Just a little something about the Constitution that Roberts and Scalia are missing...

[Atman]

Uh...doesn't the Bill of Rights say that we hold these truths to be self evident that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL? What part of "All men" are Roberts and Scalia missing? I don't see where it says "All rich white men" or "All men who voted for George Bush" or "All Christian men." It just says "all men are created equal." So why do they see the rights of Guantanamo detainees to be contrary to that statement? Seems pretty clear to me.

That is, unless you're going to go totally literal on me and focus on the word "men." But that's for another post.

.

[MadMaddie]

1. They represent what exactly is wrong with the Republicans....

they are incapable of representing all Americans.

They are exactly what this election is about, the US cannot afford any more like them.

[lonestarnot]

2. And that unitary executive and Scalicka they aren't created equal.

They be better than us. sulk headhang hmmmmmf piss on his grave soon as he pisses out!

[panader0]

3. Who voted how?

I know Scalia dissented, but who else voted how?

[Rage for Order]

4. It's due to the precedent from this 1950 Supreme Court case...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_v._Eisentrager

In their ruling the Supreme Court justices noted (emphasis added and footnotes removed):

…Modern American law has come a long way since the time when outbreak of war made every enemy national an outlaw, subject to both public and private slaughter, cruelty and plunder. But even by the most magnanimous view, our law does not abolish inherent distinctions recognized throughout the civilized world between citizens and aliens, nor between aliens of friendly and of enemy allegiance, nor between resident enemy aliens who have submitted themselves to our laws and non-resident enemy aliens who at all times have remained with, and adhered to, enemy governments. …

But, in extending constitutional protections beyond the citizenry, the Court has been at pains to point out that it was the alien's presence within its territorial jurisdiction that gave the Judiciary power to act. …

If this Amendment invests enemy aliens in unlawful hostile action against us with immunity from military trial, it puts them in a more protected position than our own soldiers. …

We hold that the Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or an immunity from military trial and punishment upon an alien enemy engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States.

…It is not for us to say whether these prisoners were or were not guilty of a war crime, or whether if we were to retry the case we would agree to the findings of fact or the application of the laws of war made by the Military Commission. The petition shows that these prisoners were formally accused of violating the laws of war and fully informed of particulars of these charges.

See also:

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/tribunals/jve.html

The United States Supreme Court held that the federal Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or immunity from military trial and punishment on alien enemies engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States. The "aliens" concerned were German Nationals who were confined in the custody of the United States Army in Germany following their conviction y a military commission of having engaged in military activity against the United States in China after the surrender of Germany. The Court stated that the military authorities have a jurisdiction, during or following "hostilities" to punish those guilty of offenses against the laws of war, and the German Nationals did not have the right to a writ of habeas corpus.

There's a link to the full opinion on the uchicago page.

[JDPriestly]

5. Today's opinion specifically addresses these arguments.

[Rage for Order]

6. I haven't read it

But the poster asked where the dissenting justices got the idea that Constitutional protections do not apply to those held at Gitmo. That case would be where they got the idea.

[YankmeCrankme]

8. I hate this rationale...just what country are we at war with?

Are we at war with Iraq? Afghanistan? I haven't heard that we are or even were before. Congress declared no war. No war was declared on us by another country. So who were we at war with that these people are being are denied due process and must be tried by military kangaroo courts, unable to see the evidence against them?

I'm sorry but that US Supreme court ruling doesn't apply here. And BS about it putting them in a more protected position than our own soldiers. Our soldiers are immune to prosecution in those two countries. Can't get anymore protected than that.

[Rage for Order]

9. Ironically, this ruling will probably make things worse for future prisoners...

Not better. The majority opinion said, in part:

"It is true that before today the Court has never held that noncitizens detained by our Government in territory over which another country maintains de jure sovereignty have any rights under our Constitution. But the cases before us lack any precise historical parallel."..."The detainees, moreover, are held in a territory that, while technically not part of the United States, is under the complete and total control of our Government. Under these circumstances the lack of a precedent on point is no barrier to our holding. We hold that Art. I, §9, cl. 2, of the Constitution has full effect at Guantanamo Bay."...

Now, in order to not grant the right of habeus corpus to those captured while fighting outside the US, the government will most likely hold these people in detention centers in Iraq, Afghanistan, or wherever they were captured. As crappy as Gitmo is, the places in Iraq are probably far worse since there is much less scrutiny by outside parties. Lawyers will go to Gitmo to see the conditions under which people are being held, but who is going to go to Fallujah or Basra?

[Brigid]

7. Actually that would be the Declaration of Independence.

But no matter, point still taken. If we don't treat others the way we would want to be treated, then we diminish ourselves and lose any moral authority we might have had. Who wouldn't laugh in our faces if we griped about mistreatment of American troops catured by terrorists after what the Bush regime has done?