What is going on with the supreme court? Drilling off Florida? Army=police? What is going on?

Question

Yes its true! we cannot drill 50-200 miles off of the coast of Florida. there are BILLIONS of gallons of petroleum there! do not listen to Nancy Pelosi and her lies! drilling would lower prices!

Habeas Corpus: one of the founding principles of the United states and its citezens. it refered to only citezens. giving them the right to trial and bail. it refered to only citezens of the United States and those in the United States and non-active-duty millitary, until saturday, when it was stretched out to include those who arent citiezens or living in the united states and active-duty military personel. if this doesnt translate to well, let me sum it all up for you, our millitary is no longer a millitary but a police force. they are now forced to gather evidence and arrest people rather than kill those causing harm whom they are fighting immediatly and give them a trial. this is going to call for a retraining of the millitary.

what is wrong with the supreme court recently!?

Answer 1

We can't drill our way out of the energy crisis. Drilling will only cause prices to go down about a nickel over the next decade at the best. It's not going to have huge longterm effects except on the environment. Even if the US drilled all over the country we'd only have 2-3% of the needed national supply. We can't depend on oil. We have to find alternative sources of energy.

Answer 2

The trouble with the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, though I do agree that Habeas Corpus does not apply to them, is that they are classified as prisoners of war. The war is over. Both Afghanistan and Iraq have have had their governments replaced. This means that the war, in the traditional definition of the word, is over. Keeping POWs after a war is over violates the Geneva convention. It is undeniably a bad thing to be doing that. The only reason the United States could detain them without a trial at all was because it was during a war and they were classified as POWs.

Ordinarily the United States cannot detain prisoners without a trial, regardless of whether they're citizens or not.

The problem comes in because these people are guilty of crimes. They are not simply members of a foreign army. Many of them they are terrorists and should, in all fairness, be convicted and sentenced. That's why we were keeping them. That's why many conservatives are upset: because even though the war is over, these people are viewed as a threat.

There are no procedures for detaining foreigners outside of a time of war. In all fairness, they should be given the right to a civil trial, as much as I regret that. But that's a problem with our policies. We should have revised them before this became a problem.

Bush is a fool. Not only did he fail to see this problem in our policies, but  he should have tried and convicted these people years ago. We would never have had this problem. Why wait this whole time?

Though I think this court decision was immensely harmful, it was the correct decision. Historically, Habeas Corpus has been extended to foreign criminals, it's the Court's duty to interpret the constitution. The problem is that neither the constitution nor historical precedent, nor international law dictates the appropriate action for for people being detained under these circumstances. That's a failure of the Bush administration, not the Supreme Court. They are simply working with what they have been given.

Answer 3

Where did you get the idea that habeas corpus doesn't apply to non-citizens?

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."

I don't see anything about citizenship or alienage there, do you?

Answer 4

They are liberal idealists.

Answer 5

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the supreme court works and what it's duty is. It's position is not to fix what you think are problems, but to interpret the law as accurately as possible in the instances brought to them. People have to bring cases to the court, they don't and cannot look for them.

Also habeus corpus is not an American invention, it has been in effect since the magna carta was signed in the 12th century or so, it's a fundamental part of western government, and as seen as a civil right to anyone, not just citizens. The reaffirmation by the court more importantly means that the government cannot continue ignoring that right, with citizens or not.

Answer 6

If you bothered to read the opinions in Boumediene v. Bush handed down last week, you'd know that even the dissenters concede that Habeas relief has historically been afforded to non-citizens. Habeas Corpus is not for citizens exclusively.

Answer 7

YES!!!!! The democrats say "well McCain is just trying to get money in the pockets of the big oil companies." well as big a lie as that is, he is trying to get money in someones pockets, OURS!!!! global warming is natural and we can not switch to green tomorrow. McCain is right, this is a great solutions as we continue to expand the technology of a few years from now. Obama refuses to except the theory of offshore drilling and wants solar and wind. He is supposed to be for the people, but when he refuses to help us save money by rejecting this theory, how can you say that? Well maybe instead of saying McCain wants money for oil companies we can say Obama wants money for the communist Chinese solar companies!

People think Bush is bad when it is really not his fault! It is the democrats fault. Bush and Cheney are the lone Republicans in the Government if you think about it. Congress is democrat and THE SUPREME COURT CONTINUES TO LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH!