SCOTUS lets GITMO Detainees have

Again - way off any rational mark triple.

U.S. citizens and their habeas rights were not affected by this decision, because they were unaffected by the MCA. You are just solidly wrong and the facts and law. Why you do it is very clear to me. But just because you have created some illusion doesn't mean it is worthy of memoralization anywhere.

This case dealt with enemy ALIENS in Guantanamo. U.S. citizens are not part of the issue, because their habeas rights were not affected by the military tribunal scheme suggested by the Court and passed by Congress. By its language, the MCA applied ONLY to ALIENS.

This thread continues to be dragged down the Olberdumb hole. Why not sticking with reality and not the untrue populist bunk of the entertanews you seem to rely on?
 
FondrenRoad - thank you for the fine post at the end of the last page. Washpark needs to read and understand it.
You described the sequence of events as it related to the years of detention of a US citizen without charge by Bush and how pressure was brougt to bear by the Court of Appeals to have Padilla charged.

washpark - You are wrong on the matter of the MCA not giving Bush the authority to designate a US citizen an "enemy combatant" and therefore subject them to indefinite detention and torture. Until the decision this week, Bush had that authority. Pull your head out.

While the SCOTUS decision focused on the detention of unlawful combatants at Guantanamo, and the language reflects that, by virtue of their decision, habeas rights were restored to aliens and citizens alike who fell under Bush's designation of "enemy combatant". It becomes so for US citizens without the SCOTUS even speaking to it. It's implicit in their decision.

washpark - I'm still not sure you would be upset if Bush had the ability to declare you an "enemy combatant" and detain you without charge for a few years. Either that or you appear to continue to be in denial that this was a reality. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 enabled the President to define his own laws, to imprison people indefinitely simply by calling them a name, and then prevented any check on this power by either Congress or the Judiciary.

where the **** have you been, washpark ?


.
 
Wash,

Don't act like there is not controversy over the MCA, or that we don't have a US citizen who was detained as an "enemy combatant" for three years without charge with the blessing of the 4th Circuit. Many Congressman were concerned that the MCA would be used to label US citizens "enemy combatants."

You're the one dumbing it down by assuming that no one else is capable of researching, and that your interpretation is the law of the land despite strong evidence to the contrary. I've read Quirin. I've read old habeas corpus cases. You obviously have not read the Padilla case, as you continue to ignore it. Or maybe you're just trying to pull the old 'Let's pretend contrary law is not there and maybe nobody will notice.'

Thanks for showing me the definition of alien in the MCA. Now show me where a US citizen cannot be an "unlawful enemy combatant" under the MCA. And then show me where it says a US citizen cannot be held without charge in spite of Padilla. The problem is that the government doesn't even have to use the MCA to hold a US citizen as an "unlawful enemy combatant" without charge. They did it before the MCA, and the MCA didn't narrow the definition at all.

In other words, tell me why Padilla wasn't good law prior to Boumediene. Unfortunately, it was, and it may still be if Boumediene is narrowly construed to refer to only "aliens".
 
Padilla had the right to file a habeas petition. He filed a habeas writ. His case was heard through the Supreme Court - on the writ of habeas corpus.

You assertion that U.S. citizens were somehow not entitled to file and have heard a habeas petition prior to this decision is pure poppycock.

But that is how these threads always progress. There is a good understanding of the law by a few, then the "Truthers" come along with something they heard on Alex Jones or Keith Olbermann and we descend into the monotony of whether the sky is blue.

Pathetic.
 
See, now we're getting somewhere with the discussion.

First, I am talking about Padilla's denial of a writ of habeas corpus. Not whether Padilla has a right to petition for one or not, just to clear that up. I'm not certain as to what Triple is arguing.

I agree that the violation of his right to Due Process was the most egregious issue in his case. However, he was denied the right to challenge the legality of his imprisonment at any level, with the exception of the Supreme Court granting him access to challenge any future change of status in their denial of cert. Therefore, his access to the courts was a sham at best. Now if we look at the objective of a writ of habeas corpus, its purpose is to safeguard US citizens against unjust imprisonment. It is not as simple as "access to the courts." Padilla's challenge was that he was detained with disregard to habeas corpus. He petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, and was denied. The SDNY did not issue a writ of habeas corpus. The 2nd Circuit ordered them to, and then the Supreme Court sent it to South Carolina. The 4th Circuit implied that the AUMF provided for a legitimate suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus. (Scalia denounced this view when denying cert.) Dissenting Justices really denounced this view. Padilla was denied his right to counsel, right to due process, and right to challenge his imprisonment. Some levels of the system, admittedly, did get this right. The Supreme Court, however, really dropped the ball, and should have cleared it up. Now I'm not saying that it would be easy for the US to treat another US citizen as they did Padilla. The Supreme Court said that they would be swift next time. I just wish they hadn't ***** footed around on it the first time. They should have disallowed the transfer and heard the case, and then you and I wouldn't be having this discussion.

I agree that Jose Padilla is a piece of garbage and deserves his conviction. But that's not really relevant to the discussion of his constitutional rights. He should have been charged long before, and had the right to challenge those charges with facts in a civilian court.
 
Maduro - Step back from that ledge.
wink.gif
 
washpark - from the sequence of events detailed in the post just above with US citizen Padilla, as a result of the SCOTUS decision last week, would a detained US citizen who is declared an "enemy combatant" by Bush or the AG be handled differently today compared to how Padilla was handled at the time he was first detained ?

.
 
Can one of you explain to me how the Padilla case is relevant to the Gitmo decision? I don't see that connection, but possibly I'm missing something.

Thanks in advance.
 
I hate to provide a counterpoint to this, but with killer drones now available, is there a need for prison anymore for terrorists?
 
mchammer said:
Click to expand...


I see y'all don't know how the games played. The Feds don't care about bringing terrorists to justice sometimes. Sometimes they have other priorities. Sometimes their priorities change back and forth. Allies become enemies and vice versa. This is par for the course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top