Comments on: Detainees to get the “state-always-wins” system of “justice” http://warincontext.org/2009/11/15/detainees-to-get-the-state-always-wins-system-of-justice/ ... with attention to the unseen Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:49:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Dieter Heymann, Houston, USA http://warincontext.org/2009/11/15/detainees-to-get-the-state-always-wins-system-of-justice/comment-page-1/#comment-6537 Dieter Heymann, Houston, USA Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:51:18 +0000 http://warincontext.org/?p=2416#comment-6537 Please correct me if the following is wrong. It is my view that the Bill of Rights is largely a "Bill of No-No's" spelling out what our governments (Federal, State, and Local) cannot legally do to persons. It is moreover my opinion that the Bill of Rights does not define which persons are so protected. It certainly does not say "US citizens only". Lastly it is my opinion that the Bill of Rights does not define where the protection "reigns". It certainly does not say "Within the USA only". If these three opinions are correct, then any prisoner held by our Federal, State or Local governments has the unfettered right of habeas corpus, regardless of nationality and regardless of where in the world the prisoner is held captive. Yes, I know the caveat of "insurrection or invasion" none of which is operative in the case of the Guantanamo/Baghram prisoners. Hey, members of the NRA, if you argue that the Federal Government cannot abridge the right to own firearms for anyone living in the USA, then you must advocate that the Federal Government cannot also deny habeas corpus to anyone living in the USA. Please correct me if the following is wrong. It is my view that the Bill of Rights is largely a “Bill of No-No’s” spelling out what our governments (Federal, State, and Local) cannot legally do to persons. It is moreover my opinion that the Bill of Rights does not define which persons are so protected. It certainly does not say “US citizens only”. Lastly it is my opinion that the Bill of Rights does not define where the protection “reigns”. It certainly does not say “Within the USA only”. If these three opinions are correct, then any prisoner held by our Federal, State or Local governments has the unfettered right of habeas corpus, regardless of nationality and regardless of where in the world the prisoner is held captive.

Yes, I know the caveat of “insurrection or invasion” none of which is operative in the case of the Guantanamo/Baghram prisoners.

Hey, members of the NRA, if you argue that the Federal Government cannot abridge the right to own firearms for anyone living in the USA, then you must advocate that the Federal Government cannot also deny habeas corpus to anyone living in the USA.

]]>