Replies

I’m not denying that you’re right. I just want to see the words that say that once any person goes into CONUS he can demand a writ. I’m perfectly capable of admitting that I’m wrong.

Check out Jackson in ex parte Quirin. I think this is the decision. I have not read it but I heard it is documented in Levin’s book.

I am 100% sure that in CONUS, unless you are subject to UCMJ (our troops), you get all the to file a Writ of Habeas Corpus. My Constitutional law classes where a long long time ago, I can also guarantee you that this is the reason for GITMO existence.

I want to be clear. A writ does not get automatic Bill of Rights protections by the way. But it does mean it is up to a civilian judge - any civilian federal judge. The judge could say “sorry you have be treated poorly but you have been held Constitutionally.” But then the judge could say, “you have not been held constitutionally and you are free.” This puts the whole matter of the case in the hands of a civilian judge and could pretty much do what they want. The judge either under McCain or the recent ruling puts a constitutional test on the terrorists. This is a big change.

That is the problem of bringing these people into the US. Until this recent decision if they were outside CONUS they could not file a writ. Inside they can and that little point is what John McCain was clueless on.

And I am not conspiracy guy, but who the heck does John McCain get his advice from?

I hear it is Carly Fioriana on econ and that is a total disaster.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/339/763/

Here is the case that was overturned. It says that if you keep people outside US Territory (not just CONUS, they do not get Constitutional rights - implied is that if you bring them in they do. Ego GITMO.