A day without illegal immigrants...

[Manarius]

Originally Posted by Duckie

If you think this guy is the bottom of the barrel then maybe I shouldn't tell you about the groups of people on the boarders shooting boarder jumpers for fun...I should probably ALSO tell you they get off with warnings and no actual penalty.

Not really seeing the problem with that. I mean, it's a lot of overkill, but if it keeps border jumpers out, then so be it. I'm all for a big giant wall with guards and machine guns. If you don't come here legally, you don't deserve to come here at all, it's that simple. Illegal immigrants have no rights under American law. American law applies to citizens and those inprisoned; I don't see "illegal immigrant" there anywhere.

Originally Posted by Manarius

American law applies to citizens and those inprisoned; I don't see "illegal immigrant" there anywhere.

Actually, American law applies to every single human being within the territorial borders of the United States of America. That includes citizens, residents, tourists, AND those in the country illegally.

[Noir]

Originally Posted by Bipa

Actually, American law applies to every single human being within the territorial borders of the United States of America. That includes citizens, residents, tourists, AND those in the country illegally.

that's unpossible!!

[svxistentialist]

Originally Posted by Manarius

Not really seeing the problem with that. I mean, it's a lot of overkill, but if it keeps border jumpers out, then so be it. American law applies to citizens and those inprisoned; .

Jason, it would be good if what you say is true. It is just that I don't see a writ of "habeus corpus" working anytime soon in Guantanamo.

We have nett immigration here in Ireland now too. Some are criminals and freeloaders, most are good people just looking for work and a better way of living.

We need to be sure that the cheap Tshirt and cheap coffee we buy is not contributing to a low paid or slave population somewhere else in the world.

Nobody would take the trouble to jump walls or borders if life was OK on their side of the fence, I think.

Joe

[Suby Fan]

this is a very good point... we may be able to stop illigal imagrants from mexico but we will never be able to stop globalisation (sp?) no matter how many useless wars we start!

Originally Posted by svxistentialist

Jason, it would be good if what you say is true. It is just that I don't see a writ of "habeus corpus" working anytime soon in Guantanamo.
....
Joe

You bring up an interesting point with the mention of Guantanamo.

Although the US has a perpetual lease on that piece of land, it is still officially part of Cuba. That's the reason that the detainees are being kept there. The initial judgement of the US gov't was that since it wasn't US soil, the detainees wouldn't have access to US laws. This view was shot down in 2004 in the case Rasul vs. Bush with the majority decision of the US Supreme Court that ruled that prisoners in Guantanamo should have access to American courts, citing the fact that the U.S. has exclusive control over Guantanamo Bay.

In another ruling that went against the Bush admin's views, US District Court Judge James Robertson ruled on November 9, 2004 that the White House had no right to try the prisoners as enemy combatants in a military tribunal.

The Bush admin has done its best to ignore that Supreme Court ruling, even going so far as to give Haliburton the go ahead on June 16, 2005, to build a new $30 million detention facility and upgrade the security for a prolonged stay.

Although the US calls the detainees "illegal enemy combatants", the Fourth Geneva Convention stipulates that tribunals under Article 5 should be held and certain rights of the prisoners are also listed. That's all been ignored, too.

If the US had classified the detainees as "prisoners of war", then it would have been fine under international rules of warfare to transport them to a detention camp in another country. But because the US won't call them POWs and insists that they are "illegal enemy combatants", then under international law what the US has done is actually kidnapping.

Then there are all those mysterious CIA flights which I won't get into now.

Interesting, eh? The US says it wants to promote democracy and the rule of law, yet itself is very visibly ignoring its own laws and international obligations. Guess it is another example of "Do as I say and not as I do".

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by Bipa

You bring up an interesting point with the mention of Guantanamo.

Although the US has a perpetual lease on that piece of land, it is still officially part of Cuba. That's the reason that the detainees are being kept there. The initial judgement of the US gov't was that since it wasn't US soil, the detainees wouldn't have access to US laws. This view was shot down in 2004 in the case Rasul vs. Bush with the majority decision of the US Supreme Court that ruled that prisoners in Guantanamo should have access to American courts, citing the fact that the U.S. has exclusive control over Guantanamo Bay.

In another ruling that went against the Bush admin's views, US District Court Judge James Robertson ruled on November 9, 2004 that the White House had no right to try the prisoners as enemy combatants in a military tribunal.

The Bush admin has done its best to ignore that Supreme Court ruling, even going so far as to give Haliburton the go ahead on June 16, 2005, to build a new $30 million detention facility and upgrade the security for a prolonged stay.

Although the US calls the detainees "illegal enemy combatants", the Fourth Geneva Convention stipulates that tribunals under Article 5 should be held and certain rights of the prisoners are also listed. That's all been ignored, too.

If the US had classified the detainees as "prisoners of war", then it would have been fine under international rules of warfare to transport them to a detention camp in another country. But because the US won't call them POWs and insists that they are "illegal enemy combatants", then under international law what the US has done is actually kidnapping.

Then there are all those mysterious CIA flights which I won't get into now.

Interesting, eh? The US says it wants to promote democracy and the rule of law, yet itself is very visibly ignoring its own laws and international obligations. Guess it is another example of "Do as I say and not as I do".

You are only partially correct on the Supreme Court split decision (5 to 4) but your assumption that the Bush Administration is evading the decision is erroneous. In the words of the court-------- " it is a question of habeau corpus in which a person held captive by the government may take action to challenge the legality of his detention. Whether federal courts have jurisdiction, NOT an examination of the detainees claims or whether any particular detainee could or should be freed."

Your "hate America" slip is showing again, Bipa.

Maybe you should review the Geneva Convention again also.

Lee

[mohrds]

Originally Posted by Bipa

Although the US calls the detainees "illegal enemy combatants", the Fourth Geneva Convention stipulates that tribunals under Article 5 should be held and certain rights of the prisoners are also listed. That's all been ignored, too.(

Yes it has. Been ignored by the terrorists that behead civilians on live TV, plant roadside bombs and car bombs to kill civilians. Anything to disrupt the process of having the people govern themselves.

They are not prisoners of war. They war is officially over. This is now a peacekeeping, police training and police assistance plan. A normal part of post-war reconstruction. The same thing that was in Germany and Japan after WWII. The only difference now is that there are individuals and groups of people who will not stop killing, even though they represent no government or declared takeover group.

The Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorist cells.

Originally Posted by lhopp77

You are only partially correct on the Supreme Court split decision (5 to 4) but your assumption that the Bush Administration is evading the decision is erroneous. In the words of the court-------- " it is a question of habeau corpus in which a person held captive by the government may take action to challenge the legality of his detention. Whether federal courts have jurisdiction, NOT an examination of the detainees claims or whether any particular detainee could or should be freed."

Your "hate America" slip is showing again, Bipa.

Maybe you should review the Geneva Convention again also.

Lee

Lee.... I deeply resent your assumption that I hate America. That's 42 countries!

If you had actually read the decision by the Supreme Court, you might not be so quick to quote a small section taken from some news report. Also, the ruling wasn't 5-4 as you claim. Only three dissented. I suggest you take a look at the whole thing:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...0&invol=03-334

RASUL et al. v. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, et al.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columiba circuit
No. 03-334. Argued April 20, 2004--Decided June 28, 2004*

Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Thomas, J., joined

Held: United States courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay. Pp. 4-17.

Justice Stevens:
Whether and what further proceedings may become necessary after respondents make their response to the merits of petitioners' claims are matters that we need not address now. What is presently at stake is only whether the federal courts have jurisdiction to determine the legality of the Executive's potentially indefinite detention of individuals who claim to be wholly innocent of wrongdoing. Answering that question in the affirmative, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand for the District Court to consider in the first instance the merits of petitioners' claims.

It is so ordered.
=============================
Justice Kennedy, concurring in the judgment.

The Court is correct, in my view, to conclude that federal courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals held at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. While I reach the same conclusion, my analysis follows a different course.
....
In light of the status of Guantanamo Bay and the indefinite pretrial detention of the detainees, I would hold that federal-court jurisdiction is permitted in these cases. This approach would avoid creating automatic statutory authority to adjudicate the claims of persons located outside the United States, and remains true to the reasoning of Eisentrager. For these reasons, I concur in the judgment of the Court.

