Appeals court rules Gitmo detainees are not 'persons'

[kpete]

Source: Raw Story

Appeals court rules Gitmo detainees are not 'persons'
RAW STORY
Published: Friday April 24, 2009


A Court of Appeals for the Washington, D.C. Circuit ruled Friday that detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are not "persons" according to it's interpretation of a statute involving religious freedom.

The ruling sprang from an appeal of Rasul v. Rumsfeld, which was thrown out in Jan. 2008. "The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the constitutional and international law claims, and reversed the district court's decision that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) applied to Guantanamo detainees, dismissing those claims as well," the Center for Constitutional Rights said.

After the Supreme Court recognized, over objections from the Bush administration, that terror war prisoners have the right to habeas corpus petitions, it also directed the D.C. court of appeals to reexamine the case.

The suit, Rasul v. Rumsfeld, charges numerous Bush administration officials with "violations of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)," CCR said.


Read more: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Appeals_court_rules_Gitmo_detainees_are_0424.html

[tomm2thumbs]

1. this is going to get some airplay this weekend

I suppose the religious right will fight for these people to be declared 'persons' as they have in other instances

[No Elephants]

2. If the statute defines "person," you go by the definition in the statute. If the

statute does not define person, you go by the "plain meaning" of words.

If you looked at Rasul and were asked if he were a person (and were told this was NOT a trick question), what would your answer be?

From the link in the OP:

"The suit, Rasul v. Rumsfeld, charges numerous Bush administration officials with "violations of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)," CCR said.

"In its first filing on detention and torture under the Obama administration, the Department of Justice filed briefs in March urging the Court of Appeals to reject any constitutional or statutory rights for detainees," says a release. "The Obama Justice Department further argued that even if such rights were recognized, the Court should rule that the previous administration’s officials who ordered and approved torture and abuse of the plaintiffs should be immune from liability for their actions."

" Court reaffirmed its decision from last year that detainees are not 'persons' for the purposes of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was enacted in 1993 to protect against government actions that unreasonably interfere with religious practices," the release continued. "Last year, Judge Janice Rogers Brown, a member of the Court of Appeals panel who issued the decision today, referred to the Court’s holding that detainees are not 'persons' as 'a most regrettable holding in a case where plaintiffs have alleged high-level U.S. government officials treated them as less than human.'"

[The Stranger]

23. But if the statute's definition of "person" conflicts with rights held under the Constitution,

enforcement of the statute may be enjoined.

[No Elephants]

44. Don't know if it would work that way, as a practical matter. Without either the statute or the

court opinion, discussion of the specifics is attenuated, at best. I was giving a general rule of statutory construction and my assumption was that the statute in question had no definition of "person" at all.

On edit: My assumption was correct. The statute does not define "person." http://www.welcomehome.org/rainbow/nfs-regs/rfra-act.html Therefore, the court should have used the "plain meaning" of the word "person" when construing the statute. And, this should be true, even if the court decided that the First Amendment did not apply to Gitmo detainees.

[Joanne98]

3. But corporations are. What a sick world.

[Pacifist Patriot]

9. My thoughts exactly.

[Wizard777]

4. I mean dayum! Just Damn.

:crazy: :silly: :wtf: :wow:

[sreid01]

17. Not persons...

I don't get that. Not a person? Do they breathe, get hungry, talk, think? What is this not a person?
Government Grants For First Time Home Buyers

[Downwinder]

5. We can prosecute foreigners who abuse Americans,

but we can't prosecute Americans who abuse foreigners.

Anybody have a gom jabbar, find out who is human?

[JDPriestly]

6. So, if they aren't "humans," what are they?

This is very post-1984.

A human being, also human or man is a member of a species of bipedal primates in the family Hominidae (taxonomically Homo sapiens—Latin: "wise human" or "knowing human").<2><3> DNA evidence indicates that modern humans originated in east Africa about 200,000 years ago. Humans have a highly developed brain, capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection and problem solving. This mental capability, combined with an erect body carriage that frees the forelimbs (arms) for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make far greater use of tools than any other species. Humans are distributed worldwide, with large populations inhabiting every continent on Earth as well as low Earth orbit, except Antarctica. The human population on Earth is greater than 6.7 billion, as of February 2009.<4> There is only one extant subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens. As of the present time, humans are a dominant form of biological life, in terms of their distribution and effect on the biosphere.

