Victory for the Constitution!

[Inquartata]

Is Guantanamo an apartment?

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Is Guantanamo an apartment?

You know, that might carry a little more weight if the apartment lease hadn't been your analogy in the first place....

--Philistine

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

That's not acceptable. We live in a democracy.

If people can be imprisoned without trial, we no longer do.

What huh? The one has nothing to do with the other.

And why do people keep confusing those accused of crimes (and therefore entitled to the protections guaranteed by the U.S. and state constitutions) with people engaged in or preparing for combat?

The only protections given to combatants are those that are afforded members of the uniformed military of a nation that has agreed to be subject to the terms of a treaty that the U.S. has also agreed to. Absent a binding agreement, binding on and enforceable against both sides, there is no international law offering them any protections whatsoever. They are entitled to zero protections, and the only reason why the U.S. need do anything more than shoot them in the head is because (1) we wouldn't like ourselves if we did that, and (2) there is something to be gained by treating them as well as we do.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

They are entitled to zero protections, and the only reason why the U.S. need do anything more than shoot them in the head is because (1) we wouldn't like ourselves if we did that, and (2) there is something to be gained by treating them as well as we do.

There are a great deal of things wrong with this.

First, this means that we are the ultimate authority in Iraq, period. The Iraqis have to follow their own constitution, whereas we can arrest anyone and do anything we want to them at any time. If nothing else, this just increases resentment of the U.S. in Iraq.

Second, who's to stop us from imprisoning or killing political dissonants? Or satirists? Or someone whose face we don't like? I don't think our government will do such a thing, but as they say, absolute power corrupts absolutely. I don't want that kind of power in the hands of our government.

Third, is it then acceptable to designate entire towns and cities as combat zones, arrest the inhabitants, and then kill them? I don't see why it isn't with your interpretation of the laws, but I'd call that genocide. My point here is that I simply don't believe that there is no international protection of people who are not part of a specific army.

Fourth, how does it make any sense for the freest nation in the world to be one of the view to imprison people indefinitely with no chance of trial? I honestly cannot think of a country off the top of my head where they do this openly and without shame. I'm sure that several exist, but shouldn't we be better than that?

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

{snip}
The only protections given to combatants are those that are afforded members of the uniformed military of a nation that has agreed to be subject to the terms of a treaty that the U.S. has also agreed to.

This is, flatly, incorrect.

In addition, aren't you putting the rabbit in the hat by assuming they actually are combatants? Most were not caught on a battlefield--and this is especially true of those who are being characterized as "terrorists."

Absent a binding agreement, binding on and enforceable against both sides, there is no international law offering them any protections whatsoever.

The Geneva Conventions apply. They do not just apply to military in uniform.

They are entitled to zero protections, and the only reason why the U.S. need do anything more than shoot them in the head is because (1) we wouldn't like ourselves if we did that, and (2) there is something to be gained by treating them as well as we do.

Well, and the various US federal and military laws that prevent it....

--Philistine

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Philistine

You know, that might carry a little more weight if the apartment lease hadn't been your analogy in the first place....

--Philistine

Very well.

Can he burn the apartment building down?

Erik also seems to have omitted this:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/di...ba/cuba003.htm

Not to mention you have both glossed over phrases like "subject to terms to be agreed upon by the two Governments" and "the United States recognizes the continuance of the ultimate sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba over the above described areas of land and water".

The treaty does not appear to grant anything like the complete and permanent control you infer.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Very well.

Can he burn the apartment building down?

Yep. What's the landlord going to do?

Not to mention you have both glossed over phrases like "subject to terms to be agreed upon by the two Governments" and "the United States recognizes the continuance of the ultimate sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba over the above described areas of land and water".

The full quote is: "While on the one hand the United States recognizes the continuance of the ultimate sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba over the above described areas of land and water, on the other hand the Republic of Cuba consents that during the period of the occupation by the United States of said areas under the terms of this agreement the United States shall exercise complete jurisdiction and control over and within said areas with the right to acquire (under conditions to be hereafter agreed upon by the two Governments) for the public purposes of the United States any land or other property therein by purchase or by exercise of eminent domain with full compensation to the owners thereof."

