberal majority" thing yet.

I would like to add, though, that if it is, as 755 stated, a liberal action to uphold the Constitution, then I have never been more proud to be a liberal.

Citizens? How about "Humans"? One of those Guantanamo kids was 15 when they first locked him up ...

quote:

Originally posted by SociallyAutistic:
Citizens? How about "Humans"? One of those Guantanamo kids was 15 when they first locked him up ...

Social, don't you know that non-citizens aren't considered human? That's why we can so easily laugh off children being killed in a war. They're Iraqi children, not human children.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Wehr:
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Conservatives on these boards hate having the Bill of Rights thrown in their face unless someone is trying to take their deer rifle from their house.

If you are going to quote, don't obliterate context.

quote:

Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Doesn't say "for the rest of the planet..."

--M

That's right ... muslim children. How do you call over a muslim kid with no arms and no legs ... DOESN'T MATTER, 'CAUSE HE'S NOT GONNA COME ANYWAY ... AHAHAHA.

quote:

Originally posted by MeatUSCGRetired:
I would like to add, though, that if it is, as 755 stated, a liberal action to uphold the Constitution, then I have never been more proud to be a liberal.

Please try to separate the holding, and treatment, etc. of the people in Gitmo from the idea of "should foreign nationals have the same rights as citizens"? Humans need to be treated humanely, PETA would have us treat animals humanely, so I would imagine that soon enough your dog will be able to bring suit against you under this precident.

--M

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 7555925,

quote:

Originally posted by SociallyAutistic:
That's right ... muslim children. How do you call over a muslim kid with no arms and no legs ... DOESN'T MATTER, 'CAUSE HE'S NOT GONNA COME ANYWAY ... AHAHAHA.

I thought it was "third base"... (I am going to burn for that one...sorry)

--M

I also believe that terrorists sworn to murder us all should have the exact same rights as mom and dad and sister Sue. I think that terrorists have the right to cable television… and gourmet cooking… and air conditioning… and SPF16 suntan lotion…

Actually, we ought to treat them as they treated our people that were captured… cut their frigging heads off and post it on the Internet!

Or maybe... something in the middle...?

Now, do you really want to cut a fifteen year-old's head off?

quote:

Originally posted by 7555925:

quote:

Originally posted by MeatUSCGRetired:
I would like to add, though, that if it is, as 755 stated, a liberal action to uphold the Constitution, then I have never been more proud to be a liberal.

Please try to separate the holding, and treatment, etc. of the people in Gitmo from the idea of "should foreign nationals have the same rights as citizens"? Humans need to be treated humanely, PETA would have us treat animals humanely, so I would imagine that soon enough your dog will be able to bring suit against you under this precident.

--M

DJ quoted the part of the Constitution that pertains to this case. The preamble does NOT pertain to this case. I'm sorry that you don't like how the Constitution is written, but it says what it says. If we start making exceptions based on who we do or don't like, then let's throw the whole mother-effing thing out.

You cannot selectively apply the Constitution and still call it valid. It sucks that terrorists, or alleged terrorists, are covered by the Constitution, but evidently they are. And, the Supreme Court backs this up.

As I've been told SOOOOOOO often on this Forum, if you don't like it, move to another country. The Constitution is what it is, like it or not.

quote:

Originally posted by 7555925:

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Wehr:
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Conservatives on these boards hate having the Bill of Rights thrown in their face unless someone is trying to take their deer rifle from their house.

If you are going to quote, don't obliterate context.

quote:

Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Doesn't say "for the rest of the planet..."

--M

Well please tell me how I took the Fifth Amendment out of context..what part of "No person" is so complicated.

SECONDLY, I HATE THESE F**KING PEICES OF $HIT COWARDS AS MUCH AS ANYONE! BUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US AND THEM IS OUR RULE OF LAW AND A CIVILIZED DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY. TAKE AWAY EITHER OF THESE OR SIMPLY CHIP AWAY AT THEM AND TERRORISM HAS ACHEIVED ITS PURPOSE.

quote:

Originally posted by MeatUSCGRetired:

quote:

Originally posted by 7555925:

quote:

Originally posted by MeatUSCGRetired:
I would like to add, though, that if it is, as 755 stated, a liberal action to uphold the Constitution, then I have never been more proud to be a liberal.

Please try to separate the holding, and treatment, etc. of the people in Gitmo from the idea of "should foreign nationals have the same rights as citizens"? Humans need to be treated humanely, PETA would have us treat animals humanely, so I would imagine that soon enough your dog will be able to bring suit against you under this precident.

