Obama signs one-year extension of Patriot Act

[Demosthenes11]

only americans deserve to actually be told their crimes. everyone else can rot away in jail for years

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Then that means that habeas corpus rights apply to non citizens too?

No, well sorta.

Guantanamo had been under our control for nearly 100 years so it basically boiled down to it being sovereign territory, and we're in control, and thus they were entitled habeas corpus.

On the other hand, if were not in control of the territory the prisoners aren't. Eisenstrager case from WWII.

So it seems to me that if we kept them in Iraq/Afghan they wouldn't have been.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

But you're ok with it right?

I've never formed an opinion on it, but it seems necessary.

[Rhinox]

No, well sorta.

Guantanamo had been under our control for nearly 100 years so it basically boiled down to it being sovereign territory, and we're in control, and thus they were entitled habeas corpus.

On the other hand, if were not in control of the territory the prisoners aren't. Eisenstrager case from WWII.

So it seems to me that if we kept them in Iraq/Afghan they wouldn't have been.

wat? I'm not following


how does that disprove that the constitution doesn't apply to everyone we deal with? You seem to contradict yourself.

U.S. courts had no jurisdiction over German war criminals held in a U.S.-administered German prison. The prisoners had at no time been on American sovereign territory.

They didn't have the have the rights because they already had rights as prisoners of war. Considering we aren't technically at war and combatants aren't covered by the Geneva convention of 1949 the Constitutional rights apply.

[Rhinox]

by your definition Swampy could we forbid say for the sake of argument an Afghani newsletter published by Afghani nationals in NYC that is critical about the war and Lock them up because they did so?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

wat? I'm not following

how does that disprove that the constitution doesn't apply to everyone we deal with? You seem to contradict yourself.

They didn't have the have the rights because they already had rights as prisoners of war. Considering we aren't technically at war and combatants aren't covered by the Geneva convention of 1949 the Constitutional rights apply.

Hamdi was entitled to his due process rights b/c he was an American citizen, other detainees are not b/c they aren't U.S. citizens basically. There's your example of the constitution not applying to everyone.

With regards to the habeas corpus petitions, it had to do with where they were held basically. We've been in Guantanamo for years and are in control of it, its basically a U.S. territory according to the court, thus they were entitled to their petitions. In Germany, it wasn't a U.S. territory and weren't in control is basically how the court distinguished the two situations.

Thus, it seems to me that if we had left them in Iraq/Afghan the court would have said they weren't entitled to have their petitions heard. I was just trying to draw a distinction with that statement.

And of course not, free speech.

[Rhinox]

Hamdi was entitled to his due process rights b/c he was an American citizen, other detainees are not b/c they aren't U.S. citizens basically. There's your example of the constitution not applying to everyone.

With regards to the habeas corpus petitions, it had to do with where they were held basically. We've been in Guantanamo for years and are in control of it, its basically a U.S. territory according to the court, thus they were entitled to their petitions. In Germany, it wasn't a U.S. territory and weren't in control is basically how the court distinguished the two situations.

Thus, it seems to me that if we had left them in Iraq/Afghan the court would have said they weren't entitled to have their petitions heard. I was just trying to draw a distinction with that statement.

wait.. before we handed the 'reigns' to the afghan people who had control over afghanistan?

And of course not, free speech.

So the constitution applies to nonresident non-citizens like those in Gitmo. Thanks for clearing that up. >.>

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

wait.. before we handed the 'reigns' to the afghan people who had control over afghanistan?

So the constitution applies to nonresident non-citizens like those in Gitmo. Thanks for clearing that up. >.>

Oopsie, by control I didn't mean "in charge" I meant control over the population that also involves there being "peace." In Germany we were still being attacked. In Guantanamo were not being attacked.

And I believe the correct response to your 2nd paragraph is they are not the same class of defendants as those in Guantanamo.

[Rhinox]

Oopsie, by control I didn't mean "in charge" I meant control over the population that also involves there being "peace." In Germany we were still being attacked. In Guantanamo were not being attacked.

And I believe the correct response to your 2nd paragraph is they are not the same class of defendants as those in Guantanamo.

Can you point me where are these 'classes of defendants' defined and who does it? stop blowing hot air up my ass I'm starting to sweat

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Can you point me where are these 'classes of defendants' defined and who does it? stop blowing hot air up my ass I'm starting to sweat

I don't know if that's the correct response b/c individual liberties are next semester. The only distinction I can think of is the Guantanamo inmates are "Enemy Combatants." If not for the Geneva convention they would be prisoners of war. In your hypo your talking about a simple non-citizen not doing anything against the law. That's the best answer I can give you based on what I know. It could be right or it could be way off. All I can say is there is some distinction the court would find, this is my guess as to what it is.

[Rhinox]

Ask one of your professors. I'll be here waiting