And I respectfully request that you stop replying to any of my posts in the future.  Seems a fair trade.

Thanks.  Much appreciated.

Scott, I think it is a fair question. You have been asked by quite a few people how you know that the inmates are terrorists, although they have not had a trial. You have not answered yet.

I already did.  I said if they were trying to kill our troops (the majority of the prisoners were captured while attacking us) that's proof.  I also said if any of them were taken based on heresay, not in combat, then they should have the right to legal representation.  I was pretty clear.

Declined.

Next?

Not a problem.  When I don't reply to your questions in the future it's because you are on ignore.  Problem solved.

If Cuba were to stand up and say I would like your Military base removed from our land would you be okay with that?

Yes I would.  I really don't see the need for a base in Cuba now.  The cold war is over.

I agree.  Citizen or not, in this country.

To be clear-- arguably based on the courts rulings in 2004 and yesterday the protections apply where we have soverignty or jurisdiction, such as territories, embassies or bases.  In Rasul v. Bush,  the Supreme Court found that the degree of control exercised by the United States over GITMO sufficiently triggered the application of habeas corpus rights.  Because the United States exercised "complete jurisdiction and control" over the base, the fact that ultimate sovereignty remained with Cuba was irrelevant. Further, the majority found that the right to habeas corpus is not dependent on citizenship status.

It was this holding that lead to the laws at issue and rejected by the Court in the Boumediene v. Bush case.

If Cuba were to say they wanted all of the prisoners released I'd say release them.

For the reasons articulated in my last post, specifically issues surrounding jurisdiction, I think if Cuba were to do that we would be within our rights to tell Cuba to go pound sand.

What I find most revealing is the recurring theme, again everywhere, that the people who are most stridently defending what's happening at Gitmo are those who don't want questions about it asked.

I don't think thats entirely the case, Al.  I haven't read Boumediene v. Bush yet so I can't speak to the minority's opinion, but I think the question of what steps the government can take in the name of protecting the citizenry is a fair one.  I can understand the reasons why some suspensions of civil liberties for non-citzen combatants could be constitutional.  I think the question of how far these suspensions go (including how long) and whether there are adequate remedies at law to provide some relief from unlawful governmental conduct are fair constitutional questions.  Its why earlier I articulated my "philosphical" view.  If I had to frame a "legal" view I like to think it would conform with my "philosophical" view but I am not 100% sure it would.  I think from a legal standpoint if I were a judge it would be more important that my legal view be consistant with the constitution and relevant good precendent, rather than what I want it to be. 

Really its my long winded way of saying I can see how the Court could be split 5-4 on these issues.