Replies

So you want illegal combatants to have the same rights as legitimate prisoners of war? In fact, the SC decision actually gave these illegal combatants rights which exceed those granted to POWs. How many of the ten of thousands of German prisoners held in the US during WWII were granted habeas corpus?

You keep pointing out the SC reigned in the abuse of power by the Executive branch. What you fail to comprehend is that the SC trounced all over Congress as well. The Detainee Treatment Act was passed by Congress and signed by the President (because the SC said the President needed the Congress to setup the military tribunals) and expressly did not grant the detainees habeas corpus, “[N]o court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.” §1005(e)(1), 119 Stat. 2742. So the SC threw out several precedents and thumbed its nose at both Congress and the Executive branch.

Without a preconceived notion of the desired outcome, I don’t know how the SC could have ignored precedents such as Quirin (two US citizens held on US soil, tried by a military tribunal and executed) and Eisentrager.

Actually, if your read the SC decision, it sounds like it was the Secretary of the Navy who trounced all over the DTA. If you want to be ticked off at someone why not be ticked off at him for issuing implementing regulations that neutralized the whole thing.

So you want illegal combatants to have the same rights as legitimate prisoners of war?

No, but how do you know that they are illegal combatants? Because some supply sergeant said so, or because there is an evidenciary hearing wherein the time manner and place of the individual capture are demonstrated as well as evidence of his activities which suggest that he actually was engaged in combatant activities while not in uniform, etc.

“[N]o court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.” §1005(e)(1), 119 Stat. 2742.

OMG. So Scotus didn't just walk off the deep end. They clearly violated the one clause of the Constitution that Congress can use to limit judicial overreach. If that is not reason to fire these clowns, I do not know what is.

For Andy Jackson, do you not agree that Congress removed the subject of Gitmo/Habeas Corpus from Scotus consideration?