Guantanamo Bay unconsitutional?

[Red_Dave]

Im not much of an expert in these things as im not american but acording to the 13th amendment [section one]

"Neither slavery not involutary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the united states, or any plac subject to their jusistiction"

As those in Guantanamo bay are subject to involutary servitude , have not yet had a fair trial, and are in a place subject to u.s juisistiction surely the supreme court should have dealt with this years ago?

 

[Harshaw]

1) They're not under "servitude," especially as contemplated in the Amendment.

2) It has never been, and one can only hope never will be (I would think that would be a slam-dunk, but I'm not so sure any more), unconstitutional to hold combatants captive during a time of war.

 

[V.I. Lenin]

The fact that we HAVE a base there is wrong.

The Spanish-American war is over.

 

[Harshaw]

Even if true . . .

Not unconstitutional.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The fact that we HAVE a base there is wrong.

The Spanish-American war is over.

Yes. We won.
And as part of our winnings, we got a base in Guantanamo Bay.

The fact that it was over 100 years ago is meaningless - to the victor goes the spoils.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Im not much of an expert in these things as im not american but acording to the 13th amendment [section one]

"Neither slavery not involutary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the united states, or any plac subject to their jusistiction"

As those in Guantanamo bay are subject to involutary servitude , have not yet had a fair trial, and are in a place subject to u.s juisistiction surely the supreme court should have dealt with this years ago?

They arent slaves, and POWs dont get trials. Ever.
What's your point, again?

 

[F41]

Im not much of an expert in these things as im not american but acording to the 13th amendment [section one]

"Neither slavery not involutary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the united states, or any plac subject to their jusistiction"

As those in Guantanamo bay are subject to involutary servitude , have not yet had a fair trial, and are in a place subject to u.s juisistiction surely the supreme court should have dealt with this years ago?

They arent slaves, and POWs dont get trials. Ever.

Maybe this will help answer inquiry

http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=5312
Enemy Combatant

An “enemy combatant” is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban. In applying this definition, the United States government has acted consistently with the observation of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37-38 (1942): “Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war.”

“Enemy combatant” is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention. (The treatment accorded to unlawful combatants is discussed below).

The President has determined that al Qaida members are unlawful combatants because (among other reasons) they are members of a non-state actor terrorist group that does not receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. He additionally determined that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants because they do not satisfy the criteria for POW status set out in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. Although the President’s determination on this issue is final, courts have concurred with his determination.

 

[Red_Dave]

1) They're not under "servitude," especially as contemplated in the Amendment.

2) It has never been, and one can only hope never will be (I would think that would be a slam-dunk, but I'm not so sure any more), unconstitutional to hold combatants captive during a time of war.

well servitude is

"ser·vi·tude (sûr'vĭ-tūd', -tyūd') pronunciation
n.

1.
1. A state of subjection to an owner or master.
2. Lack of personal freedom, as to act as one chooses.
2. Forced labor imposed as a punishment for crime: penal servitude in labor camps.
3. Law. A right that grants use of another's property.

[Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin servitūdō, from Latin servus, slave.]"

Those in guantanamo bay are in a state of subjection to an owner and master and do not have personal freedon to act as they choose. It is normal have hold prisioners in a time of war but not when both the wars in question are over and there is a significant legal case to release the people in question.

 

[MiamiFlorida]

Im not much of an expert in these things as im not american but acording to the 13th amendment [section one]

"Neither slavery not involutary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the united states, or any plac subject to their jusistiction"

As those in Guantanamo bay are subject to involutary servitude , have not yet had a fair trial, and are in a place subject to u.s juisistiction surely the supreme court should have dealt with this years ago?

What does the US Constitution have to do with foreign terrorists?

Maybe you should be looking under "unlawful combatants" in the Geneva Convention.

 

[Harshaw]

well servitude is

"ser·vi·tude (sûr'vĭ-tūd', -tyūd') pronunciation
n.

1.
1. A state of subjection to an owner or master.
2. Lack of personal freedom, as to act as one chooses.
2. Forced labor imposed as a punishment for crime: penal servitude in labor camps.
3. Law. A right that grants use of another's property.

[Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin servitūdō, from Latin servus, slave.]"

Those in guantanamo bay are in a state of subjection to an owner and master and do not have personal freedon to act as they choose. It is normal have hold prisioners in a time of war but not when both the wars in question are over and there is a significant legal case to release the people in question.

They are not under legal servitude. Dictionary definitions are mostly useless when discussing the law.

And the war isn't over yet.

 

[G-Man]

They are not under legal servitude. Dictionary definitions are mostly useless when discussing the law.

And the war isn't over yet.

I thought Bush declared "mission accomplished" several years ago?
But seriously I have a couple ot points.
I thought 'war' was declared by sovereign nations, not individuals or groups. Exactly who are we at war with and how will we know when the war is over?
The death of bin-laden will not end this conflict. Nor will it stop if he decides to give up the fight. There are plenty more willing to take his place.

If the insurgency in Iraq continues for another 10yrs (as predicted by D Rumsfield) will we still be at war for this period?

If we are going to be in a state of war until terrorism across the globe is completely ended then I believe we will always be at war. Therefore those at Guantanamo would never be released. However, that is not the case. We have already released several detainees from Guantanmo bay.