The treaty does not appear to grant anything like the complete and permanent control you infer.

You're kidding, right? Complete control would be the part that says, despite ultimate sovereignity of Cuba, the US has "complete jurisdiction and control."

Permanent control would be the part (of the 1934 modification) that says: "Until the two contracting parties agree to the modification or abrogation of the stipulations of the agreement in regard to the lease to the United States of America of lands in Cuba for coaling and naval stations signed by the President of the Republic of Cuba on February 16, 1903, and by the President of the United States of America on the 23d day of the same month and year, the stipulations of that agreement with regard to the naval station of Guantanamo shall continue in effect. The supplementary agreement in regard to naval or coaling stations signed between the two Governments on July 2, 1903, also shall continue in effect in the same form and on the same conditions with respect to the naval station at Guantanamo. So long as the United States of America shall not abandon the said naval station of Guantanamo or the two Governments shall not agree to a modification of its present limits, the station shall continue to have the territorial area that it now has, with the limits that it has on the date of the signature of the present Treaty."

So, until the US says so, they get to keep it.

Are you really trying to suggest that Cuba has had the ability to evict the US, and just has just declined to exercise it for the past 40 years or so?

--Philistine

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Philistine

Yep. What's the landlord going to do?

Have him thrown into prison?

No lease can sanction illegal conduct.

The full quote is:

Yes?

So the "full quote" somehow contradicts the recognition of Cuban sovereignty or transfers it to the US?

You're kidding, right? Complete control would be the part that says, despite ultimate sovereignity of Cuba, the US has "complete jurisdiction and control."

I begin to think we're not using the same definition of "sovereignty"...

Permanent control would be the part (of the 1934 modification) that says: "Until the two contracting parties agree to the modification or abrogation of the stipulations of the agreement

What?

You mean that Cuba has to agree?

The US can't exercise unilateral control in the matter?

Well, yeah, that sounds like the place is really US territory. Just another state in the union...

So, until the US says so, they get to keep it.

You missed the mention of Cuba. Again.

Are you really trying to suggest that Cuba has had the ability to evict the US, and just has just declined to exercise it for the past 40 years or so?

--Philistine

Yes. Absolutely.

What on earth could prevent it from doing so if it chose?

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

So the "full quote" somehow contradicts the recognition of Cuban sovereignty or transfers it to the US?

Well--yes. Having "complete control and jurisdiction" does contradict the general understanding of sovereignity.

I begin to think we're not using the same definition of "sovereignty"...

I agee. Though it is "ultimate sovereignity" that Cuba maintains. You're speaking of de jure sovereignity--which is clearly in Cuba. I'm speaking of de facto sovereignity, which is clearly in the US.

What?

You mean that Cuba has to agree?

The US can't exercise unilateral control in the matter?

The US can abandaon it. Other than that, in order for US control to be lost, the US has to agree to it. That is--while the US can unilaterally abandon the lease, Cuba cannot unliaterally terminate it.

What on earth could prevent it from doing so if it chose?

I would have thought--given the general tenor of US/Cuban relations over the past 40 or so years--that if Cuba felt it could revoke the lease, it would have done so. Apparently you feel differently....

Do you contend the lease provides Cuba with any ability to terminate the lease?

--Philistine

[lenahan]

Originally Posted by sionnach

Victory for your constitution, defeat for civilisation.

How is it a defeat for civilization? The entire point of the 2nd amendment was to protect the rights of the citizens from that which we just fought a war over. Up until we broke from the British Empire, we had little representation. The US was founded by people who believed in liberty for all. For god's sake, the English Bill of Rights gave the right to bear arms to Protestants only. Meanwhile, Irish Catholics, like myself, faced oppression and famine. Not to mention, our second amendment rights were guaranteed pretty much until the mid to late 20th century, during which the cities that are subject to the most gun control, such as DC have faced the highest crime rates in the US.

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

I think they were technically executed for espionage, not treason.

So, until the constitution is amended to change things somehow, people should have the right to keep arms to participate in an armed uprising against a tyrannical government. It seems hard to believe such a thing would happen, as the US is pretty free and prosperous, but we operate under the framework of a 200+ year old document, so things may seem a bit off at times.

Espionage, i believe, is an act of treason.

It was a mistake, i believe, for people to view the first 10 amendments as amendments. People should view them as they were written: the bill of rights. If anyone tries to amend them, they are in affect, taking away our rights, which, in my opinion, is worse than espionage.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________
NO ONE HAS BEEN EXECUTED FOR DEALING MARIJUANA in the US, although many "Drug Kingpins" are involved in other drugs, and usually have people killed.

GUANTANAMO BAY is considered, legally, part of the US. We police and control it and we legally have absolute sovereignty, unless we stop leasing it.

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

There are a great deal of things wrong with this.

First, this means that we are the ultimate authority in Iraq, period. The Iraqis have to follow their own constitution, whereas we can arrest anyone and do anything we want to them at any time. If nothing else, this just increases resentment of the U.S. in Iraq.

Second, who's to stop us from imprisoning or killing political dissonants? Or satirists? Or someone whose face we don't like? I don't think our government will do such a thing, but as they say, absolute power corrupts absolutely. I don't want that kind of power in the hands of our government.

Third, is it then acceptable to designate entire towns and cities as combat zones, arrest the inhabitants, and then kill them? I don't see why it isn't with your interpretation of the laws, but I'd call that genocide. My point here is that I simply don't believe that there is no international protection of people who are not part of a specific army.

Fourth, how does it make any sense for the freest nation in the world to be one of the view to imprison people indefinitely with no chance of trial? I honestly cannot think of a country off the top of my head where they do this openly and without shame. I'm sure that several exist, but shouldn't we be better than that?

Because we are in the middle of a war and American soldiers have apprehended these people actively firing on American soldiers and have knowingly allied themselves with terrorist groups that have time and time again shown their willingness to murder innocent civilians. The people in Gitmo are not US citizens, members of a standing army, etc..

No time in history has ANNNNYYYYYYY country EVER extend citizenship rights to those who openly try to destroy us. FDR, for instance, openly told the judiciary that the German Saboteurs captured in Jersey will NEVER be in the Jurisdiction. They were under military Jurisdiction and thus, FDR's. If we began granting rights of citizens or nationals to people trying to destroy us, while simultaneously people who want to live here cant, we will ultimately cause our destruction.

And, for God's sake, international has no teeth. It is simply a declaration of custom that can not be upheld, and often is totally senseless (i.e. A UN arms embargo on ISRAEL!)

WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!! WE ARE A REPUBLIC,.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by lenahan

Because we are in the middle of a war and American soldiers have apprehended these people actively firing on American soldiers and have knowingly allied themselves with terrorist groups that have time and time again shown their willingness to murder innocent civilians. The people in Gitmo are not US citizens, members of a standing army, etc..

Doesn't matter. When we captured Nazis during WW2, they were really, really bad people, but we still weren't allowed to shoot them. And as I've said before, these people need to be governed by SOME sort of laws. Just because they didn't join an army doesn't mean we can do anything we want to them. This violates the letter as well as the spirit of the Constitution, the Geneva convention, and our morals as a society.

Originally Posted by lenahan

No time in history has ANNNNYYYYYYY country EVER extend citizenship rights to those who openly try to destroy us. FDR, for instance, openly told the judiciary that the German Saboteurs captured in Jersey will NEVER be in the Jurisdiction. They were under military Jurisdiction and thus, FDR's. If we began granting rights of citizens or nationals to people trying to destroy us, while simultaneously people who want to live here cant, we will ultimately cause our destruction.

Habeus corpus is not a citizenship right, it's a human right. Or, more specifically, it's a right that our government should always recognize wherever they happen to be standing at the moment.

What if the government said that they'll shoot all black terrorists, but no terrorists of any other race? Is this legal? Is this right? I don't see any reason in your post why it wouldn't be. What if the government enslaved terrorists? Is that acceptable?

