guantanamo bay
By thedogshrink
@thedogshrink (1266)
United States
November 21, 2008 12:32am CST
Does anyone know on what basis the Supreme Court decided that the Bush Administration must not hold prisoners at Guantanamo Bay without formal charges, etc?
Because it appears that the Constitution does give him that right under the circumstances of invasion for the purpose of public safety...
From Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution:
[b]The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when
in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
[/b]
1 person likes this
8 responses
@murderistic (2278)
• United States
21 Nov 08
Hmmm... I guess the court doesn't think the public safety may require it or that we are in any more of a "case of rebellion" than usual. I'd have to agree with that. The USA PATRIOT act is what was allowing Guantanama
2 people like this
@sharra1 (6340)
• Australia
21 Nov 08
Yes, if you were being invaded you could intern all nationals of the country invading you. What has that got to do with guantanamo bay? The people there have nothing to so with any invasion of America. That is a joke. Many of them are people who just happen to be Muslim and were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
They were also arrested in foreign countries and could not be linked to a rebellion of any sort. I cannot imagine how you could justify such a claim.
There was no justification to arrest them or to torture them I think that prison is a disgrace and I am surprised that Americans are not ashamed of it. I am sure many are.
@Barb42 (4214)
• United States
21 Nov 08
Have you noticed that anything Bush tries to do that is right, the liberals find something wrong with it?And, from what I hear, almost every thing he's done in the past 8 years, Obama is going to try and wipe out. Looks as if they would like to wipe his presidency off the books for good. Just isn't going to work. And I don't think they'll be getting rid of Guantanamo Bay, either.
@murderistic (2278)
• United States
22 Nov 08
The only problem I have with George Bush is allowing the inhumane and indecent treatment of human beings. I would call out any democrat, including the president-elect, for doing the same. They don't need to get rid of Guantanamo Bay, but they do need to stop holding people with no charge or trial.
1 person likes this
@LadyWinter (195)
• United States
21 Nov 08
Guant Bay is a horrendous excuse. It violates the Geneva Convention and all previous mandates about how we as a country treat our POW's. This makes us as ugly as what was done to our soldiers in Nam IMO.
1 person likes this
@grandpa_lash (5225)
• Australia
21 Nov 08
Well, as far as I know none of the prisoners are US citizens, so that sort of takes care of the "rebellion" issue. As for the others, and I'm open to correction here, I though they were all foreign nationals captured somewhere else and taken to Guantanamo Bay by US forces, so I'm also a little puzzled as to where "invasion" comes into it. So no, I don't think Bush does have that right under your constitution, only under his Patriot Act.
Lash
1 person likes this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
21 Nov 08
I have not read the actual ruling, though that might be a good idea, but the gist of it seems to be, "Because we said so!".
Basically, from reports in the papers, the Supreme Court essentially ruled the USA should not be a country that detains people without being able to prove they had a darn good reason.
On the basis of your quote, I'd say the President could make a formal declaration of national Public Safety requiring these detentions, but he has not done that apparently.
@underdogtoo (9579)
• Philippines
21 Nov 08
I guess the courts know what they are doing and it will stand. Cheers!!
