DC Tom Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 From the article: "This may soon change as the US Supreme Court is about to reach a verdict on whether the Guantanamo Bay area is de facto American soil. If so, the US Constitution does apply and the men will have the right to a fair and speedy trial." So, if the Supreme Court rules that Guantanamo is US soil... But the law says the prisoners can't be on US soil... What happens? If the Supreme Court rules that Guantanamo is US soil, we'd have a bigger issue, given that it would effectively be an annexation of part of Cuba (right now, at least in theory, we lease it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 If the Supreme Court rules that Guantanamo is US soil, we'd have a bigger issue, given that it would effectively be an annexation of part of Cuba (right now, at least in theory, we lease it). Even if it were determined to be US soil they're not US citizens so why would they have rights as US citizens to a speedy trial/ Hell are they even covered under the Geneva Convention? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Even if it were determined to be US soil they're not US citizens so why would they have rights as US citizens to a speedy trial/ Hell are they even covered under the Geneva Convention? US law (in terms of such things as habeus corpus or the 4th Amendment) covers US citizens anywhere, and anyone on US soil. So if it's determined that Gtimo is US soil... Under the Geneva Convention, as combatants unallied with any recognized nation, they technically have no status at all until such status is determined by...military tribunal. And yes, that's what the Convention says: "military tribunal". The same military tribunals that people say are illegal because they're unconstitutional...whereby applying the Constitution would be illegal under the Geneva Convention - which it also says, the application of domestic law to persons of uncertain status captured in military conflict being a violation until the status of the detainees is determined by military tribunal... Welcome to the !@#$ed-up American "though" process... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 US law (in terms of such things as habeus corpus or the 4th Amendment) covers US citizens anywhere, and anyone on US soil. So if it's determined that Gtimo is US soil... They can sign up for food stamps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 US law (in terms of such things as habeus corpus or the 4th Amendment) covers US citizens anywhere, and anyone on US soil. So if it's determined that Gtimo is US soil... Under the Geneva Convention, as combatants unallied with any recognized nation, they technically have no status at all until such status is determined by...military tribunal. And yes, that's what the Convention says: "military tribunal". The same military tribunals that people say are illegal because they're unconstitutional...whereby applying the Constitution would be illegal under the Geneva Convention - which it also says, the application of domestic law to persons of uncertain status captured in military conflict being a violation until the status of the detainees is determined by military tribunal... Welcome to the !@#$ed-up American "though" process... Are those things covered if the "crime" was committed on US soil or if it was a crime against the US on foreign soil and they are brough to US soil after the fact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Waterboard then execute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 I've heard on the news that 81 people are cleared for release but they can't release them for some reason. I missed that part. What a mess! What exactly have you missed? "For some reason"? WTF? Are you retarded? The situation has been explained to you properly at least 3 times in this thread. Any of those explanations suffice. Did you miss the part when Obama signed a Exec. Order that had 0 chance of ever being followed? Did Bush make him sign that order? Would any competent commander give an order he knows won't be followed? Either Obama is an incompetent for not knowing, or, he is an incompetent for giving the order in spite of knowing. Pick one. But go ahead...say "what a mess" again, and tell us you missed something again. If the Supreme Court rules that Guantanamo is US soil, we'd have a bigger issue, given that it would effectively be an annexation of part of Cuba (right now, at least in theory, we lease it). Now that would be hilarious. In fact, why not? Then, using Fan in San Diego simplistic reasoning, we would have to blame Obama for American Imperialism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts