If Scalia is right, and “Guantanamo Bay lies outside the sovereign territory of the United States”, then presumably he is looking forward to the US government complying with a Cuban court ordering the release of the Gitmo prisoners.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Scalia is full of shit in that dissent. He comes off like a raving nutcase in that thing, declaring that more Americans are going to die and the US “will live to regret this decision.” he sounds like a total wingnut. Man, that dude really hates Habeas Corpus. He thinks it’s going to kill us all.
[/QUOTE]
He never says it is going to “kill us all.” And at no time does he state that he hates habeas corpus. He just disagrees with how far the right to the writ extends. His dissent in Hamdi was the strongest voice (joined by Stevens) for Yaser Esam Hamdi’s right to a trial under criminal law.
[QUOTE=Giles]
If Scalia is right, and “Guantanamo Bay lies outside the sovereign territory of the United States”, then presumably he is looking forward to the US government complying with a Cuban court ordering the release of the Gitmo prisoners.
[/QUOTE]
Why? Can you point to the section of the constitution that says the US government must comply with orders from another government?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Why? Can you point to the section of the constitution that says the US government must comply with orders from another government?
[/QUOTE]
I think what our government can or cannot do in another country’s sovereign territory without permission of its government is limited by international law.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
I think what our government can or cannot do in another country’s sovereign territory without permission of its government is limited by international law.
[/QUOTE]
Which law, and what is its enforcement mechanism?
I asked this in the Pit thread on this subject, but I think it’d be more likely to be answered here: what exactly was the dissents’ (since I know there were two, one by Scalia and one by Roberts) arguments against the ruling? Not being a lawyer, I can’t really follow it just by reading (it’s on FindLaw now, BTW, in non-PDF form). They seem to be saying that this ruling inconsistently applies the law as it’s been applied in the past - true?
[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
Waiting for a certain one-trick pony to come in here and patronizingly explain to us how the majority got it all wrong here.
Damn, it is going to be nice if we don’t have to be embarrassed about our administration come January. Keeping my fingers crossed.
[/QUOTE]
I think the majority got it right.
But I think the dissent’s argument wasn’t crazy.
This is a case in which there was simply no settled, concrete law. The Constitution isn’t definitive on the issue, and that is precisely the correct role of the judiciary: to interpret.
Now there’s settled law. I would have voted with the majority, but I don’t think the dissent is “full of shit.”
[QUOTE=Giles]
If Scalia is right, and “Guantanamo Bay lies outside the sovereign territory of the United States”, then presumably he is looking forward to the US government complying with a Cuban court ordering the release of the Gitmo prisoners.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, yes, the famous Art. VIII of the Constitution: “The federal government must comply with directives issued to it by foreign governments concerning their sovereign territory.” That’s a often-overlooked piece.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I think the majority got it right.
But I think the dissent’s argument wasn’t crazy.
This is a case in which there was simply no settled, concrete law.
[/quote]
What about Eisentrager?
If there is no definitive law, should the Court overrule both political branches on an ambiguous issue? Isn’t it standard to give deference to other branches that they have not violated the Constitution?
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
If there is no definitive law, should the Court overrule both political branches on an ambiguous issue? Isn’t it standard to give deference to other branches that they have not violated the Constitution?
[/QUOTE]
Not when they’re acting outrageously, as here.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Why? Can you point to the section of the constitution that says the US government must comply with orders from another government?
[/QUOTE]
The Constitution has no relevance to what we can do in someone else’s country.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Not when they’re acting outrageously, as here.
[/QUOTE]
What do you mean by outrageously? It is an ambiguous issue which makes it pretty hard to be outrageous.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
The Constitution has no relevance to what we can do in someone else’s country.
[/QUOTE]
That is not true. The government is still constrained from executing an American citizen without due process of law in France, for instance.
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
If there is no definitive law, should the Court overrule both political branches on an ambiguous issue? Isn’t it standard to give deference to other branches that they have not violated the Constitution?
[/QUOTE]
What strikes me about the whole thing (Bush using Gitmo as a place to hold these non-citizen non-POW dudes) was that the Executive Branch wanted to skirt around all of the Legislative/Constitutional questions by trying to keep everything outside of the jurisdiction of the Legislature and Courts. I found that to be “poor form”.
The Administration should have settled the issue with the Judicial & Legislative branches in good faith first. But by trying to do an “end around”, the Administration just made more political enemies than they had to.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
The Constitution has no relevance to what we can do in someone else’s country.
[/QUOTE]
If that is the case, then how can we be in violation of the constitution for something done in another country? Maybe I’m misunderstanding your point.
Bricker: Is this ruling limited specifically to those detainees in Guantanamo, or is it broader than that? And does the location of Guantanamo play into the ruling-- ie, did the de facto control the US have over that location (even if not de jure) make a difference?
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Ah, yes, the famous Art. VIII of the Constitution: “The federal government must comply with directives issued to it by foreign governments concerning their sovereign territory.” That’s a often-overlooked piece.
[/QUOTE]
If the minority on the SCOTUS is right, then Gitmo is just part of Cuba, and Cuban law applies, not any part of the US Constitution.
Or else Gitmo is in a legal vacuum, and no country’s laws apply. (And that seems to be the position which the US Administration is taking).
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Is this ruling limited specifically to those detainees in Guantanamo, or is it broader than that?
[/quote]
Specific to the detainees.
Yes. Read pages 48-50 of the majority opinion.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I think the majority got it right.
But I think the dissent’s argument wasn’t crazy.
This is a case in which there was simply no settled, concrete law. The Constitution isn’t definitive on the issue, and that is precisely the correct role of the judiciary: to interpret.
Now there’s settled law. I would have voted with the majority, but I don’t think the dissent is “full of shit.”
[/QUOTE]
Now why would you have responded to MY post? 
Have to say I did not expect this assessment from you, and am pleased to see it. (Not that my opinion should mean anything to you.)
You say the dissent’s argument wasn’t crazy, but if the majority got it right, doesn’t that mean Scalia and his buds got it “not right”? To what do you attribute that.
[QUOTE=Giles]
If the minority on the SCOTUS is right, then Gitmo is just part of Cuba, and Cuban law applies, not any part of the US Constitution.
Or else Gitmo is in a legal vacuum, and no country’s laws apply. (And that seems to be the position which the US Administration is taking).
[/QUOTE]
The administration is not claiming that US law does not apply in Gitmo. They were applying the US law through the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
The administration is not claiming that US law does not apply in Gitmo. They were applying the US law through the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
[/QUOTE]
Right – they only claim that the US Constitution does not apply.