Californian Liberals

One of you Californian Liberals might be able to explain something to me. I see some of you folk out there in California have filed a petition to challenge the detention of POW's at Guatanamo Bay. "The petition alleges that the detainees are being held in violation of the Geneva Convention and the U.S. Constitution." Explain to me how this is a violation.

I also read "The petition demands that the U.S. government bring the suspects before a court and define the charges against them." Would one of you Californian Liberals explain why we should have to do this?

They are not POW's.

Since there has been no formal declaration of war by Congress, the Geneva Convention does not apply. So, not sure why everyone is so "up in arms" about it.

Not sure how it voilates the constitution either. These people are not U.S. citizens are are not subject to it.

As far as the court thing... not sure about that one.

Not saying that what is going on is the right things to to, considering ALL the information that we have and don't have, but that is the reason the Government is giving.

My response:

The California court is the wrong court. There is no jurisdiction.

The "prisoners" are being imprisoned under the "War Powers Act", and to top it all off, the "prisoners" are not even on U.S. soil - - they are on Cuban soil. Therefore, the Constitution does not cover them; e.g., they are not entitled to attorneys or Miranda.

If anyone has jurisdiction, it would be the United States Supreme Court which has "original jurisdiction" concerning the War Powers Act.

The Plaintiffs brought their lawsuit in the wrong jurisdiction and in the wrong court.

IAAL

If they are all executed in Cuba, the jurisdictional issue would be moot.

Here's the deal. By law & treaty, we, the United States Of America are bound by the Geneva Convention "in all acts of combat, war, conflict or police action". The G.C. is limited. These prisoners are a result of, according to the U.N. & N.A.T.O. a conflict. As to Guatanamo Bay detention. Guantanamo Bay is a U.S. military base there for it is governed by U.S. laws. Civilians are living & working at this out post. They are subject to U.S. laws & priileges. Some locations at this base are governed by military laws & regulations. All persons within the boundries of the U.S.A. including it's territories & protectorates are entitled to the full faith of the U.S. Constitution.
Now, after saying that, who knows how it will be seen by the courts. Remember Dread Scot?

crager34, I AM ALWAYS LIABLE, HOMEGURU, glad y'all ain't got cobwebs up there in the brain cavity.

saddleup, let me splain something to ya. I don't care if these suckers are moved to the continental USA they are not citizens. The Constitution of the United States of America do not apply to combatants against the USA.

I agree they should be protected by the Geneva Convention. They may not be POW's but they are prisoners, they are combatants against us in an armed conflict. I personally never had read the Geneva Convention until I found out what was happening out there in California. Then I read it in it's entirity and I don't see how the GC is being violated. You wanna explain that one to me?

Saddleup I wanna know something else from ya. Why is it you think that any NON-citizen of the USA, an armed combatant agaisnt the USA military is entitled to the protection of the U.S.C.?

I don't wish to attack or be attacked. This is a discussion on my part for clearification & education.
As to non-citizens having consitutional rights, they do. All aliens, legal or not, residing on American soil are entitled to the rights set forth in the U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. Supreme court has ruled in several cases. The high court ruled that the detainees held after the Mario boat lift were being held unlawfully & order their release.
I don't think the U.S. Constitution would apply to combat/pow's in this situation. However the Geneva Convention is clear, "prisoners" are covered. Interestingly there is no provision for prisoners to be allotted legal representation. the convention addresses for the most part living condition & interrogation.
Anyone can bring a petition before a court. The court can rule in such a way as to cause/refer a federal hearing. This is one role of the lower courts.
Just a quick clarification Guatanamo Bay (the U.S. base) is a U.S. Territory. It is the same as standing at gound zero, New York City. Attack G.Bay & see who returns fire. It is not Cuba.

No attacking going on here. Just a good ole boy trying to get on the inside of some liberal thinking.

I ain't ever figured it out yet. Are you for or against that petition that was filed in California?

Roy, I'm for me! The government will do the dumbest posible, the lawyers will get fat, & the tax payer will get the bill.
I just see all this as money for those filling & cross filing. I keep tract of civil rights issues because that is my only hope. Without the U.S. Constitution we (the average guys) are in trouble. I have won 4 cases in state courts with only the 1st, 4th & 5th amendments, no testamony.
I live in Tennessee, they are still fighting the Civil War here!
Take care, Dan

I hear where ya coming from. The Consitution should be protected because like ya said, if that ever flies out the door the average Joe is screwed.

p.s. Tennessee ain't the only place where the civil war is still being fought.

Saddleup - You said: "....Guatanamo Bay (the U.S. base) is a U.S. Territory. It is the same as standing at gound zero, New York City."

You are mistaken here. Guatanamo Bay is a U.S. territory like Guam, Puerto Rico, Samoa... BUT, the City and state of New York is not. It is soverign in respect to the Federal Government, as well as the other 49 United States.

Territories of the United States are protected by the U.S. Consitution. Citizens of Puerto Rico may for example travel or live in the 50 states without visa. For this discussion G. Bay is U.S. property.