--M

DJ quoted the part of the Constitution that pertains to this case. The preamble does NOT pertain to this case. I'm sorry that you don't like how the Constitution is written, but it says what it says. If we start making exceptions based on who we do or don't like, then let's throw the whole mother-effing thing out.

You cannot selectively apply the Constitution and still call it valid. It sucks that terrorists, or alleged terrorists, are covered by the Constitution, but evidently they are. And, the Supreme Court backs this up.

As I've been told SOOOOOOO often on this Forum, if you don't like it, move to another country. The Constitution is what it is, like it or not.

"you cannot selectively apply the Constitution..." "DJ quoted the part of the Constitution that pertains to this case." The Preamble is part of the Constitution last I looked.

I am for take it(the Constitution) ALL, not just the parts you like. I thought that was where you were going but then you confused me. I never said that "I don't like how it is written" and for you to say so is wrong. I am sorry, I thought you had more integrity (how about those apples?).

You still haven't answer my other question. Should foreign nationals have the same rights as citizens?

I plan on staying for the time being but I am well aware that relocation is an option.

--M

Soc, if that 15-year old would cut my head off, ya, make the kid a foot shorter! I notice that you selected the atypical case vice describing the average terrorist. There were no 15-year old kids that took down the planes on 9/11.

I really don’t want to cut anyone’s head off. That was sarcasm. But I do not believe that the people that tried to wipe us off the face of the Earth need to be treated with the Masques of Queensbury Rules. They can remain locked up… being fed by the people they want to kill… being protected by the people they want to kill. If possible, they would cut our heads off today. But we treat them so well that they are all gaining weight.

I have an idea, ask Daniel Pearl how we should treat them. Of course, I bet that he would treat his captives much better than they treated him.

quote:

Well scholar tell me how I took out of context..what part of "No person" don't you understand.

SECONDLY, I HATE THESE F**KING PEICES OF $HIT COWARDS AS MUCH AS ANYONE! BUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US AND THEM IS OUR RULE OF LAW AND CIVILIZED DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY. TAKE AWAY EITHER OF THESE OR SIMPLY CHIP AWAY AT THEM..TERRORISM HAS ACHEIVED ITS PURPOSE.

DJ, take a pill or something. I am not attacking you, my co-scholar. The larger picture is "does the constitution apply to foreign nationals"? If YES, then I'm on the same page as you AND we have a much bigger problem. If NO, then it doesn't matter if I understand what it means by "person" (thanks for that by the way, perhaps your obvious anger could be redirected elsewhere?)

We do have a rule of law and all are welcome to use it and be abused by it, citizen or not. This is separate from the issue of "should foreign nationals have the same rights as citizens under the Constitution". Our laws are our laws as illustrated by the vehicle code (a set of laws having nothing to do with the Constitution that we apply to all people).

--M

755,

First I apologize for remark, I am strict constructionist when it comes to the Constitution and I can get been over-heated when I feel people would rather find ways to get around the Bill of Rights than adhere to them.

For clarity,

Here's the U.S. Supreme Court Ruling for download..

Some excerpts first..

"A brief account of the writ’s history and origins shows thatprotection for the habeas privilege was one of the few safeguards ofliberty specified in a Constitution that, at the outset, had no Bill ofRights; in the system the Framers conceived, the writ has a centrality
that must inform proper interpretation of the Suspension Clause. That the Framers considered the writ a vital instrument for the protection
of individual liberty is evident from the care taken in the Suspension
Clause to specify the limited grounds for its suspension: Thewrit may be suspended only when public safety requires it in times ofrebellion or invasion. The Clause is designed to protect against cyclical
abuses of the writ by the Executive and Legislative Branches. ""It protects detainee rights by a means consistent with the Constitution’s essential design, ensuring that, except during periods of formal suspension, the Judiciary will have a time-tested device, the writ, to maintain the “delicate balance of governance.” Hamdi, supra, at 536. Separation-of-powers principles, and the history that influenced their design, inform the Clause’s reach and purpose. Pp. 8–15.""

Here's the link to the pdf. file of the entire ruling.

Boumediene v. Bush

No worries and thanks brother DJ, passion is a good thing (I'll just have to remember to wear my vest when standing in front of the shotgun )

Thanks for the clip and link, I understand how they have applied the Constitution, I just think that it doesn't cover foreign nationals. We may have other laws that could cover these people but the Constitution should, IMHO, be reserved for citizens.

--M