Oh wait you said Boobies, not Boob

Scott will certainly [correct me] if I'm mistaken, but a fair reading of his post would suggest that he was taken aback by the notion of recognizing a right to pursue the writ afforded to enemy combatants held on foreign soil. 

I disagree with you here.  I think he language is pretty clear. Scott wrote:

"Ugh.  Hate this decision.  The Constitution only applies to US citizens.  Not saying Guantamo is the correct way to do things or right, just saying that the Constitution is the wrong argument."

If Scott meant what you wrote then fine, but based on what is written I don't see how you could come to that conclusion.  I would also argue that his subsequent response to my philosophical musings underscore this reading.  Note he makes no distinction vis a vis combatants:

"Here I definitely disagree.  It's nice in theory, but that would mean we should open our borders to anyone and everyone without restriction and when they were here give them all the rights of any US citizen.  That's something I could never agree with."

Again, if he agrees with the majority I can understand that.  But the position that consititutional rights are only held by citizens is just legally inaccurate.

Geoff, dig.  And all the best with your daughters...

Thanks.  Thanks for catching me too and allowing me to clarify.

Not a legal thought so much as philosophical one -- if we believe in the freedoms guaranteed by our constitution are in place because all people are created equaly we extend those rights to non-citizens and our enemies.  Equality under the law should not be restricted to citizenship or political ideology.  Like your mothers said -- do unto others and all that muck. 

Agree completely

It's the stuff... down there... that I find icky...

LOL Tom you just like Boobs because they kind of look like overblown pecs.

But the Eisentrager decision rested on German soldiers being caught in China, tried in China and imprisoned in Germany. The point being that at no time were they in territory over which the US was sovereign. The same does not apply to Guantanamo, which is a US base and technically US territory.

US military bases are always under federal jurisdiction, no matter what country they're in. This is the rationale, after all behind the union keeping federal bases in the south after the secession and the reason why the attack on  Fort Sumter is considered a Confederate attack on Union soil rather than a confederate attempt to liberate their own military base from occupation by a foreign power (just to demonstrate how long this has been the case.)  

Besides the "nature" of the detainees as enemy combatants is part of what the government has in many cases failed to establish. If the government refuses to produce arguments in each instance that these men are rightfully and reasonably suspected of acts of war against the US, we must presume it's because they can't.

And even as enemy combatants they were denied rights under the Geneva convention (whether the Taliban signed it is irrelevant, The US signed it and are honor-bound by it.)

Either way, the claim that there was any legal justification for limiting their rights like that was bogus. But as long as other politicians and the big media were too chicken to call them on it, they got away with it.

The VP should have the same qualifications as the President.

And then one thinks of Dan Quayle...  wasn't he selected to bring in the youthful women vote for George the First?

Either way, the claim that there was any legal justification for limiting their rights like that was bogus. But as long as other politicians and the big media were too chicken to call them on it, they got away with it.

And that is the democrats biggest sin. I wrote Pelosi and took her* to task for it.

Edited to change, He to her