SCOTUS; Justices Rule Terror Suspects Can Appeal in Civilian Courts

[blondeatlast]

I think it belongs in GD/P, too, SCOTUS is certainly an issue in this campaign:

NYT:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/washington/12cnd-gitmo.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1213283116-b2QSrhTOD2zdISr07MC/oQ&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

WASHINGTON — Foreign terrorism suspects held at the Guantánamo Bay naval base in Cuba have constitutional rights to challenge their detention there in United States courts, the Supreme Court ruled, 5 to 4, on Thursday in a historic decision on the balance between personal liberties and national security.

“The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court.

[snooper2]

1. It may ...probably once is good enough though :)

:)

[snooper2]

2. You cleaned that up fast :)

:)

[blondeatlast]

3. Not sure waht happened, but thanks! nt

[winter999]

4. Excuse my ignorance, but can someone tell me

exactly what rights do foreigners have under the U.S. Constitution? I'm very clear about our rights as citizens, but how does the Constitution apply to non-citizens?

TIA!

[Rageneau]

5. The Constitution applies to all PEOPLE within the United States.

Or should.

[winter999]

8. That can't be true or else

why do we extradite and expel foreigners that break U.S. law? I'm not asking as it applies to the detainees, but overall. Any lawyer or law student online that's got specifics?

[blondeatlast]

9. We can only do that with countries we have extradition treaties with

and even then deals must be made.

Until the extradition occurs, non-US citizens on US soil are afforded full Constitutional rights (or are supposed to be, anyway). SCOTUS just affirned that with this decision.

[SergeyDovlatov]

14. deportation falls under "uniform Rule of Naturalization"

All countries reserve the right to expel (deport) foreigners who committed crimes.
Moreover deportation order can be challenged in US legal system and overturned.

Extradition is removal of a person (citizen / non-citizen) at a foreign country request.

US has extradition treaties with several countries.
In Russia, constitution prohibit extradition of Russia's citizens.

In US constitition person / people refers to just that a person on US territory. In certain cases, where citizenship is required, it is explicitly stated.

For example:

Article II. Section 1. No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States

[winter999]

26. Thank you SergeyDovlatov and blondatlast!!!!

Thanks again for the clarification. As we see, it's EXTREMELY important going forward.

:applause:

[SergeyDovlatov]

12. non-citizens don't vote. may be deported. may not become citizens

otherwise they have identical rights.

Read the constitution. They are talking about people in some cases and citizens in others.
US constitution applies where US has jurisdiction and on anyone who is under US jurisdiction.

[winter999]

13. So if I'm N. Korea or Russian (thinking of a coutry we don't have

extradition agreements) and I commit a capital crime in Texas, I could be put on death row?!

[SergeyDovlatov]

15. Yes. Unless Russia negotiates some ad hoc agreement ...

and will promise to take care of you by itself.

Though right now. They have moratorium on capital punishment until 2010.

[winter999]

19. Yikes!!! looks like the sword cuts both ways.

If it comes down to the Gitmo detainees going to court, getting convicted, they may end up walking down Timothy McVeigh lane. Hope they haven't jumped out of the frying pan, into the fire!

[dailykoff]

23. Um, they're innocent.

The "terrorists" are in the White House.

[winter999]

25. Was trying to have an intelligent discourse. Don't play idiot.

A trial by jury will decide guilt or innocence. (about time!) If found innocent, they will be free and can sue for damages. If guilty, "welcome to OZ".

[dailykoff]

28. Trust me on this one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=127965&mesg_id=127965

[blondeatlast]

18. Possibly; however that country's state dept. may intervene on your behalf

but is under no obligation of theri own to do so.

Just because no agreement exists doesn't mean their can't be diplomacy involved.

[dailykoff]

24. They're called HUMAN rights

but they're not allowed to discuss them in the media. :crazy:

[TahitiNut]

29. The Constitution defines the LIMITS on government, not the limits on people.

That is the First and FOREMOST thing to keep in mind. The Bill of Rights identify specific LIMITS of the delegated power of the federal government with respect to specified human rights and liberties. It does NOT establish or create those rights. In fact, the Constitution itself is valid ONLY to the extent that the People have the sovereign power to establish that government. People FIRST. Government SECOND.

This is basic citizenship. First grade. Fundamental.

Remember, if it were "citizens" and not "people" then WHO THE FUCK GETS TO SAY WHO'S A CITIZEN???
That very question should show how ridiculous such a contention is ... one that seems to be a virus on the right wing.

[kwassa]

6. We ALL have the right of habaes corpus!

The Supreme Court finally addresses the prison camp in Guantanamo, and all the violations of human rights under the Bush administration.

[TahitiNut]

30. Strictly speaking, habeas corpus isn't a 'right.' It's a basic limitation on government.

The 'right' is liberty. The limits to the exercise of the liberty right we've imposed on ourselves in establishing a government is a "due process" suspension of that liberty in cases of wrongdoing. It is fundamental to "due process" that a PROMPT trial (jury of peers) and conviction under the rule of law is acheived in order to legitimately suspend the liberty right. That cannot be assured without habeas corpus and it is, therefore, a fundamental limitation placed on the established justice system.

Stated another way, it's a key "due process" component of our government itself, as we've established it. (Without government, there is no meaning to habeas corpus.)

At least that's how I understand it. IANAL. YMMV.

[cliffordu]

7. I'll bet Cheney has to take extra blood pressure meds over this....

:rofl:

[Tatiana]

10. Justice Anthony Kennedy does the friggin right thing. FINALLY.

Wonder if he rues the day he ever allowed Dubya to be selected...

[Clear Blue Sky]

11. Who will be paying for the appeals?

Will the attorneys be working pro bono?

[dailykoff]

17. We're going to be paying reparations for the rest of the century.

Thanks Dick.

[winter999]

20. I would imagine court-appointed attorneys on the tax dollar.

Just like a penniless defendant would be treated.

[dailykoff]

21. Well, we're paying for Gitmo

so it makes perfect sense.

[Clear Blue Sky]

27. I didn't know that was afforded to non residents/citizens.

[blondeatlast]

22. Most of the work done so far has been pro-bono.

It's great PR for the law firms and most leading firms insist that lawyers do pro-bono work.

Not to worry.

[dailykoff]

16. F*CKIN A!!

:headbang: