Is the reason the President can't suspend habeas corpus at Gitmo because of the Supreme Court?

Question

Here you go buddies,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/habeas.html

Can we get an attorney general that obeys the Supreme Court?

And Lincoln was found wrong for disobeying after the civil war by the Supreme Court I could go look that up too if you'd like,

we are a nation of laws and precedents aren't we?

Answer 1

No it is because it is in the Constitution. The Supreme Court just rules on the Constitution forbids such a governmental law/act and hence it becomes invalid


"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it"


Now this may not apply to all people at Gitmo...but all citizens of the US have this right protected

Answer 2

Non US citizens do not have a right to Habeas Corpus. It's quite simple, the bill of rights says the writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be suspended for US citizens. It says nothing about application of the writ to non US citizens. What's ironic too, is that the supreme court has no jurisdiction to make this ruling. I'm not disagreeing with it, I think Habeas Corpus is a fine guideline when charging someone with a crime or an offense, and that it should always be applied, but the US has no obligation to apply this to non US citizens.

Answer 3

Only American Citizen are subject to the protection of the US Constitution...so the terrorist at GITMO are not included in that group, that is also why they are in Cuba and not in the US...why give a group of people rights they do not deserve and do not give to our soldiers and civilians when they capture them..they get three hots and a cot...a Koran and toilet paper so they do not have to use their hands anymore...did they do anything to Lincoln for suspending Habeaus Corpus or did the Federal Government compensate the people who fell into Lincoln's trap? I think not...and these were American Citizens, not a group of Non-Americans out to kill as many Americans as they could...under the Geneva Convention Illegal Combatants can been executed on site, so they should feel lucky to be at GITMO instead of dead...

Answer 4

Your question makes very little sense. First of all, the bush administration DID suspend Habeus Corpus to Gitmo detainees. The vast majority have no right to see a lawyer or challenge the legality of their imprisonment.

This is especially disturbing in the light of the fact that the vast majority (more than 80%) of Gitmo detainees were NOT captured on the battlefield!! They were mostly law abiding citizens whom the Citizens who had done NOTHING wrong, but the CIA suspected them of being somehow involved in terrorist activities.

I believe the Supreme Court is looking into the legality of the decision to suspend Habeus Corpus so you have it backwards.

You really need to have a concise, answerable question because right now it's impossible to follow your logic or even understand your question.

Answer 5

The Supreme Court itself is not a reason. The Court would have to make a ruling in the Constitutionality of such a thing. The ruling would be the reason

Answer 6

Is there really any precedence for POWs / detained combatants having habeas corpus rights? They aren't being held as criminals, but as combatants. Significant difference, for those who can grasp such apparent non-subtleties.

I've yet to see anybody from the left demonstrate or document any precedence for granting habeas corpus to detained enemy combatants.

Answer 7

It's because Gitmo, as a U.S. military base, is technically part of the United States, and our laws have to reach to any territories or military bases we hold in other nations.