Like most higher primates, humans are social by nature. Humans are particularly adept at utilizing systems of communication—primarily spoken, gestural, and written language—for self-expression, the exchange of ideas, and organization. Humans create complex social structures composed of many cooperating and competing groups, from families to nations. Social interactions between humans have established an extremely wide variety of traditions, rituals, ethics, values, social norms, and laws, which together form the basis of human society. Human culture shows a marked appreciation for beauty and aesthetics, which, combined with the desire for self-expression and proportionally a very large brain-size, has led to innovations such as art, writing, literature and music.

Homo sapiens, as a species, is notable for the desire of some of its individual members to understand and influence the environment around them, seeking to explain and manipulate natural phenomena through philosophy, art, science, mythology and RELIGION (caps added). This natural curiosity has led to the development of advanced tools and skills. Humans are the only species known to build fires, cook their food, and clothe themselves; as well as utilize numerous other technologies. Humans pass down their skills and knowledge to the next generations and so are regarded as dependent upon culture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

RFRA Title 42, Section 2000bb(a)

The Congress finds that—
(1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution;
(2) laws “neutral” toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise;
(3) governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification;
(4) in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion; and
(5) the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests.

Section 2000bb-1

(a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a PERSON’s (caps added) exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a PERSON’s (caps added) exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(c) Judicial relief

2000bb-2

(1) the term “government” includes a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, and official (or other person acting under color of law) of the United States, or of a covered entity;
(2) the term “covered entity” means the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory and possession of the United States;
(3) the term “demonstrates” means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion; and
(4) the term “exercise of religion” means religious exercise, as defined in section 2000cc–5 of this title.

[Dappleganger]

7. Pawns.

[Usrename]

40. A non-human sub species, I would imagine.

Isn't that what Palestinians are to Israel? I think that's the precedent we are trying to follow.

[Joe Chi Minh]

8. That was the point of crucifying Christ naked on the cross, like a piece of

dead carrion, outside the city walls. That was worse than the physical agony of his crucifixion, atrocious as that was.

It was precisely the social aspect implicit in true personhood (not the evil corporate abomination), of a person taken, innocent as many were known to be (even by the standards of an occupying, imperial army) from a family and a society, deeply humiliated, degraded and crushed in full view of others, as detritus beneath contempt. Evil swaggering triumphantly over good, glorying in their cruelty, rendering all that is meaningful in humankind null and void.

When God is lost sight of, man soon follows. Didn't they rape children of both sexes? I don't think even the Nazis plumbed the Abyss to that extent. What more needs to be said? Except, perhaps, that their time will come.

[midnight]

19. I'm counting on their time coming when they will have to

account for rationalizing their own criminality.

[Divine Discontent]

21. so true, so true... thank you for such an eloquent post......... REC eom

[Seldona]

27. God has nothing to do with if you are a child rapist of not.

If anyone needs religion to tell them that is not okay, they need professional help. In fact if you really want to bring this up, BOTH Bush and Hitler were christians. Doesn't seem like god passed on any special morality there. Or even so called 'normal' morality for that matter.

[Joe Chi Minh]

37. A very brief post, and you still can't get it right. Hitler was baptised a Catholic,

and having a very canny understanding of worldly power and the means to gain it, courted the Christian churches in the early days of his regime. However, as soon as he felt strong enough to turn against the churches, insofar as they failed to "bow the knee" to him and his propaganda, i.e were churches in more than name, he did so, and with a vengeance. Stalin was baptised a Christian and had wanted to be a priest, though he was politely rejected. So what? Get your facts right.

You say Bush is Christian. Can you adduce evidence for this, or are you again talking about a formal claim, without reference to personal actions? If you have I should be interested to read it, and weigh it against seemingly conflicting evidence, even by the normal standards of our all too defectible, human nature.

Unlike atheists, we Christians believe we are a church of sinners. Grow up. And learn.

[Iowa]

39. I'll give you some friendly advice...

I'll give you the same friendly advice I give to friends and family: If you want to keep your faith, don't examine it too closely. Go to church regularly, read religious books, and listen to your clergy. Don't consider other viewpoints, don't examine alternatives, and whatever you do, don't think outside the box. Religious faith is a very fragile thing; it is vulnerable to knowledge.

And yes... Bush is a Christian. I know that makes you squirm, but see... there is a problem with your thinking. You say one thing yet you do another. You say that Christians believe they are a "church of sinners" (to use your words), yet when the rubber actually meets the road, you exclude the likes of Bush, Hitler, and other extremely bad actors precisely because they were sinners. Of course, they were really, really, really bad sinners, so maybe you should say, "we Christians believe we are a church of sinners whose sins fall into specific categories as determined by Joe Chi Minh". That would be the gist of what you were saying, but it would sound dumb. Hmmmm... A conundrum.

