Cruel and Unusual Punishment Guantanamo Bay?

Question

In the 8th Amendment, Cruel and Unusual punishment is prohibited. The constitution also grants due process to all under its jurisdiction as well as habeas corpus. How then is Guantanamo Bay legal? I understand President Bush signed some referendum but how exactly does the president have the power to waive both the Constitution and the Geneva Convention when it comes to Guantanamo? Plz dont answer if you don't know what I'm talking about.

Answer 1

Because none of those held at Guantanamo were ever on the soil of the United States or its territories. So, the Constitution doesn't apply to them. The Constitutional protections of habeus corpus and avoidance of cruel and unusual punishment only applies to those in the United States and its territories. So, the President didn't "waive" anything.
Those held at Guantanamo are illegal combatants within the definition contained in the Laws of Land Warfare (Geneva Conventions). They wore no distinctive uniforms, they had no discernable military chain of command and they did not brandish their weapons openly. Under the provisions of the Laws of Land Warfare they could have been executed shortly after capture. So, the President didn't "waive" anything except summary execution of every one of them.
They are being held at an activity under U.S. control. Guantanamo Bay is under a leasing agreement which extends in perpetuity. The fact that the Castro regime has never cashed any of the lease payment checks does not abrogate that agreement.

Answer 2

They will rationalize. I do not think many of them realize the implications. Amongst them they can no longer have the moral high ground when US forces captured by an enemy are tortured. That is their sons and their daughters. I notice that many answerers are bored by the question, They should remember that what goes round comes round. oerhaps they should wake up. information extracted bytorture has often proved misleading. any informationed gained now or when they first reached Guantanomo Bay will be useless exceept perhaps as a background perhaps. And if intelligence services were up to the mark that information will have ben available a long time. I was qquite amused by the comment about the Telegraph. I was told when on a course recently that it was a right wing tory rag. Ho! Ho! what different perceptions. it is sad that so many Americans ccite anyone who differs from them a as Left Wing Bleading Heart Liberal.

Answer 3

if our leaders want the support of the American people they shouldn't do things that are UN American

the patriot act amended some of it and the fact they are not on American soil, even though Guantanamo is technically American soil is another way they get around it

they are also called enemy combatants not prisoners or soldiers so they are not covered under the Geneva convention

Answer 4

The Geneva Convention protects people in the militaries & employ of countries, not non-military terrorists that act without government directives. For example, if a U.S. soldier were to be captured, he'd be protected. But, if an American set off a bomb in another country, separate from the government, then he or she would not have all of the same protections.

Answer 5

You must have missed the Military Commissions Act of 2006. One of its gems: "No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination."

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.txt.pdf

Answer 6

"cruel and unusual"?

Are you freaking kidding me?

They live in better conditions than I do most of the time. Three hot meals a day, free time out the ahss, tropical climate, hanging out with your buddies.....give me a break. If they were back home they'd be jonesing for all the nice things they left behind.

I guess they might be upset about not being able to blow themselves up and/or kill people....but things are rough all over.

In wars of the past most of these people would have been shot out of hand. Irregular combatants have a very short life expectancy when they oppose regular troops. None of the rules of war apply to bandits and terrorists.

Yeah, it sucks to be them...but things are rough all over.

Answer 7

That is why there are no alleged American terrorists like John Walker Lind in there because it went against the Constitution.
Its just a pity the allies citizens from UK and Australia weren't given the same concision.

Answer 8

Considering the fact that the internees at Gitmo belong to groups that routinely tortures and beheads their captives, I don't give a rat's *** how they are treated.

In fact, I am incensed that they are being given three meals a day, and a warm dry place to sleep rather than being dead.

No Prisoners in the motto we should adopt. Otherwise let's quit putzing around and bring our people home.

Doc

Answer 9

As far as the Geneve convention, The prisinors are not part of a national army so that is void. As far as the constitution it applies to American citizens. Hope this helps.

Answer 10

As you should already well know, the inmates at Guantanamo are ENEMY COMBATANTS and not U.S. citizens. Would you have had us give habeus corpus to the S.S. during World War II? Enough of this nonsense!