Do you notice how the saboteurs were under military jurisdiction, not no jurisdiction?

How is giving the people in Guantanamo a right to at least prove their innocence going to destroy us? I'll bet you a million dollars there are innocent people in there. Why don't they get a trial?

Originally Posted by lenahan

And, for God's sake, international has no teeth. It is simply a declaration of custom that can not be upheld, and often is totally senseless (i.e. A UN arms embargo on ISRAEL!)

So you're saying we don't have to follow anything the international community says?

This actually WILL lead to our destruction, but you're welcome to your opinion. Friends are important, even if you're the biggest kid on the block.

Originally Posted by lenahan

WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!! WE ARE A REPUBLIC,.

WE'RE A COMBINATION OF BOTH. HOWEVER, I WAS USING IT IN THE CONTEXT OF A "FREE SOCIETY". IN OTHER WORDS, IF OUR GOVERNMENT NO LONGER IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A REASON FOR IMPRISONING PEOPLE, THEY HAVE ABSOLUTE POWER, WHICH I THINK IS BAD. YOU CAN DISAGREE WITH THAT IF YOU WANT, BUT I'LL HAVE YOU KNOW THAT FASCISM HAS A BAD TRACK RECORD.

I'd rather one or two bad people be set free than one or two good people stay in prison forever. You know...whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing this country was founded on. It's easy to take away rights from others.

[Inquartata]

This just keeps getting more interesting, and I hope that I can come back to it, but my event is at 8 a.m.* tomorrow and I must to bed.

*What the devil were they THINKING?! Veteran sabre at 8 a.m.?!

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Philistine

Well--yes. Having "complete control and jurisdiction" does contradict the general understanding of sovereignity.

That's General Understanding, Sir!

Really, though---you work in the law, right? We both know that there's no place for "general understanding" there.

You're speaking of de jure sovereignity--which is clearly in Cuba. I'm speaking of de facto sovereignity, which is clearly in the US.

Hairsplitting, IMO. You can say that the bank robber with hostages has "sovereignty" over the bank if you like, but it's an awfully artificial way to use the term.

If the Cubans wanted to eject us, they could do so any time they wished. For that matter, they could force us to "agree" to leave; we are not going to go to war over the place, and indeed we almost vacated it during the missile crisis.

while the US can unilaterally abandon the lease, Cuba cannot unliaterally terminate it.

Certainly it can. As it is the position of the current Cuban government is that the treaty is illegal and is null and void. And there is some legal justification for that view. However, in Castro's words: "In our country we have a military base against the will of our people. It has been there throughout the twenty-six years of the revolution, and it is being occupied by force. We have the moral and legal right to demand its return. We have made the claim in the moral and legal way. We do not intend to recover it with the use of arms. It is part of our territory being occupied by a U.S. military base. Never has anyone, a revolutionary cadre, a revolutionary leader, or a fellow citizen, had the idea of recovering the piece of our territory by the use of force. If some day it will be ours, it will not be by the use of force, but the advance of the consciousness of justice in the world."

Whatever the US Supreme Court may say, clearly Cuba does NOT agree that it is US territitory or that the US has sovereignty over it.

Do you contend the lease provides Cuba with any ability to terminate the lease?

--Philistine

I contend that Cuba does not acknowledge the existence of a valid lease in the first place, and that were the matter to go to an international court they would probably be vindicated...

Originally Posted by lenahan

Espionage, i believe, is an act of treason.

Sometimes, but by no means always. Treason can only be committed by people who owe allegiance to a nation. Espionage is often committed by aliens who infiltrate the nation; they owe no allegiance to it, but rather owe allegiance to another nation entirely...

A North Korean, trained to speak fluent Japanese and to look and behave as a Japanese person, who enters Japan to gather intelligence to transmit back home, commits espionage. But he could only be treasonous to North Korea.

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Habeus corpus is not a citizenship right, it's a human right. Or, more specifically, it's a right that our government should always recognize wherever they happen to be standing at the moment.

Why?

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Why?

Hmmm. Or why have freedoms at all, even? Neither is a trivial question nor one I thought about when I wrote that.