Well... maybe you could say that Bush is a Christian, but it doesn't really count because "we are a church of sinners". Isn't that clever? An organization completely shielded from any vile act committed by its members. Yeah, I'd go with that.

Just one last thought. You come off as arrogant, defensive, and holier-than-thou with your proselytizing. This is a political discussion board and this section is about late-breaking-news. Take your bullshit somewhere else.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[No Elephants]

46. The point of the Biblical parable of the wheat and the tares seems to be that only God can determine

who is and who is not a Christian (aka heavenworthy on Judgment Day). If so, I take it that means that no one can determine that Hitler or Bush is a Christian, but also that you cannot determine that Hitler or Bush is NOT a Christian.

And, regardless of what kind of Christian posters may prefer, it was Jesus who taught turning the other cheek.


If it were not for some of Jesus' teachings, I might add a sentence or two. As it is, I will just study the mote in my own eye.

[Zhade]

53. Anyone who CLAIMS to be a christian is, by definition, a christian.

You don't get to disown the bad ones who follow your beliefs just because you don't agree with their interpretation of your Bronze-Age myths.

You're being an asshole.

[No Elephants]

54. Exactly. None of us gets to disown (or own) anyone., That was my point. I don't

agree though that anyone who says he or she is a Christian is one. The NT defines what a Christian is. But, it also says that none of us gets to decide who fits the definition. So, you and I end up in the same place. We simply get there by different routes.

Peace.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Mohandas Gandhi

[Zhade]

52. Uh... what does mythology have to do with this?

You're saying that atheists like me disrespect people. That's utter fucking bullshit.

[Xipe Totec]

10. So who, if anyone, is a person under the statue?

Does this law apply strictly to the null set?

[Christa]

11. And yet a fertilized ovum is human?

Twilight zone :wtf:

[cliffordu]

12. Well this is GREAT!!! If they aren't persons they can't be tortured, right?? Problem solved!!

:sarcasm:

For the thicker bretheren here in paradise.

[TechBear_Seattle]

13. "Step 1: Dehumanize the enemy."

I am very shocked that a US court would do this so literally.

[Downwinder]

14. If detainees

at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are not "persons," can they be prosecuted?

[asp64064]

15. ?? Seriously, Are You Really Supprised ??

The same legal minds that perverted every law known to man (international and domestic) now have life time appointments all over our Judicial Branch of government. "Judge Bybee is not the lone ranger!"

Supreme Court ask for a closer review (hint, hint) and these bozos ignore it. Until we as a nation hold our judges accountable for the laws that have served our nation well for more than 200 years nothing will change.

There is no law, except of course the law money can buy. Pay-to-Play The American Way!!!

[xchrom]

16. this should go over well with the world. nt

[yy4me]

18. I swear we are collectively getting stupider and stupider. This is

just another confirmation.

[tblue37]

20. In _Schindler's List_, in a scene between the sadistic Nazi camp commander

Amon Goeth (Ralph Fiennes) and the Jewish girl Helen Hirsch, whom he uses as a maid, Goeth says, "I realize that you are not a person, strictly speaking. . . ."

[Fearless]

22. Dred Scott? Need I say more?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott

[ohio2007]

24. Didn't know they are slaves. How do did you draw that conclusion?

Who owned them B4 the US 'owned' them ?

[Fearless]

35. Apparently I did need to say more...

The Dred Scott SJC decision said that Dred Scott didn't have the right to sue for his freedom because he was not a citizen. Ergo... I mentioned it because this is the same basic thing that is happening again with the detainees. They are saying that they don't need rights because they aren't US citizens. The Dred Scott precedent was overturned years later by other civil rights cases and is largely considered foolishness today as a legal precedent.

[Posteritatis]

45. Dred Scott said he wasn't a *person* first and foremost

The fact that he was declared a noncitizen, horrible though that was, was actually the less ridiculous aspect of the ruling. The part where it said he wasn't a person at all was the real problem. The two concepts are distinct, and dying the latter is vastly nastier than denying the former.

[diane in sf]

25. Time to impeach more Repug judges

[wundermaus]

26. American Held Prisoners are not persons but a corporation is a person...

fascinating, Captain... no intelligent life forms here, just corporations, let's move on.

[No Elephants]

47. Spock, being half human, only complicates the analysis. .

[saltpoint]

28. The circumstances at hand require a more elemental, and may I say

more truthful, reading of events.

If my foot is "not" a foot, it nevertheless feels like a foot to me. It is attached to my leg. I adorn it with socks and shoes. I walk with it every day.

If I stub it on the coffee table, it hurts, as any other person's foot would hurt.

A foot that is labeled a "not-foot" does not appear to me to be something that could exist.

