Posted on 06/28/2004 6:21:38 PM PDT by jwalsh07
As we have repeatedly said: “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree....
Rasul v Bush. (PDF file)
(Excerpt) Read more at a257.g.akamaitech.net ...
First this case applies to Guantanamo, not to Iraq, which presents its own unique circumstances. Whether there is a distinction to be made in an active combat zone was not the issue argued before the USSC. Second, as the majority opinion pointed out, in Eisenburg the prisoneers of war were certified by a military tribunal. There has been no such tribunal for the Guantanamo detainees, and I will take your word that there has been none for the Iraqi detainees either.
Or is their a process?
There is a process in America called elections and that process is governed by the Constitution. That Constitution grants War Powers to Congress which exercised those powers by authorizing the Executive to conduct war in Iraq and against the perpetrators of 9/11.
The Executive is Constitutionally charged with carrying out the power granted to it by the Congress. The federal judiciary has no constitutional jurisdiction over aliens outside of American sovereignty and have no business, constitutional or otherwise, mucking in the war powers of Congress or rewriting Habeas laws as enacted by Congress.
Please read the opinion rather than make things up and put words in their mouths. The order is only that they are entitled to a habeas hearing. What happens afterwords they left open. A reasonable outcome of a habeas proceeding is that they are certified prisoners of war and held legitimately under international law.
Habeas corpus is not granted by statute. It is a write surviving from English Common Law through the US Constitution as I just cited above. Congress has enacted statutes on how it is to be applied, but that is procedural only as the SC decision makes very clear.
Elections are not in any sense due process. What problem do you have with requiring a military tribunal to dispose of prisoner's of war? Do you not trust military judges and courts?
As the SC argues, the constitution has jurisdiction anywere that the US government attempts to establish its authority through the activities of its government officials. THat is what rule of law means.
There is no difference. Both Gitmo and Abu Graib are sovereign territiories of other countries. This court has assumed jurisdiction not granted to it either by the Constitution of the law as written by Congress.
You're playing word games. You mentioned a "process", not "due Process".
What problem do you have with requiring a military tribunal to dispose of prisoner's of war?
I have no problem with it whne the CIC decides the time is right.
Do you not trust military judges and courts?
Having been in the Army when I was a tad on the wild side, I have the utmost faith in same.
Look pal, if you're going to act like a condescending liberal you can debate somebody else.
I don't put words in your mouth, do me the same courtesy.
not according to Mark Levin and the constitutional expert he had on today (in addition to himself). for now, I'll put my money on his reading of this.
and to add to that - the news is filled with glowing reports from the ACLU and Amnesty International. If its as simple as you claim it is, they wouldn't be so happy. They know they can take this ruling and use it to ram home their agenda.
The federal bench is probably the most corrupt, unaccountable portion of our entire government.
Sorry, my friend, but I have been going on about due process for a long time. Of course I don't mean any ol' process like a lottery to decide who gets locked up and who doesn't. Quite simply what the SC has held is that the US Government cannot go around locking people up and throwing away the key, but somewhere somehow there has to be due process to make that determination - a military tribunal is ok, so they claim. That is good. That right, the right of habeas corpus is so fundamental to all of our other rights and protections that I cannot believe anyone here who believes in the constitution dispises this point. If the writ can be suspended then they could come along and take you off to Guantanimo and lock you up for the duration, and no one can say bo about it. You may claim that well, you are innocent, you are a citizen, you are etc. etc. - but without some sort of right of review or hearing you have no ability to establish any of that. Someone comes along and takes you into custody and off you go to Guantanimo. I have no problem with it when the CIC decides the time is right.
Yeah well, the SC decided that the CIC needs to get the lead out, and that they have a little less patience after a couple of years than you do.
Why don't you go read it yourself and put your money on your own reading of it. I have quoted pieces of it. It is clearly enough written and argued. It is also very narrowly argued.
The writ can be suspended. Read the Constitution.
Tell me where I have put words in your mouth.
if you're going to act like a condescending liberal you can debate somebody else.
Since when is taking delight in the reconfirmation of fundamental constitutional principles (habeas corpus) "liberal." It is anti-authoritarian - and to that I will plead guilty. But that is something different. Our entire revolution and constitutional history is anti-authoritarian.
Speaking of the writ, I'm still waiting for the precedsnts we chatted about earlier. There have been millions of POW's since 1776. It should be an easy task for a man of your obvious talents to find precedent for what you and the majority are arguing.
I did. I even quoted it verbatim above.
This condescending garbage.
Were you joking?
You know, maybe what you should do is go and read the decision before you criticize it. It is pretty clear and readable, actually. Then, if you disagree with the argument, you should find the places in the logic where you think the court went astray and why you think so.
Again, in my post above I quoted Article I, section 9 of the Constitution verbatim in the framers' own words. Perhaps you think it garbage, but maybe I have a higher opinion of the drafters of that noble document than you do.
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.