Thread: What does the constitution say?

In article 1, section 8, the constitution says that Congress has the power to "make rules concerning captures on land and water." Does this give Congress the power to decide what we do with terrorists that are captured on the battlefield? Or does "captures" only refer to property?



If this is not where the federal government gets the power to detain terrorists, where does the constitution grant them the power to detain terrorists (captured in Afghanistan or anywhere outside of the country)?

[quote name='Vortex' date='22 September 2009 - 11:24 AM' timestamp='1253643848' post='25109']

Our treatment of POWs, which includes "terrorist captured on the battlefield" is governed by the provision you reference and by the treaties we entered into, as authorized by the constitution and as approved by the legislature.

[/quote]

POW is a status gained by very specific actions of the detained person. The "terrorists" are combatants who are not eligible for POW status (3rd convention). and are not civilians protected by the 4th convention. And clearly they are not US citizens and not in the US and not protected by the constitution.

[quote name='ArizonaIrish' date='22 September 2009 - 01:29 PM' timestamp='1253644141' post='25112']

POW is a status gained by very specific actions of the detained person. The "terrorists" are combatants who are not eligible for POW status (3rd convention). and are not civilians protected by the 4th convention. And clearly they are not US citizens and not in the US and not protected by the constitution.

[/quote]

I agree... So where does the constitution discuss what we do with terrorists? There are three clauses in article 1, section 8 that do seem very relevant; I'm just trying to make sure I am using them in context.



To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;



To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;



To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut....html#section8



Do the clauses in bold give Congress the power to decide what is done with captured terrorists?

[quote name='Conservative15' date='22 September 2009 - 01:32 PM' timestamp='1253644369' post='25113']

Do the clauses in bold give Congress the power to decide what is done with captured terrorists?

[/quote]



It looks like between all the laws or treaties mentioned our congress has the power to figure out what to do with terrorists.

[quote name='Conservative15' date='22 September 2009 - 11:32 AM' timestamp='1253644369' post='25113']

I agree... So where does the constitution discuss what we do with terrorists? [/quote]

We shot them.

[quote name='Vortex' date='22 September 2009 - 11:41 AM' timestamp='1253644907' post='25119']

Not true. Go check out what SCOTUS has had to say about the flawed Bush arguments you are repeating. You might want to read Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U. S. 557 and Rasul v. Bush, 542 U. S. 466 and Boumediene v. Bush as starters.



Additionally, SCOTUS has long held that foreigners in the USA or held on the land/soil/properties controlled by the USA (like military bases, embassies, etc) are "persons" for purposes of the constitution and are entitled to the protections of our Constitution.



Do you think a foreign tourist arrested in some US city because he/she allegedly violated the law can be beaten into giving a confession or can be illegally detained and mistreated simply because he/she is a foreigner?

[/quote]

The Supreme Court ruling in hamadan is very narrow, falwed, but narrow. Nothing in the deicision prevents the military from simply shooting these people. Precedent prevails, during WWII in cases where the army capture germans fighting out of uniform, they were summarily shot. There is a difference between a foreign person in the US legally, one in the US illegaly (no habeus corpus, for example) and one detained outside the US. Hamdan was a decison about corts trying such people. Shooting requires no court.

[quote name='Vortex' date='22 September 2009 - 01:57 PM' timestamp='1253645862' post='25126']

See post #6.



Read the cases, become informed and maybe then you will understand that the Bush admin position was illegal, against the constitution you deem to hold so dear.

[/quote]

I don't see where these cases cite the exact text of the constitution. I disagree with the courts decision that terrorists are covered by the Geneva Convention. I simply think they are wrong on that.