What's happening with those poor devils at Camp Xray ???

And, Thomas, though I appreciate you answering, and can see why you arrive at most of your conclusions, I don't believe you would just throw up you hands if a released Padilla had killed people. You and everyone else would be saying how inept Bush and Homeland Security was--not to see that coming.

Padilla is the stuff scum makes fun of.

Thomas, I think your example might be a bit extreme.

Let's consider that you must be a US citizen to vote, collect social security benefits, go on welfare, collect medicare, etc...

In cases dating back almost a century, the Supreme Court has found that constitutional guarantees, including the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment due process protections, apply equally to any person living within our borders. While non-citizens do not have the "right" to enter the United States, once in the country they are protected from arbitrary government action and have a right to seek judicial review of government actions taken against them.
Although non-citizens do not have those rights reserved for the citizenry - for example, the right to vote - the Supreme Court has found that non-citizens still have fundamental human rights that cannot be violated.

I highlighted the important parts. Why do you think they are in Cuba instead of Ft. Levenworth?

dyslexia wrote:

In cases dating back almost a century, the Supreme Court has found that constitutional guarantees, including the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment due process protections, apply equally to any person living within our borders. While non-citizens do not have the "right" to enter the United States, once in the country they are protected from arbitrary government action and have a right to seek judicial review of government actions taken against them.
Although non-citizens do not have those rights reserved for the citizenry - for example, the right to vote - the Supreme Court has found that non-citizens still have fundamental human rights that cannot be violated.

I highlighted the important parts. Why do you think they are in Cuba instead of Ft. Levenworth?

Court: U.S. citizen isn't 'enemy combatant'
Appeals court's ruling could shift Jose Padilla's case to civilian courts

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3748660/
MSNBC staff and wire reports

NEW YORK - President Bush does not have power to detain an American citizen seized on U.S. soil as an enemy combatant, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday in a decision that could force a man held in a "dirty bomb" plot to be tried in civilian courts.

For whatwever it is worth, the terms of our treaty with Cuba on Guantanamo do not provide for Cuban jurisdiction there. Gitmo is an overseas military base whose legal status is somewhat like a military vessel at sea. Military law applies there. That military law does comply with the U.S. Constitution.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

So you really think, these "says" are reason enough to keep an American citizen without regarding your constitution?
And should this apply ro anyone, when 'government' says, she/he wanted to blow up a gas station, has plans to murder etc?

Hell yes, if they're true.

...the United States...has failed to afford them any means to...object to the failure to recognize them as prisoners of war...

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having
committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of
the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article
4 [defining POWs], such persons shall enjoy the protection of
the present Convention until such time as their status has been
determined by a competent tribunal.

This clearly puts my point of view in the wrong, and unless there is some other portion of Geneva which amends or amplifies this paragraph--sets some conditions or muddies this very clear stance--I have to change my opinion and state that it looks like the detainees should be treated as POWs and afforded all Geneva protections until such time as a competant tribunal has ruled that they are not POWs under Geneva.

Scrat wrote:

This clearly puts my point of view in the wrong, and unless there is some other portion of Geneva which amends or amplifies this paragraph--sets some conditions or muddies this very clear stance--I have to change my opinion and state that it looks like the detainees should be treated as POWs and afforded all Geneva protections until such time as a competant tribunal has ruled that they are not POWs under Geneva.

Scrat, I hate to admit this -- but I'm impressed!

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having
committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of
the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article
4 [defining POWs], such persons shall enjoy the protection of
the present Convention until such time as their status has been
determined by a competent tribunal.

I have to change my opinion and state that it looks like the detainees should be treated as POWs and afforded all Geneva protections until such time as a competant tribunal has ruled that they are not POWs under Geneva.

georgeob1 wrote:

For whatwever it is worth, the terms of our treaty with Cuba on Guantanamo do not provide for Cuban jurisdiction there. Gitmo is an overseas military base whose legal status is somewhat like a military vessel at sea. Military law applies there. That military law does comply with the U.S. Constitution.

Let me follow up on this: Hypothetically, if I'm on a US battleship and George Bush feels like detaining me there forever, would you say that both of the following is true: 1) US military law provides no way out for me and 2) it is constitutional for US military law not to provide any way out for me? That would surprise me a lot, but it seems to be what you're implying.

A frequent issue was from members of the press who would sometimes inconveniently demand that we provide them communications facilities or permit them to use their own long disatance devices. The final ajudication was always at our sole discretion.