Guantanamo Bay is a stain to the good name of America. The founding fathers would be ashamed of the present situation and although lawmakers can come up with new laws and new terminology to make it legal that doesn't make it right. I believe Hitler passed laws making it 'legal' to strip Jews of their businesses, property and send them to concentration camps.

 

[Harshaw]

And if all that is true, it's still not unconstitutional.

Especially in terms of the 13th Amendment, which is what the original post asked.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Those in guantanamo bay are in a state of subjection to an owner...

Nice try.
They are prisoners. We do not "own" them.

...and do not have personal freedon to act as they choose.

Because they are prisoners.

It is normal havehold prisioners in a time of war but not when both the wars in question are over and there is a significant legal case to release the people in question

1-The war is not over
2-There is no case to release them

 

[oldreliable67]

G-Man,

I thought 'war' was declared by sovereign nations, not individuals or groups.

...tell that to Bin Laden. In a religous fatwa, he declared war on the US in, what was it, 1996? Or better yet, tell that to the folks in the US embassys, the guys on the Cole, and those that lost loved ones in the attacks of 9/11.

 

[M14 Shooter]

G-Man,
tell that to Bin Laden. In a religous fatwa, he declared war on the US in, what was it, 1996? Or better yet, tell that to the folks in the US embassys, the guys on the Cole, and those that lost loved ones in the attacks of 9/11.

yes.
That Congress did not declare a state of war does not mean a state of war does not exist.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by G-Man:
I thought Bush declared "mission accomplished" several years ago?
But seriously I have a couple ot points.
I thought 'war' was declared by sovereign nations, not individuals or groups. Exactly who are we at war with and how will we know when the war is over?
The death of bin-laden will not end this conflict. Nor will it stop if he decides to give up the fight. There are plenty more willing to take his place.

If the insurgency in Iraq continues for another 10yrs (as predicted by D Rumsfield) will we still be at war for this period?

If we are going to be in a state of war until terrorism across the globe is completely ended then I believe we will always be at war. Therefore those at Guantanamo would never be released. However, that is not the case. We have already released several detainees from Guantanmo bay.

Guantanamo Bay is a stain to the good name of America. The founding fathers would be ashamed of the present situation and although lawmakers can come up with new laws and new terminology to make it legal that doesn't make it right. I believe Hitler passed laws making it 'legal' to strip Jews of their businesses, property and send them to concentration camps.

These are very good points you raise. That is why this war on terror is a bunch of bullshit. You cannot have a war against an ideology. There are just too many intangibles. One major one being "How does it end?"

 

[Canuck]

nazi tactics will be outlawed as unconstitutional
or funding for war will be dried up
americans want there power back bush dont let the door hit you on the way out

 

[cnredd]

yes.
That Congress did not declare a state of war does not mean a state of war does not exist.

Correct...

The last Declaration of War by the US Congress was on June 5, 1942...

Everything since have been military engagements authorized by Congress...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

 

[Tashah]

I believe Hitler passed laws making it 'legal' to strip Jews of their businesses, property and send them to concentration camps.

A poor analogy to the Guantanamo situation. The European Jews were civilian victims of Hitler rather than armed combatants against the Third Reich.

 

[nkgupta80]

A poor analogy to the Guantanamo situation. The European Jews were civilian victims of Hitler rather than armed combatants against the Third Reich.

aren't there cases where "armed combatants" were really innocent people

 

[Tashah]

aren't there cases where "armed combatants" were really innocent people

I'm certain there are... but one should not confuse battlefield incidents with systematic genocide.

 

[nkgupta80]

oh yeah, i agree.. sorry i wasn't responding to your post..just accidently quoted it.

 

[UtahBill]

Yes. We won.
And as part of our winnings, we got a base in Guantanamo Bay.

The fact that it was over 100 years ago is meaningless - to the victor goes the spoils.

That isn't exactly how we got the base, or how we keep it. A lease was signed, and we paid serious money to have the base. When the lease was due to expire, our government sent a check, and Castro's government cashed it, thus renewing the lease. They have cashed every check since. Castro enjoys the American dollars, or he would have found a way to run us out by now.
I was stationed there from the spring of 71 to the spring of 74. Nice place, unless you are a "detainee":lol: .

 

[G-Man]

Because they are prisoners.

1-The war is not over
2-There is no case to release them

If the war is not over and they are prisoners why are they not deemed POW's?

On a seperate point the 'war' has not ended and many have been released. What was the case behind these prisoners release? There are obviously many cases upon which detainees can de released.

 

[DocAR]

That isn't exactly how we got the base, or how we keep it. A lease was signed, and we paid serious money to have the base. When the lease was due to expire, our government sent a check, and Castro's government cashed it, thus renewing the lease. They have cashed every check since. Castro enjoys the American dollars, or he would have found a way to run us out by now.
I was stationed there from the spring of 71 to the spring of 74. Nice place, unless you are a "detainee":lol: .

My old man was stationed there briefly somewhere around the same time.

It was right after the Cubans got new artillery that was supposed to be quite a bit better than the 105s that they had on Gitmo.

He had an interesting conversation with the CO about what that ment to their ability to hold the base, would the Cubans attack.