• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson - Correct on GITMO

Glitch said:
You can't have jurisdiction if you don't have sovereignty, and treaties - like all laws and the US Constitution itself - does not have any jurisdiction beyond the borders of the US. It is why there are no courts in GITMO, only military tribunals. They are POWs, not criminals (unless specifically charged with a crime) and not subject to US law or the protections of the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

Absolutely you can have jurisdiction without sovereignty... we had jurisdiction without sovereignty over the Panama Canal Zone before we yielded that jurisdiction back to Panama. In point of fact, the Canal Zone had it's own Federal District Court within the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
 
Cordelier said:
Absolutely you can have jurisdiction without sovereignty... we had jurisdiction without sovereignty over the Panama Canal Zone before we yielded that jurisdiction back to Panama. In point of fact, the Canal Zone had it's own Federal District Court within the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't put much stock into the legality of that district court. It was created by Executive Order, which automatically makes it illegal. Only Congress has the authority to establish the courts, not Presidents. FDR was in the habit of repeatedly violating the US Constitution, as fascists typically do.

The Supreme Court ruled on this in Johnson, Secretary of Defense, et al., v. Eisentrager et al., 339 U.S. 763 (1950), holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus for aliens detained outside the sovereign territory of the US.
 
Glitch said:
I wouldn't put much stock into the legality of that district court. It was created by Executive Order, which automatically makes it illegal. Only Congress has the authority to establish the courts, not Presidents. FDR was in the habit of repeatedly violating the US Constitution, as fascists typically do.

The Supreme Court ruled on this in Johnson, Secretary of Defense, et al., v. Eisentrager et al., 339 U.S. 763 (1950), holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus for aliens detained outside the sovereign territory of the US.
Click to expand...

That's a ridiculous assertion. The District Court was established by legislation passed by Congress in 1912. All FDR's Executive Order did was transfer the Court's prosecutorial powers from the War Department to the Justice Department.

I'd take the time to research and post the pertinent 1912 statute, but I'm sure you'd just respond with another ridiculous assertion, so what's the point?
 
Cordelier said:
I agree completely... and I've never gotten the argument of the opponents that trying these individuals would risk disclosure of classified information. We've had the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) on the books for over 40 years now to minimize that risk... and if there are any deficiencies in that act where it comes to trying GITMO defendants, we've had 20 years to make CIPA airtight. Want to take a guess who introduced CIPA way back in 1979?
Click to expand...
I oppose giving non citizens the same rights that American citizens enjoy.
 
Glitch said:
I wouldn't put much stock into the legality of that district court. It was created by Executive Order, which automatically makes it illegal. Only Congress has the authority to establish the courts, not Presidents. FDR was in the habit of repeatedly violating the US Constitution, as fascists typically do.

The Supreme Court ruled on this in Johnson, Secretary of Defense, et al., v. Eisentrager et al., 339 U.S. 763 (1950), holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus for aliens detained outside the sovereign territory of the US.
Click to expand...

I had a few empty minutes, so I changed my mind. Here's the excerpt from the 1912 Law creating the District Court for the Canal Zone (See §8):

37 Stat. 565
 
Glitch said:
Don't be stupid, of course it is not the US exercising jurisdiction beyond the borders of the US, because the US has no jurisdiction beyond the borders of the US. They are in fact upholding a Status of Forces Agreement made with the country in question. Are you able to read? The soldier is still subject to the laws of the nation they happen to be in at the time, because the US has no jurisdiction outside of the SOFA. This is not a difficult concept. You refuse to acknowledge reality out of sheer ignorance, like a stereotypical leftist.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you could point out where I indicated that the servicemember off base would not be subject to those laws. Is GB outside the border of the US? Were GB detainees able to plead their case in US courts?

You really need to be more careful about throwing the word stupid around, you do much better with leftist filth. How are things in the most socialist state in the union?
 
Glitch said:
No, she was not right. She is, in fact, a supporter of terrorism - like all Democrat filth.
Click to expand...

Do you believe that Democrats are less than human?
 
Glitch said:
I wouldn't put much stock into the legality of that district court. It was created by Executive Order, which automatically makes it illegal. Only Congress has the authority to establish the courts, not Presidents. FDR was in the habit of repeatedly violating the US Constitution, as fascists typically do.

The Supreme Court ruled on this in Johnson, Secretary of Defense, et al., v. Eisentrager et al., 339 U.S. 763 (1950), holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus for aliens detained outside the sovereign territory of the US.
Click to expand...
Do you see the contradiction in your statement? A SCOTUS ruling that does not question the legitimacy of the court cements its legitimacy.
 
Rich2018 said:
Then I'm not sure what the point was.
Click to expand...
Maybe because the post was in response to someone else that claimed the district court was unconstitutional.
 
mrjurrs said:
Maybe because the post was in response to someone else that claimed the district court was unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Maybe

Did this poster identify the clause in the Constitution, that made it so ?
 
Rich2018 said:
Maybe

Did this poster identify the clause in the Constitution, that made it so ?
Click to expand...
I believe it was based on the use of an Executive Order to form it.
 
mrjurrs said:
I believe it was based on the use of an Executive Order to form it.
Click to expand...

So organizations, not specified in the Constitution are "unconstitutional", or that executive orders to establish organizations are "unconstitutional" ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom