Marxism
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
Re: [Marxism] The Slavery Amendment and The Guantanamo Prisoners
- To: "Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition" <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [Marxism] The Slavery Amendment and The Guantanamo Prisoners
- From: "Stuart Lawrence" <stuartlawrence@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:58:29 -0500
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=simple; s=test1; d=earthlink.net; h=Message-ID:Reply-To:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MIMEOLE; b=HYrBzq0PAaTpIOsri8mVANZJHesv1OKKA+mW+ngNmc+TWB1Gwd1yj1NCsB6D/SXB;
Confinement alone won't suffice to make out a Thirteenth Amendment claim
in the absence of a master-servant (employer-employee) relationship or
the use of the confinement to compel the person confined to perform
labor. US federal courts have defined involuntary servitude as "an
action by the master causing the servant to have, or to believe he has,
no way to avoid continued service or confinement." Watson v. Graves, 909
F.2d 1549, 1552 (5th Cir.1990); U.S. v. Shackney, 333 F.2d 475, 486 (2d
Cir. 1964). It seems unlikely that a court would hold that the Gitmo
inmates' confinement violated the Thirteenth Amendment unless plans
emerged that required Gitmo inmates to do work. If the forced-labor
component weren't required, every habeas claim would be coupled with a
Thirteenth Amendment claim, and that's not the case.
Stuart Lawrence
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Shannon" <Brian_Shannon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>What about the Guantanamo situation suggests "servitude"? I haven't
heard about Gitmo prisoners being subjected to forced labor or assigned
to any form of work detail, for that matter.
>Stuart Lawrence
_________________
I had just finished rewriting this when I saw Stuart's question. The
answer is implied in the amendment itself where it states that
"involuntary servitude" is acceptable so long as it is for a crime and,
of course, prisoners are criminals.
However, let's look at the word slavery as well. You can be a slave,
i.e., held by another without being required to work. You are a slave
as soon as you are captured, whether in Africa in the 18th century or
in Afghanistan. You are a slave if you are put a slave ship for
transportation or strung in a line or in a holding pen.
The definitions given in googling "slavery" point out that slavery,
above all, means that you are under the control of another person,
although "ownership" is also emphasized. But aren't prisoners who are
completely under the control of a prisoner system that says they can be
held indefinitely without trial--aren't they slaves?
Brian
_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
- Thread context:
- [Marxism] Roy A. Medvedev: "I am not an eternal oppositionist",
Jurriaan Bendien Wed 19 Jan 2005, 15:49 GMT
- [Marxism] The Slavery Amendment and the Guantanamo prisoners,
Brian Shannon Wed 19 Jan 2005, 15:38 GMT
- [Marxism] Castro out of context,
Louis Proyect Wed 19 Jan 2005, 15:35 GMT
- [Marxism] The Chemical Brothers get political,
Louis Proyect Wed 19 Jan 2005, 15:25 GMT
- [Marxism] Support for war hits new low,
Louis Proyect Wed 19 Jan 2005, 15:21 GMT
- [Marxism] Condy Rice on regime change in Iran,
Jurriaan Bendien Wed 19 Jan 2005, 15:08 GMT
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]