I came up with two responses:

1. Morals. The morals of our society dictate that government is required to show evidence of your crimes if you are to be convicted of them. The concept permeates our society; people expect to be shown evidence when they are accused of something be it by a policeman, a soldier, their boss, or even their friend. Now, I hesitate to use this argument as I don't believe that the Constitution is based on morals, but then again this discussion is clearly believed, by some at least, to be entirely outside the scope of the Constitution. And plus, I think that the morals aspect is in fact driven by the second of my responses, in other words, that we think it's wrong for the government to suspend habeus corpus because we've been taught that it is also illogical.

I also think that we're taking advantage of people with the Guantanamo situation. If there are no international treaties governing civilians, as some in this thread claim, what's to stop us from marching into France and imprisoning a bunch of French citizens? The answer is that France is going to stop us. Their government protects their citizens. And while we would almost certainly win an all-out war, the response would probably be economic sanctions from France and their allies, which would be damaging to our country. This is true for most other countries. However, the countries many of the prisoners in Guantanamo come from (or were captured in) have almost no government, a government which is still directly under U.S. control, or a government that doesn't care about them. Afghanistan and Iraq are working on internal issues and don't have time to worry about the rights of their citizens, especially those who may be terrorists. Pakistan realizes that the border with Afghanistan is teeming with terrorists and other bad people, and they're thankful that we're cleaning the place up whether or not we arrest some innocents. So the reason we can do this to these people is that their governments just don't care about them. I don't think that's fair.

2. The reason rights and liberties were created in the first place by the founding fathers (after a long list of political theorists and landmarks in democracy) was, among other things, for stability. It's hard for people to rebel against their government if the people are the government. And the United States has been very successful with this; we've gone well over two hundred years with only minor changes in our system of government. Some teacher in high school told me that we have the longest lifespan of any government in the world, but I'm not sure if that's true or how "same government" is measured. In any case, I'm sure you can agree that we have one of the longer ones, and that this is in large part due to the fact that instead of fighting, we talk and vote about the issues.

In my opinion, this extends to foreign soil as well. The Iraqis know that we can imprison them at will and indefinitely. And I'm sure there are a fair number who know someone who was taken by the U.S. army and never seen again. How could this not cause anti-U.S. resentment? This just feeds the propaganda they hear every day from all or any of their friends, politicians, terrorist groups, and their church. We're supposed to be freedom fighters, a bastion of liberty in the Middle East, an image that's hard enough to support when their day to day image of us involves machine guns and tanks. The fact that we have complete control over them and no sort of Constitutional or Judicial oversight isn't helping.




These arguments aren't watertight; neither logically leads to a conclusion that we must grant prisoners in Guantanamo habeus corpus. They simply say that it would be a good idea, not a necessity. And honestly, if it was a lesser right, I wouldn't support it. I don't think they should have freedom of speech, or obviously the right to bear arms. However, I think that the task given our government by the new ruling is a trivial one if these people really are as bad as has been claimed.

And sorry for the long post, but I'm actually very interested in the question you proposed and wanted to flesh out my ideas thoroughly.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

{snip}
Hairsplitting, IMO. You can say that the bank robber with hostages has "sovereignty" over the bank if you like, but it's an awfully artificial way to use the term.

Sure it's artificial--because it's not analogous--there's no agreement giving the robber the ability to hold hostages.

If the Cubans wanted to eject us, they could do so any time they wished. For that matter, they could force us to "agree" to leave; we are not going to go to war over the place, and indeed we almost vacated it during the missile crisis.

Hmmm, interesting thought. Personally, I tend towards caution in military responses (e.g. against Iraq, for Afghanistan)--but I'd fully support a military response to a Cuban attempt to militarily force us to leave Guantanamo--including removing the current leadership. And that's thinking that our current Cuban policy is incomprehensibly asinine. I suspect that would be a fairly popular position--but maybe not. The situation for escalation is much different today than it was during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and I would think the administration would like to have an excuse (if not for the military being occupied in other places), but who knows.

{snip}
Whatever the US Supreme Court may say, clearly