Your Quote: "I don't agree Gaytor that non-U.S. citizens should receive the same rights as U.S. citizens - particularly unlawful enemy combatants caught on the battlefield without representation of an official military or sovereign nation. That's why we have military tribunals."
The Majority Opinion: "The detainees in these cases are entitled to a prompt habeas corpus hearing.. . . . Within the Constitution's separation-of-powers structure, few exercises of judicial power are as legitimate or as necessary as the responsibility to hear challenges to the authority of the executive to imprison a person."
The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less because they are aliens and subjects of the emperor of China. . . . The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: "Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.
The rights afforded by the Constitution apply to all, in our custody, regardless of territory unless we are at War in which case military tribunals are possible, but the prisoners cannot legally be held for ten years without charge. This is a matter of settled law since 1886. It's, we don't deny any "person" rights. Citizenship is not relevant.
American law is thus supreme to any law in the world. Not that the US is imperialistic or anything, their laws are just so much better than ours that we should be thankful.
Just noting clause
(Don't touch the coat!)
Which say your laws
Do not apply
(Don't touch the coat!)
When we drop by —
Not getting shot,
No matter what:
A minor scrape,
A major rape,
And we escape
(Don't touch the cape!)
That's what is extraterritoriality.
"These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction,"
1. Guantanamo is not within the US territorial jurisdiction. At least not legally as it is considered occupied territory by the de juro owner. Thus extraterritorial.
2. The historical alternative to detention is shooting the detainees.
3. We are at war, it's a military camp, thus civilian law should not apply.
One further question: Does the term "any state" also include the federal government?
Didn't you read what I posted from the very article you posted regarding the opinion of the majority justices in which they ruled that unlawful enemy combatants are not guaranteed the same rights as U.S. citizens as of this ruling? Again:
The justices said the detainees are entitled to legal representation and a chance to rebut the evidence against them. But the court stopped short of deciding whether terrorism suspects can be held for as long as the government believes is necessary.
"It bears repeating that our opinion does not address the content of the law that governs [their] detention," Kennedy said. "That is a matter yet to be determined."
I was not aware that the supreme court of the USA had a say over occupied Cuban territory or anywhere else outside the US border. I though detainees on Cuba were under military law.
Now you are aware.
We are not talking about torture - with detention without trial. We can all agree torture is in principle wrong.
As in the Supreme Court case - to detention centers outside of the country - such as a 3rd party nation.