https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/20/m...antanamos.html
Seriously America, what the fuck is wrong with you?
Is the US Coast Guard full of assholes?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/20/m...antanamos.html
Seriously America, what the fuck is wrong with you?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
The problem is America's war on drugs. Get rid of the war on drugs, waive FDA approval, let capitalism flourish and legal drug growing and use be allowed and you don't have this kind of issue anymore. Sure some druggies will die but its not the governments job to save people from themselves.Originally Posted by Aimless
While I agree in principle, you are sidestepping the point. This is immoral, unethical, and god damn it, just plain wrong.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Not to mention illegal. Which they know, it's why they tack on even more transit time so they can avoid having cases heard in the nearest US courts because those are under the 9th Circuit which made it clear it wouldn't stand for this crap.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Who decides what is the law? The lawmakers or the court system?
Both. The lawmakers certainly didn't make the law the way the Coast Guard is using it here (they'd never even try). Or do you think there's an explicit provision in there about delaying bringing detainees into the US until you can make sure they'll land in a favorable jurisdiction? Is that what you think the lawmakers meant when they directed charges and trials proceed with all reasonable speed?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
What I'm getting at is if the court rules something is OK in the face of what the law states (either the statute or the constitution) what happens? Should we allow the tyranny of the courts in the face of the law?
What's really happening is the CG is cherry picking which court they want to have jurisdiction.
They can't actually do that the way they are, according to the law. What that article reports is obstruction of justice on a pretty disgusting scale. The article reports seized contraband routinely makes it back to US ports (West Coast ports) well before detainees. That the contraband makes it back on the same vessels where the detainees are originally held (in the example case for over a week and including more than one port visit) while the detainees get shuffled around from ship to ship until they can get to a transportation facility that will take the detainees directly to the desired jurisdiction. But if they were already on a ship heading back, or which would be heading back sooner, than the requirements for all reasonable speed dictate they go on that ship. Because the law doesn't include any provision that "all reasonable speed" means "all reasonable speed that lets you avoid the Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals." It means what it says, while what they're doing includes deliberate delays unsanctioned by any law, court, or detainee consent.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Not read the article but just to nitpick slightly one can't assume people and contraband should travel together. People aren't contraband and often these illegal journeys take place on dangerous vessels. The Lifeguard would not be doing their job properly if they permitted people to continue on in vessels they deemed unsafe for human transport but might be safe for contraband.
Not saying that's what is happening here. But people are worth more than contraband.
Why would any other Circuit stand for crap? Surely all circuits should implement the law? Shame on any not doing so.
I urge you to read the article.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
In America the plan language of the law can be overturned depending on the political bent of the justices ruling. I think something around 4/5 of the Supreme Court Cases heard that originated in the 9th circuit court get overruled or vacated.
I didn't say they were on the seized vessel. I said they were on the seizing vessel, which while it wasn't designed for long-term detainment was not any more unsafe than the other coast guard ships they got transferred to (and then off when those ships would return with contraband themselves)
Read the fucking article.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
We've talked about this Lewk. About this specific "thought" of yours, in fact. It's nowhere near that high. I'm the leading (and most coherent) detractor of the 9th Circuit on here but there's nothing the least bit objectionable about its jurisprudence on this matter, which is in keeping with both US legislation and the common interpretations of international maritime law.
The Circuit Court which has jurisdiction in Florida built up a work of different jurisprudence based on "War on Drug" cases arising out of the Caribbean where the issues. distances, and timespans were radically different, enough so that minor irregularities could be overlooked. They're not minor irregularities anymore, with the changes to those factors which arise from operating 1000 miles out in the Pacific. But since the illegal actions of the Coast Guard are not illegal in the ways that can typically get a set of charges kicked with prejudice, the remedy would be civil action which these people don't have standing to bring, nor do their families. There not being anyone with proper standing to challenge the behavior doesn't keep it from being illegal or wrong, Lewk.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
No need to swear, I disclaimed that I've "not read the article", I was posting from my mobile while at work.
What I find especially frustrating is the thought that they're getting away with something that is not only morally reprehensible but also illegal, simply because of the issue of standing. I don't understand how that can be, in a nation where the constitution serves to restrict govt. abuse of power.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Despite what several people believe, I for one don't consider non citizens to have rights under the US constitution.
To be clear, I don't actually support what the CG is doing. Spending extra time and effort to go after drugs needs to stop. Even if they are currently illegal time and money could be spent elsewhere.
Where in the US Constitution precisely does it say that the Constitution only applies to citizens?
1.
2. Afaict, the constitution doesn't just give people rights, it places restrictions on govt. Even if the law didn't protect you from being drawn and quartered, it might nevertheless restrict the government's authority to draw and quarter you.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
There are some constitutional protections and rights explicitly reserved for citizens. There are some others that are not enjoyed by non-citizens to the same extent. The rights and protections at issue in this matter don't appear to be in either of those categories. More to the point, even if one believes that the constitution does not apply to non-citizens, it probably still applies to the coastguard, and places restrictions on its powers.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Rand, if you can't be arsed to read something, maybe refrain from "nitpicking slightly" until you have.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I read "That the contraband makes it back on the same vessels where the detainees are originally held" to mean the seized vessel. If that was incorrect it was a misunderstanding and the context of my post should make it entirely clear the point I was trying to make. Which was purely a safety concern for the well being of the detainees alone.
I stand by the principle that people are far more precious and should be treated with more concern and dignity than cargo. If the Coast Guard and/or Circuits other than the ninth aren't treating people properly then as I said before you swore at me "shame on them". I stand by that.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