=============================
Justice Scalia, with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.

The Court today holds that the habeas statute, 28 U. S. C. §2241, extends to aliens detained by the United States military overseas, outside the sovereign borders of the United States and beyond the territorial jurisdictions of all its courts. This is not only a novel holding; it contradicts a half-century-old precedent on which the military undoubtedly relied, Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U. S. 763 (1950). The Court's contention that Eisentrager was somehow negated by Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U. S. 484 (1973)--a decision that dealt with a different issue and did not so much as mention Eisentrager--is implausible in the extreme. This is an irresponsible overturning of settled law in a matter of extreme importance to our forces currently in the field. I would leave it to Congress to change §2241, and dissent from the Court's unprecedented holding.
....

What this all means is that the detainees have basic legal rights to appeal to a US Court, which entails also the right to legal representation, the right to inspect evidence against you, etc. etc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Geneva Convention is being so grossly misinterpreted by the current US government that it would be an even longer post for me to detail all the abuses. How about you show me how the US has actually acted in accordance with the articles of the Convention? That's a much shorter list.

Originally Posted by mohrds

Yes it has. Been ignored by the terrorists that behead civilians on live TV, plant roadside bombs and car bombs to kill civilians. Anything to disrupt the process of having the people govern themselves.

They are not prisoners of war. They war is officially over. This is now a peacekeeping, police training and police assistance plan. A normal part of post-war reconstruction. The same thing that was in Germany and Japan after WWII. The only difference now is that there are individuals and groups of people who will not stop killing, even though they represent no government or declared takeover group.

The Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorist cells.

Using your logic, no criminal, especially not murderers, should have any rights under the law. Why do we allow mass murderers, child rapists, et al the full rights to legal representation, a speedy trial (or at least not being held for years without charges laid), and yet as soon as that murderer is labelled a terrorist, he suddently loses it all?

Ah... I get it. So if I label you a terrorist, and I happen to be in a position of power, even if I have no proof whatsoever, or at least refuse to disclose any, then I can throw you in jail, interrogate you, deprive you of all your legal rights indefinitely, and you agree with that?

I'm talking about folks who have been in Guantanamo since 2002. Surely almost 4 years is enough?! Have the effing trial already, and then either execute them or let them go. Simply holding them for that long isn't justice and is giving the US an extremely bad rap world-wide.

But in the strongest criticism yet from a UK government minister, Lord Goldsmith said on Wednesday Guantanamo tarnished the image of the US.

"The historic tradition of the United States as a beacon of freedom, liberty and of justice deserves the removal of this symbol," he said.

Lord Goldsmith is said to have serious doubts over whether the indefinite detention of "enemy combatants" is legal or fair.

There has been international criticism of conditions and the length of time people have been held without trial.

the above quote taken from Blair Pressure Call On Guantanamo
BBC News Thursday, 11 May 2006

You might also be interested in the following article:
The Nixon-Bush Doctrine
When a duty to protect supercedes a duty to abide by the law

....
President George W. Bush, commander in chief in the war against terror, is squarely in the Nixon camp. He has asserted his right to hold American citizens indefinitely without charging them with any crime if he labels them "enemy combatants." He holds detainees of other nationalities at Guantanamo, some with access to lawyers, some not.

His attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, has referred to the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war as "quaint." Bush has asserted America's right to torture prisoners. He has asserted its right to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens because they might be talking to terrorists.
....
Wiretaps on your domestic calls? Someone reading your mail, checking your library to see what you're reading, recruiting informants where you work? All legal under the Nixon/Bush doctrine. The underlying notion is that anything goes, as long as you're at war.

But if you end up alive but spied on by your own government -- Big Brother Is Watching You, in the famous phrase from George Orwell's "1984," then who won? Not democracy, that's for sure.

Some in the hearing noted that.

"There is no check and balance," Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-South Carolina, said, under the administration's theory, and of course he's right; there isn't.

Tommy Lynch, director of a project on criminal justice sponsored by CATO, a libertarian think tank, said, "the overriding issue ... is the stance of the administration that they're going to decide in secrecy which laws they're going to follow and which laws they can bypass." Just so.

