Is Bush violating the 5th Amendment by holding people at Guantanamo Bay?

Question

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Answer 1

Wow, I am amazed at the astounding ignorance of the people that say that the Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens. Not one of them can show where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that it states it pertains to only Americans.

Yes, Bush has violated the Fifth Amendment. Those that were held there for 2-3 years and then finally let go were held in violation of the 5th Amendment.

Answer 2

The principal behind what makes Guantanamo "legal" is that it firstly is not a "civil" prison, and secondly, does not hold US citizens.

While many ponder over this, and it has yet to fully be reviewed by the supreme court, one must wonder whether or not our constitution applies to "all people" or merely US citizens. There are dangers in making either assumption, in terms of precendents, and so we choose to not make this decision.

The second point arises in that the prison is a "military" one, which falls under the provision of "land and naval forces, when in actual service in time of War or public danger".......Thus, the prison is technically excluded from this amendment on these grounds alone, depending on your interpretation of this amendment.

So, the answer to your question is, I don't truly know. There are valid points to saying yes and no.

The better question, I suppose, is whether or not the treatment of these persons is moral and humane??

In some ways, I think that torturing the information out of them would be less cruel, from a certain perspective.

Namaste,

--Tom

Answer 3

Well since no one has ever seen anyone tortured at guantanamo bay. Not the europeans, not the red cross, not the red cresent. Just how would it violate article 5 ???

Answer 4

About half of the "terrorists" at Guantanamo have been released with NO CHARGES brought against them and subsequently CLEARED OF ALL CHARGES in their home countries. Of the 400 or so left only 10 have even been set for trial. Only 60-80 of them will even face "trial". Most will be released to their home countries without charge because.... they never were terrorists.

What a joke. Definitely Bush League.

Answer 5

Yes. And other Constitutional provisions as well.

The people who say the 5th Amendment does not apply to non-citizens are wrong. 1) The text clearly says "no person" shall be held -- in other places the Constitution speaks of "citizens" or "natural-born citizens" when it does not mean to refer to all "persons"; 2) the Supreme Court has held that in fact, this Fifth Amendment means what it sayd when it says no "person."

And in fact, the current very-conservative Supreme Court has said that the Fifth Amendment applies to prisoners in Guantanamo, that habeas corpus rights are not dependent on citizenship, and that the prisoners in Guantanamo have the due process right to some kind of contested hearing about their status. The Court did not spell out what kind of hearing was required, and after fighting it for years, the Bush administration has given some of the prisoners very very limited reviews before a military panel (and released a bunch of others because there was absolutely no evidence they had done anything wrong). The prisoners who get a hearing have no right to know what evidence is presented against them, nor do their lawyers, which cannot meet any definition of a basic contested review.

Military prisoners do not necessarily get the rights of due process, habeas and other Constitutional protections -- but in that case they get the protections of the Geneva Convention and other treaties, and they are released eventually.

Answer 6

Ahem, Politically Incorrect. Indeed non-U.S. citizens are entitled to most of the rights granted to U.S. citizens when the alien is on U.S. soil. Try finding "Enemy Comabatant" defined anywhere, even by the Bush Administration.

"Bush isn't holding them, the military is." And who is the Commander in Chief of ALL U.S. military forces??? It's rather sad to see how people assume that the questioner is a liberal just because he/she asks a question about the U.S. Constitution and certain applications. It's a trade mark of this adminstration and its lackeys to shout "liberal" or "terrorist-lover" whenever someone questions a government policy.

A REAL Patriot DOES ask questions of his government. That's how the U.S. got here.

Edit: "They are not uniformed soldiers belonging to a particular country, They are simply a collection of rag tag thugs." They do not have to wear a uniform to be considered solidiers under the Geneva Convention, and the Taliban was the form of Government in Afghanistan. Bush I was speaking with several of them, as representatives of the government of Afghanistan, about a year before 9/11. Or as someone asked "Have you forgotten about 9/11?"

Answer 7

They are not citizens and so they do not fall under the protection of the constitution.

Now, if that is the case, why we still have to give illegal Mexicans rights under the constitution is beyond me. Oh yea... I know why... because the friends of certain political powers either make money or get votes by letting them in.
In American law, once you set a precedent, you can use it for other suits, isn't that right??

And not all the people at Guantanamo are terrorists. They still have to be proven guilty and many have been released as they have found to be innocent. They may just share a name with someone. I guess Fox News didn't tell you about them though, eh guys? People who just spew a party line, regardless of which party it's for, are intellectually dead to me.

And for the guy that said the military is holding them and not Bush. Guess what genius? Bush is the head officer of ALL the U.S. Armed Forces. So guess what? BUSH is holding them if the military is! And that is a fact which has nothing to do with political leanings!

Edited to add: Anyone who blindly accepts what our politicians do without question is not an American!!! America was founded on the principle of questioning your govt's actions, not just bowing down like sheep!! If Washington, etc had done what you supposed "Americans" do, there would be no U.S.A!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 8

When will it finally penetrate the solid bone? Neither the 5th amendment nor the Geneva Convention apply to the prisoners in Guantanamo. They are not American citizens or even prisoners of war as defined in the Geneva Convention. They are not uniformed soldiers belonging to a particular country, They are simply a collection of rag tag thugs who because of religious intolerance or simply for the hell of it have and would again kill men women and children to advance some cause that even they could not describe.

Answer 9

Yes

Answer 10

Our constitution is null and void to foreigners, so no.
Although, I believe that there is something concerning this type of things in the Geneva Council laws. Go look those up.