Skip to main content

View Diary: Congratulations, Mr. Harper ! Congratulations, Mr Obama! (37 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The US Supreme Court disagrees with you. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nightprowlkitty

    You are welcome to disagree with the SCOTUS.

    But it doesn't make your assertions legally binding.

    The ruling of the courts are, and the rulings disagree (Boumediene v. Bush).

    You'll also notice the Obama administration has been taking steps to end the use of "enemy combatant".

    More and Better Democrats

    by SJerseyIndy on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 06:14:51 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  If the case you cite is on point, then every (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marigold

      combatant captured by U.S. Armed Forces in Afghanistan is entitled to a jury trial in U.S. Courts.   BTW, I used the term combatant because it's the truest definition of Khadr's status.

      "Because I am a river to my people."

      by lordcopper on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 06:27:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly. (3+ / 0-)

        On June 12, 2008, Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the 5-4 majority holding that the prisoners had a right to the habeas corpus under the United States Constitution and that the MCA was an unconstitutional suspension of that right. The Court applied the Insular Cases, by the fact that the United States, by virtue of its complete jurisdiction and control, maintains "de facto" sovereignty over this territory, while Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory, to hold that the aliens detained as enemy combatants on that territory were entitled to the writ of habeas corpus protected in Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution. The lower court expressly indicated that no constitutional rights (not merely the right to habeas) extend to the Guantanamo detainees rejecting petitioners' arguments. This Court's case precedent recognized that fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution extend to Guantanamo.[5][6] Along with Rasul v. Bush, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, this is a major case in the Court's controversial detainee jurisprudence.

        Glad you found the time to accept the correction.

        More and Better Democrats

        by SJerseyIndy on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 05:14:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site