Toward the end of the hearing, Gonzales simply refused to answer some questions, prompting Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, to say, "I forgot; you can't answer any questions that might be relevant."

This is all made worse by the fact that the war on terror is probably eternal. It's not a philosophy; it's a tactic, used by whichever side doesn't have the big army, the jet fighters, and so on.

The Jews used terror when they were fighting to establish Israel; Menachem Begin, later prime minister, blew up a hotel in Jerusalem.

Would Mr. Bush have opposed terror then? Or now in Chechnya or Northern Ireland, or Kashmir? It's a pretty good bet it always will be in use somewhere, simply because it's how you resist if you don't have lots of troops and guns.

So is the all-powerful commander in chief the wave of the future?

Maybe, unless Congress asserts itself and comes up with those checks and balances Sen. Graham notices are missing. Will that happen? Anybody's guess.

Mine is, maybe after the '06 election, but probably not before then.
------------------------------------

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by Bipa

Lee.... I deeply resent your assumption that I hate America. That's 42 countries!

If you had actually read the decision by the Supreme Court, you might not be so quick to quote a small section taken from some news report.

I did read the decision and we agree on the actual decision which is that the detainees do have access to our federal courts and have the right to legal representation. Of course, if that case came before the current Supreme Court, I imagine it would be a different decision. Oh, Well.

The point I was making is that you said that the Bush Administration was essentially not obeying the decision. You voice this opinion without providing any evidence to support it other than a contract being let to improve the facility which has nothing to do with whether or not the decision is being followed.

Ask any one in the world what they think about Americans and 99.9 percent of them will give you an answer that applies to residents of the United States of America and not the other 41 countries in the "Americas". While you are definitely technically right that is not the normally accepted interpretation. Sorry, you are a Canadian and I am an American.

Terrorists are not subject to the protections of the Geneva Convention. Moderate sleep deprivation and continuous grilling are hardly torture. Just look at what the terrorists do to get the real definition of torture.

Lee

Lee

Originally Posted by lhopp77

I did read the decision and we agree on the actual decision which is that the detainees do have access to our federal courts and have the right to legal representation. Of course, if that case came before the current Supreme Court, I imagine it would be a different decision. Oh, Well.

The point I was making is that you said that the Bush Administration was essentially not obeying the decision. You voice this opinion without providing any evidence to support it other than a contract being let to improve the facility which has nothing to do with whether or not the decision is being followed.

....

Lee

Well, the White House didn't agree, so it decided to change the rules. Last December Congress passed legislation against the use of torture, with a little additional clause that denied the Guantanamo detainees the right to access Federal Courts until after their military tribunals. But so far there hasn't been a single full military tribunal held for any of them.

So Lee... if you agree that the detainees should have basic legal rights, then tell me how many of them actually have a lawyer of their own choice, and how many of them have had actual charges laid against them along with being able to inspect all the evidence that went along with those charges?

I'm awaiting with interest the newest US Supreme Court decision on the validity of the military tribunals, due to come out in a few months. The way the tribunals are currently set to go, suspects don't have the right to choose their own lawyer, and don't have the right to see the evidence against them. Also, even if the tribunal was to acquit them, the verdict could be reversed by the Secretary of Defence - Rumsfeld. Gosh, why even go through the charade at all in that case. Just have Rumsfeld decide each case and be done with it.

[Landshark]

i vote to free the Guantanamo detainees into Bipa's neighborhood, because she loves illegal aliens and terrorists. you guys could all get together for some good 'ol flag burning, Bush bashing, etc.

that is, if they don't kill you and your little dog.

[Electrophil]

It's going to take me a week to catch up.

Originally Posted by Landshark

i vote to free the Guantanamo detainees into Bipa's neighborhood, because she loves illegal aliens and terrorists. you guys could all get together for some good 'ol flag burning, Bush bashing, etc.

that is, if they don't kill you and your little dog.

I got a better idea. How about you get picked up, thrown in jail, and for the next 4 years your friends and family have no clue where you are and if you're even alive? And you don't know what, if any charges have been brought against you, you aren't allowed a phone call, a lawyer might be assigned to you, and no evidence is presented to show why you are in prison. That's justice, eh?