Aphrodite???

And, once the jurisdictional issue of Habeus Corpus was decided, and the case remanded, are you arguing that the Due Process clause of the 5th Amendment did not attach? Or the 6th Amendment right to counsel?

And how is it that he had counsel in the first place? Maybe because of the 5th Amendment right to counsel?

I leave these questions to you and Mighty Aphrodite to figure out.

Argue with the Supreme Court decision itself;

Because subsequent decisions of this Court have filled the statutory gap that had occasioned Eisentrager’s resort to “fundamentals,” persons detained outside the territorial jurisdiction of any federal district court no longer need rely on the Constitution as the source of their right to federal habeas review. In Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U. S. 484, 495 (1973), this Court held, contrary to Ahrens, that the prisoner’s presence within the territorial jurisdiction of the district court is not “an invariable prerequisite” to the exercise of district court jurisdiction under the federal habeas statute. Rather, because “the writ of habeas corpus does not act upon the prisoner who seeks relief, but upon the person who holds him in what is alleged to be unlawful custody,” a district court acts “within [its] respective jurisdiction” within the meaning of §2241 as long as “the custodian can be reached by service of process.”

This is the majority opinion in Rasul vs. Bush.

Congress enacted the original U.S. federal habeas corpus statute in the Judiciary Act of 1789, granting the right to persons “in custody, under or by color of the authority of the United States, or committed for trial before some court of the same.

This is from; http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-334

Clearly, their right to Habius Corpus does not reside in the Constitution, but in Common Law recognized by the Judiciary act of 1789.

You should study a bit more, or become a para-legal.

You are splitting hairs here.

Comment by pjh — June 20, 2006

So be it. If I point out factual inaccuracies in your statements, I am splitting hairs.

Just because the Supreme Court granted them a right to habius corpus does not mean they have Constitutional Rights. People in England have a right to Habius Corpus, but they are not Constitutional Rights. So you are saying the Supreme Court granted them some rights but not others? They’re either covered or they are not, there is no in-between when it comes to the Constitution.

You apparantly know so much more about the Constitution than I. To think of all that time and money I spent studying Constitutional Law, Civil and Criminal Proceedure and Human Rights…when I could have just read your posts. And to think, one of my classes was even taught by a Supreme Court Justice.

I have learned nothing. I bow to your wisdom and deep scholarly knowledge phj.

[Translation: I will no longer debate you. You speak sophisms.]

Comment by Briseadh na Faire — June 20, 2006 @ 4:22 am

Just because the Supreme Court granted them a right to habius corpus does not mean they have Constitutional Rights. People in England have a right to Habius Corpus, but they are not Constitutional Rights. So you are saying the Supreme Court granted them some rights but not others? They’re either covered or they are not, there is no in-between when it comes to the Constitution.

but a few posts earlier, before I put up the links you were saying, “That is complete and utter BS.”

No, you need to read a bit more carefully. I was responding to someone who said;

I just saw a story the other day that injured soldiers had their co-payment increased? Why are they having to pay for anything, at any time.

SOLDIERS pay nothing for their medical care, no co-payment, nothing. VETERANS do have a co-payment. But VETERANS whose medical care is based on wounds received while they were on active duty NEVER pay a dime for that care. And noone who is wounded and undergoing medical care pays a dime.

And, if you do your research properly, Bush only asked for about a 13% increase in VA funding, balancing the VA budget with increased fees to veterans. It was Congress who approved the additional funds, over and above Bush’s request.

I said the VA medical budget has increased 40% by Bush. He proposed the raise and he signed it into law and it happened under his administration. You are splitting hairs here.

Comment by nikolai — June 20, 2006 @ 1:29 am

I’ve got six Combat tours, so I have been in a war zone. Yes, it’s a scary, ugly, place. But my points are based on knowledge and experience.

Who’s playing with reality?

First you say the Constitution doesn’t apply to them. Then you say the Supreme Court ruling did not grant them all the rights of the Constitution.

but a few posts earlier, before I put up the links you were saying, “That is complete and utter BS.”

And, if you do your research properly, Bush only asked for about a 13% increase in VA funding, balancing the VA budget with increased fees to veterans. It was Congress who approved the additional funds, over and above Bush’s request.

Oh, and you have yet to support your international law claims.

