Should Guantanomo Detainees have any rights?

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by walidm

One is identified as an enemy combatant by the soldier on the field under command. Habeas corpus is there in your defense as it is for all accused. There is a court system for wiretaps and for good reason. Why is it suddenly not good enough? It has a more lenient process than many of our other laws, with a post-facto failsafe built in.

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a 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.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

You're great at copy/pasting, but not so good at reading comprehension.

Did you actually read what you copy/pasted? If you had, you would have noted that Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 begins with "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus..." Habeas Corpus is a privilege, not a right, which may be suspended "in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

Also the 5th Amendment includes an exception stating when the right does not apply: "...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;"

Apparently you read just what you want to read and ignore anything that you don't agree with. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

The US Constitution applies to US citizens, born or naturalized, under its jurisdiction (See the 14th Amendment). The US Constitution does NOT apply to foreigners unless they are on US soil and thereby within the jurisdiction of the US. Attempting to apply the Bill of Rights to Afghani or Iraqi citizens, or any other citizen of another nation, is beyond ludicris and well into the realm of abject stupidity.

[harborlady]

Originally Posted by Glitch

You're great at copy/pasting, but not so good at reading comprehension.

Did you actually read what you copy/pasted? If you had, you would have noted that Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 begins with "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus..." Habeas Corpus is a privilege, not a right, which may be suspended "in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

Also the 5th Amendment includes an exception stating when the right does not apply: "...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;"

Apparently you read just what you want to read and ignore anything that you don't agree with. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

The US Constitution applies to US citizens, born or naturalized, under its jurisdiction (See the 14th Amendment). The US Constitution does NOT apply to foreigners unless they are on US soil and thereby within the jurisdiction of the US. Attempting to apply the Bill of Rights to Afghani or Iraqi citizens, or any other citizen of another nation, is beyond ludicris and well into the realm of abject stupidity.

I strongly disagree. While I can agree that the circumstances are different than ordinary citizenship, the crime is the point. On that basis alone you're armed with the full force of the law, and should be using that arm appropriately. That means in accordance with the spirit of the laws that define us as a nation.
Soldiers on a battlefield should not be burdened with requirements of justice. Capture and deliver system only for them. You're shooting at them? You're going to die. Nuff said. You're a political prisoner? That grey area is nefarious at best and we as a nation have offered political asylum for people persecuted by their governments. Should it mean that we ignore political abuses elsewhere because they happen to be standing on a street corner appearing like someone being a criminal? Sound a bit like castro emptying out his prisons on our dime to you???

The rest- interrogation... I think allowences for gathering evidence have to be made for the sake of justice being carried out fully. I think its more difficult to gather evidence when crime is on an international stage, and more latitude for evidence gathering afforded prosecution. That does not mean wanton abuse of wire tapping. It also doesn't mean that we should dismiss evidence provided by other governments in our own courts. I think if this were handled more intelligently, and especially consistent with juris prudence, you'd hear no grief coming from anyone in america. As this blank check is written, it's a recipe for disasterous consequences and political abuses in the name of america. I find that reprehensible.