Debate Comments
[Ron Moss]
The foundation of the US Constitution is that every human being has inalienable rights. Those rights were not granted by the government or by the Constitution. They have nothing to do with citizenship. They are inherent in being human. The US Constitution only prohibits the government from taking away those rights. Therefore, every human being, wherever they may be located, and whatever their citizenship, has the right to a hearing on whether their imprisonment is just. The US Constitution prohibits the US from interfering with that right, except under certain specified circumstances.
The foundation of the US Constitution is that every human being has inalienable rights. Those rights were not granted by the government or by the Constitution. They have nothing to do with citizenship. They are inherent in being human. The US Constitution only prohibits the government from taking away those rights. Therefore, every human being, wherever they may be located, and whatever their citizenship, has the right to a hearing on whether their imprisonment is just. The US Constitution prohibits the US from interfering with that right, except under certain specified circumstances.
[JT Day]
It amazes me that the purported right to Habeous Corpus would be a matter of debate. Did german soldiers enjoy such rights durning world war-2? To have arrived at such a state can only be attributed to lawyers; for what lawyers do is litigate. What a shame!
It amazes me that the purported right to Habeous Corpus would be a matter of debate. Did german soldiers enjoy such rights durning world war-2? To have arrived at such a state can only be attributed to lawyers; for what lawyers do is litigate. What a shame!
[Nick D]
It does not surprise me that people would be disappointed with the judgment, but it is clear that the justices were merely following the law. When habeus corpus was incorporated into the US constitution, the framers had in mind habeus corpus as it was understood in England. Historically the king had the right to challenge the imprisonment of all his subjects (which included aliens) within his dominions through any of his courts. This right was later extended to prisoners themselves. As there can be no doubt that the American president has the right to challenge the imprisonment of people in Guantanamo Bay, there is no question that the prisoners themselves have a right to challenge their imprisonment. The government brought up the red herring of English courts not sending writs to Hanover or Scotland. But those dominions were never subject to the King of England. Rather, the person who was King of England also happened to be Elector of Hanover and King of Scotland. That would be the same as if the American president inherited Monaco and became their prince. American courts would have no jurisiction in Monaco, because Monaco would become in no way subject to American laws. People who want to know more about the operation of laws in subject territories can read R. V. Cowles, Calvin's Case, ex parte Anderson, and the more recent cases of BIOT and Pitcairn Island.
It does not surprise me that people would be disappointed with the judgment, but it is clear that the justices were merely following the law. When habeus corpus was incorporated into the US constitution, the framers had in mind habeus corpus as it was understood in England. Historically the king had the right to challenge the imprisonment of all his subjects (which included aliens) within his dominions through any of his courts. This right was later extended to prisoners themselves. As there can be no doubt that the American president has the right to challenge the imprisonment of people in Guantanamo Bay, there is no question that the prisoners themselves have a right to challenge their imprisonment. The government brought up the red herring of English courts not sending writs to Hanover or Scotland. But those dominions were never subject to the King of England. Rather, the person who was King of England also happened to be Elector of Hanover and King of Scotland. That would be the same as if the American president inherited Monaco and became their prince. American courts would have no jurisiction in Monaco, because Monaco would become in no way subject to American laws. People who want to know more about the operation of laws in subject territories can read R. V. Cowles, Calvin's Case, ex parte Anderson, and the more recent cases of BIOT and Pitcairn Island.