[Odin2005]

29. WTF!?! Impeach those judges NOW!!!

:grr:

[No Elephants]

49. The judges reached the conclusion that both the Bush and the Obama administrations wanted them to

reach. Bushco so argued in the District Court and Obamadmin so argued before the Court of Appeals.

[Zodiak]

30. DC court of appeals

Head Justice - David B. Sentelle, Chief Judge (appointed by Reagan, got on the court by replacing Scalia, appointed Ken Starr, and let Ollie North go on a technicality)
Douglas H. Ginsburg (appointed by Reagan)
Karen LeCraft Henderson (appointed by GW Bush)
Judith W. Rogers (appointed by Clinton)
David S. Tatel (appointed by Clinton)
Merrick B. Garland (appointed by Clinton)
Janice Rogers Brown (appointed by GW Bush, allowed to take the bench by the gang of 14)
Thomas B. Griffith (appointed by GW Bush)
Brett M. Kavanaugh (appointed by GW Bush)
Harry T. Edwards (appointed by Carter)
Laurence H. Silberman (appointed by Reagan, giving Presidential Medal of Freedom by GW Bush)
Stephen F. Williams (appointed by Reagan)
A. Raymond Randolph (appointed by GW Bush)

So looking at the make-up of the Appeals Court of the DC circuit, I can see that 9 of the 13 judges on the court are appointed by Republicans, and 5 of these assholes were appointed by Smirky McBadleader himself!

We will never get a good ruling from this court...it's a political animal, not an instrument of justice.

This should come as no surprise to us....this is a packed court with a long history of making the wrong ruling. The best we can hope for is to impeach some of these assholes, or at least try our best to not let cases go before them.

[No Elephants]

51. What does politics have to do with it when both the Bush and the Obama administrations argued that

the detainees were not "persons" for purposes of the statute, the 8th amendment, etc.?

[caseymoz]

31. But a fetus is a person. That's a moral compass for you.

No way that thing could steer you wrong.

[ooglymoogly]

32. George Orwell knows these judges very well.

but back in reality; The only "non people or non humans" are the pugs and yet they are trying in every dastardly way to prove they are the humans and everyone else is not, so they can treat them any barbaric way they please.

[IndianaGreen]

33. Jews were not persons after the Nazi Enabling Act

It is time to flush out and purge the judiciary from all of the Federalist Society fascist scum.

[ProgressIn2008]

34. I don't understand why we are even having debates on this. Debating whether someone is a person? nt

[caseymoz]

41. They qualified it . . .

. . . not a person for the purposes of this statute. A completely odd ruling. I'm hoping the Supreme Court knocks it down.

[Igel]

42. I'd have to read the statute.

Words mean what a community of speakers agree that they mean. In technical writing, they sometimes are defined in ways that make sense in that context, but not in others. Think of those as different "dialects." Transferring a word from one dialect to another is usually a stupid thing to do, whether the dialects are two different languages, social or geographic, or even just separated in time. "Crayfish" vs "crawfish," not a big deal. However, if you were in the kitchen and the cook said he needed to fry up some chicken and so asked you to hand him the spider, what would you do? Would you look for an arachnid? "Top chef says use of spider is secret to good fried chicken" would make a great headline until somebody pointed out that in some parts of the US a "spider" was a heavy cast iron skillet.

Of course, those who aren't competent in their native language wouldn't even think, "Gee, I wonder if the word means what I *think* it means." No, we assume that our definitions are universal and eternal. It's a nice conceit. I once was arrogant enough to think that the instructions on replacing a fluorescent lamp were gibberish: It talked about whether the bulb had a ballast. Now, I knew that ballast was weight used in ships, something that could be dumped when preparing to take on cargo. It was humbling to finally think to check a dictionary and learn that a "ballast" really is part of a fluorescent light, and can be integrated into the bulb. Humility led to learning.

Statutes frequently define who a 'person' is for purposes of that statute, and give the necessary criteria for being a 'person'. You may still be a person for numerous other purposes, but not for the purposes of that statute. Unless Raw Story quotes the statute, we can't say whether the verdict is reasoned or not.

[No Elephants]

48. Raw Story does not limit you. The link to the statute is in Post 44. But you really need to see the

court opinion because the statute does not define "person."

[No Elephants]

50. The court also found that the detainees are not entitled to Constitutional

protections other than habeas corpus, though. That means the Court found they were not persons for purposes of, for example, the 8th amendment, either. That is the position that both the Bush and the Obama administrations argued.

[irislake]

36. Well isn't THAT a pretty keetle of fish!

Maybe now you don't have to worry about torturing them.

[Vidar]

38. What utter bullshit!