Posted on 06/28/2004 6:21:38 PM PDT by jwalsh07
You do understand that the lease of 1903 makes it abundantly clear that GITMO remains under Cuban sovereignty don't you?
Why don't you read the WSJ article she posted? It is a whole lot shorter than the SC opinion that you didn't bother to read. Nowhere does it say any of that. In fact, according to the article, the decision[s] are pretty deferential to the authority of the executive. It is just that that authority is not absolute.
in the even of invasion or public rebellion per the constitution. Under the circumstances, 9/11 being long long over...
9/11 is not long over. We are not finished defending ourselves after 9/11. It's not the SC's authority to determine when we are through defending ourselves. That would be the job of the Chief Executive.
Habeas Corpus can be suspended during war and it's not up to the SC to determine when the war is over.
Were his "due process" rights violated?
So then the Cuban courts could review the authority of the U.S. government to detain prisoners there? I really don't think that that is what you are trying to argue. What you are really trying to argue is that the lease creates a legal no-man's land where the Congress can grant extra- constitutional powers to the President. I really don't think we want to go there.
The clue for you will be when Congress acts to reign in this decision. I'll be sure to remind you when it happens.
well first the Constitution says what it says and not some other words, so I am not so entirely sure what it means in this case. But it is not up to the President, on his own authority, to suspend habeas and decide when it is no longer suspended. If, as you argue, it is suspended in time of war, then first the Congress would have to declare war and state as part of it that they are suspending the writ. The rest of the question is moot since Congress has not done so.
No, I don't remember that one.
You are engaged in a semantic argument about the meaning of the word sovereignty, as is the Executive Branch. The SC decision cuts through that nonsense, basically asserting that where the powers of the Congress reach, those powers are circumscribed by the constitution. The executive is arguing that it has powers granted by the Congress (i.e. it is exercising sovereign power) under the constitution, but those powers are not reviewable by the courts because the U.S. is not sovereign. Well someone is? Who? You have a choice - the U.S. government or the Cuban government. You are free to chose the Cuban government, but just understand what that assertion means.
you were wrong about the suspension of habeas
All I did was quote the exact wording of the Constitution. Tell me verbatim where I am wrong.
Congress did declare war. The Chief Executive can suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus during war.
Look clown, who is sovereign at Gitmo - Castro or the U.S.? You have argued that Castro is. When Castro - the sovereign - issues a decree that the prisoners be freed what are we to do - free them or assert that Castro really isn't sovereign after all.
The real problem is that you want Bush or Rumsfeld as dictator. I admire both of them very much - but not THAT much.
Gitmo is subject to the sovereign laws of the Republic of Cuba whose laws are only superseded by the specifics of the 1934 treaty.
Did you write this or was it your evil alter ego?
First, where did Congress declare war? They gave the President many powers that are tantamount to declaring war, but one thing that they did not do was pass a statute circumscribing, limiting or suspending the writ of habeas corpus in this case.
Where does anything say that the Chief Executive can on his own authority suspend habeas corpus, a decision which is at best within the authorit of the legislature? I presume there is no precendet for that or Ted Olson would have made that argument. The government did not argue that habeas corpus was suspended. They argued that it did not apply because of a legal technicality that no court had the authority to review it. The SC justly slapped them down for that extreme bit of silliness.
LOL.
I wrote that. I am serious. Without the privelege of writ of habeas corpus there is nothing to prevent anyone with any sort of authority to haul you off at gunpoint, lock you up and throw away the key.
Well you have argued that they have the authority to abrogate to themselves unreviewable powers. I don't think that is such a laughable thing, myself.
The Constitution assigns the power to declare war to the Congress,, it is silent on the method of doing so. Congress chose to do it by Congressional Authorization, a de facto declaration of war.
If they so chose they could simply wirte a short note to the POTUS saying "kill the bastards" and that would also be within their War Powers.
Anser me again, who exercises sovereign power. Cuba or the U.S.? If Cuba then when Castro issues a write freeing all of the prisoner's do we comply. If we chose not to, then whose court system gets to review it. If you answer none, or certainly not Cuba's then they are not sovereign.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.