Skip to main content

View Diary: An Executive Order Allowing for Indefinite Detention ? (311 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  in order to defend the constitution, (23+ / 0-)

    it became necessary to destroy it.

    Whatever action a great man performs, common men follow. And whatever standards he sets by exemplary acts, all the world pursues. The Gita 3.21

    by rasbobbo on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 08:43:45 AM PST

    •  The Insular Cases (3+ / 0-)

      The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution does not necessarily follow the flag.

      That was the whole point of putting the detainees in Gitmo.  

      Unless you're a US citizen (John Walker Lyndh for instance) you don't have the same constitutional rights.

      These measures are done largely because Congress refused to allow Gitmo to be closed and proper legal proceedings to go forward.

      "I would rather be right than consistent." John Marshall Harlan

      by Hawesdawg on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 09:04:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This far right supreme court (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Uberbah, Enzo Valenzetti

        completely ignored the law, logic and the constitution to make yet another bullshit authoritarian ruling which you love. And youre so far up Obamas ass youre blaming it on congress.

        Heres a hint for you bubba. Obama can make a phone call and close down guantanamo RIGHT NOW. HE isnt because he doesnt believe in the rule of law, is apparently clueless as to the constitution (christ knows how he got a jd) and is all good with torturing and murdering brownies if it would be politically inconvenient to oppose it.

        And just to educate you Obama has asserted he has the right to have American Citizens executed.

        Voters will choose a person who fights a losing battle for his principles over one who fights winning battles against them every time.

        by cdreid on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 09:59:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  But Boumediene and Rasul (6+ / 0-)

        stand for the rule that Guantanamo detainees were entitled to Constitutional habeas privilege, absent Congressional Suspension Clause action.

        And the Insular cases also stand for the proposition that certain "fundamental rights" could not be denied to aliens residing in territories subject to U.S. control, even if the U.S. is not technically sovereign.  These fundamental rights would include the due process rights to challenge the legality of their detention.

      •  well, of course, lyndh didn't get his rights. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chuckvw, Chacounne, drnononono

        my reading of the seminal document, the declaration of independence, makes no such distinction. i believe it states, "all men are created equal" & that their rights are intrinsic to their creation - not their citizenship & not the whimsy of the supreme court.

        Whatever action a great man performs, common men follow. And whatever standards he sets by exemplary acts, all the world pursues. The Gita 3.21

        by rasbobbo on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 10:25:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Let's be honest here (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Chacounne

        John Walker Lyndh got a trial ONLY because he came from the "right" kind of family.  The other US citizens have not been granted this right - how long was it before Jose Padilla got a trial?  And now there's an American on Obama's detain-or-kill list?  Please, this has nothing to do with citizenship status.  

      •  That is not true (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Garrett, Chacounne, drnononono

        Unless you're a US citizen (John Walker Lyndh for instance) you don't have the same constitutional rights.

        There is the original bill of rights, the 14th Amendment and are at least 100 years of precedent that say that constitutional protections are for "persons", not "citizens".

        Boumediene v. Bush (2008)

        protects persons as well as citizens, foreign nationals who have the privilege of litigating in our courts can seek to enforce separation-of-powers principles

        Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886):

        The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less because they are aliens and subjects of the emperor of China. . . . The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says:  "Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

        Harry Ried is a good, decent, and smart guy, but perhaps we need a different Majority Leader...

        by Indiana Bob on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 01:43:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site