Guantanamo Bay and the U.S. constitution by reading the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I have come to the conclusion that the indefinite detainment of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is not constitutional. This detainment of prisoners is a violation of Article one Section nine, and Amendment VI in the Bill of Rights.
Guantanamo Bay was set up to be a detention camp for possible terrorist suspects. The federal government chose Guantanamo Bay, which is located in Cuba, because it was supposedly out of the United State's legal jurisdiction zone. In June 2004, the federal government ruled that Guantanamo Bay was in the United State's jurisdiction, and that the writs of Habeaus Corpus would be placed in effect for all prisoners. The Writs of Habeas Corpus gives prisoners the chance to detest their unlawful imprisonment, in hopes that they can be released. It does not examine whether the prisoner is guilty, but more so, whether they are being held illegally.
The federal court immediately argued that Habeas Corpus grants placed on the detainees were not relevant because the federal courts lacked jurisdiction to hear them. But in June 2004, the government rejected this movement and still allowed the federal courts to hear the lawsuits of the detainees.2 The government then argued that the detainees' cases be dismissed because the Constitution and certain treaties did not apply in Guantanamo.2 Finally in September of 2005, the court ruled that the Military Commissions act of 2006 "barred federal courts from hearing the Habeas Corpus petitions by those detained as enemy combatants".2 I believe that this decision was unconstitutional in two ways.
The first goes in hand with Article one Section nine of the Constitution. This article states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when...