Hence, you are damned by your own words.

To pjh
I can believe that people learn a lot about each other when they are deployed together. But where did you get the figure #3 out of 30 people?” There were more than three members of Kerry’s crew (or whatever you call it in the military) up there on the podium with him at the Democrat Convention in 2004. Afterwards, the widow of a deceased member also spoke in his defense, and another man who served on the same boat as Kerry, who had tried to maintain his neutrality as a journalist, rose to his defense, too, once the Swiftboating got too bad. To paraphrase your reply in #187 to nikolai: “shall we believe the right-wing groups out to smear Kerry, or someone who was actually there?”
Now whether or not the documents used by Dan Rather were a forgery, I don’t remember anybody from the Alabama National Guard rising to say they recall George Bush being around during a certain period when he claims he was. Some have even said they certainly would have remembered him if he had shown up regularly, since he was the son of an Ambassador and had dated Tricia Nixon.
Also, for the record, when George Bush was running against Ann Richards for governor of Texas, rumors were spread that Gov. Richards was a lesbian or had lesbians working for her. After George Bush lost to John McCain in Republican presidential primaries in New Hampshire and Michigan, suddenly rumors began surfacing prior to the South Carolina primary that McCain was mentally unbalanced because of the torture he had endured in the “Hanoi Hilton” and also that he had fathered a black child out of wedlock. (McCain and his wife in actuality had adopted a darkskinned child from Sri Lanka or Bangladesh.) Funny how vicious smearing takes place every time Bush runs for office (and in campaigns for other politicians that used Karl Rove’s services). If you want to think there is no connection, go ahead; that’s your privilege. But don’t expect everyone else to.

Not to mention that I experienced it, or rather, I didn’t experience it. Hmmm, shall we believe your left-wing blogs or someone who was actually there?

“Hmmm, Oh yeah, he’s a Bush supporter, so he isn’t credible. Hmm, he said he doesn’t like Bush or the War in Iraq, but he has a dissenting opinion and unlike us he actually experienced it, so lets just heap abuse on him.”

Uh, we got a campaign photo used by Kerry (The one I posted a reference to.). Out of like 30 people 3, 10%, support Kerry. You wouldn’t know about this, but you learn a lot about someone on a deployment, especially on a combat deployment. You can’t hide when you are interacting 24 hours a day with your fellow servicemen. A 10% approval rate is pretty damning. But then again, I didn’t bring it up, he did.

Actually I read it daily on the Sig Events postings on the pages of the units involved. Go ahead, prove your point, list all of the credible links to stories about massacres. Oh, make sure your boolean search includes ‘NOT INSURGENTS’, that will cut down your findings by about 95%. If you believe massacres by American Service Members occur daily, not only do you have no credible reporting that shows that, but you are severally impaired on your ability to search the news.

And before you tell me to post links, these are YOUR claims. Post your links to these massacres and I will club them aside like Babe Ruth. But you won’t do that. Instead I detect the next round of insults headed my way. I post link to credible sources of information, you guys post insults.

Comment by pjh

pjh,
The men who served on the same boat with Kerry as well as the widow of one of the deceased members have all come to his defense. One of them, originally a registered Republican, even says that Kerry saved his life. Sorry, but I tend to believe them more than people on another boat, where things, yes, may be visible on a peaceful clear day but not so much so when bullets are flying left and right and possibly the weather bad (I’m not necessarily saying it was.).
One of the Swiftboat Veterans “Truth” was among those who originally recommended Kerry for one of his medals. I’m sure you won’t agree with my opinion of why he changed his mind decades later, so I won’t mention it.

So what, you think it’s like one boat sailing in the middle of the ocean? They operate together. They were in the same unit. They slept in the same tents and ate in the same chowhalls. And they went on missions together. And look at his unit picture here.

Your first post and you give up? Guess you knew better than to wade in here and get stomped.

P.S. Oh, now I have no compassion for the two soldiers, huh? FUnny, I never said anything close to that but now you accuse me of that also.

Comment by Gilbert — June 19, 2006 @ 9:16 am

I’m sure they are praying for treatment like that. But it looks like a 100% certainty they will get their heads cut-off on camera.

How can you even FATHOM them being treated like we treat our prisoners as being scary?