Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees

[DjTj]

And Abe was trashed just as Bush is now, which is why I often say Bush has the potential to be remembered as a great President.

Couple of differences from Bush and Abe being that it was a Civil War and the Government had a much smaller fear factor going for it.

I don't really think so ... Abraham Lincoln presided over a time when half the nation was so opposed to the Federal government that they seceded.

And I really think the reason that Lincoln is revered is that he won. If he had lost the war, or if it dragged out into the next President's administration, I don't think we would look upon Lincoln quite as fondly.

Bush has unfortunately taken a little too long in the War on Terror. Maybe if McCain can close things out quickly, Bush will get some credit for what he did, but if Obama is elected, or if McCain continues to occupy Iraq for another decade and never catches Bin Laden, Bush will fade into history ...

I for one do not think these extremist pose a threat any where equal to that of the Soviets, Nazi's, Japanese or the Confederates.

I agree with the rest of what you say, however. If the terrorists hate us for our freedoms, then we should make sure not to give away those freedoms. Preserving our civil liberties is more important than ever right now.

[81artmonk]

It's nice to see our own court is ruling against their own precident and the constitution. Way to go guys!!

Giving terrorists the green light!

[Larry]

It's nice to see our own court is ruling against their own precident and the constitution. Way to go guys!!

Giving terrorists the green light!

Please, point me at the part of the Constitution they're ignoring.

(Let me guess: In your careful legal opinion, the words "commander in chief" clearly means "Power to do anything I want, and make up any rule I want, without any limitations whatsoever". Is that it?)

[Sarge]

Please, point me at the part of the Constitution they're ignoring.

(Let me guess: In your careful legal opinion, the words "commander in chief" clearly means "Power to do anything I want, and make up any rule I want, without any limitations whatsoever". Is that it?)

Pretty much been the case since Lincoln, hasn't it?

Roosevelt did a double whammy by both interning the Japanese and declaring nazi spies enemy combatants

Bush's **** up was that he listened to the whiney left and kept our enemy combatants alive. He should have done like Roosevelt and had them shot before the courts could really screw things up

[Larry]

Pretty much been the case since Lincoln, hasn't it?

Roosevelt did a double whammy by both interning the Japanese and declaring nazi spies enemy combatants

Bush's **** up was that he listened to the whiney left and kept our enemy combatants alive. He should have done like Roosevelt and had them shot before the courts could really screw things up

Little hint. One of Uncle Larry's pieces of sage advice.

Any person who attempts to justify his actions by pointing at Lincoln's jailing of dissenters, or Roosevelt's racial internment camps, is someone who's advocating Treason.

(Now, I will agree that the Constitution clearly grants the power to suspend Habaeus. It grants that authority to Congress.)

[Sarge]

Little hint. One of Uncle Larry's pieces of sage advice.

Any person who attempts to justify his actions by pointing at Lincoln's jailing of dissenters, or Roosevelt's racial internment camps, is someone who's advocating Treason.

(Now, I will agree that the Constitution clearly grants the power to suspend Habaeus. It grants that authority to Congress.)

Lincoln and Roosevelt were traitors?

And I'm sure Congress will jump all over that

Oh wait. The Congress is headed by Harry "The war is lost" Reid and Nasty Pelosi.

Leftist terrorists sympathizers both

[techboy]

This could have an interesting impact on the Presidential election, as people like Sarge that have threatened to stay home rather than vote for McCain, come to the realization that there are Supreme Court seats very likely at stake over the next one to two terms and that Kennedy probably isn't as in their camp as they would like.

[Sarge]

This could have an interesting impact on the Presidential election, as people like Sarge that have threatened to stay home rather than vote for McCain, come to the realization that there are Supreme Court seats very likely at stake over the next one to two terms and that Kennedy probably isn't as in their camp as they would like.

You got it. I hate almost everything there is about McCain, but many more "decisions" like this will make me hold my nose and vote for him

It's now more obvious than ever we can't afford anymore ACLU lawyers like Ginsberg on the bench

[Sarge]

Anyone notice the sides in this thread?

Those that are in the military, law enforcement or other intel agencies think this is a horrible idea

Those that don't have to lift a finger to stay safe (Like the Supreme Court) think it's just a swell idea

Hmmm

[Larry]

Lincoln and Roosevelt were traitors?

Lincoln, IMO, at least had a legal argument he could make.

I still think what he did was Treason. OTOH, it's easy to be forgiving after something worked.

Yes, Roosevelt should have been impeached. The soldiers who carried out his illegal orders should have been prosecuted for war crimes. He had no authority whatsoever to issue the orders he did, and the soldiers knew that he didn't have that authority.

That action was by far a worse action than the nation's tolerance of slavery, for example.

And I'm sure Congress will jump all over that

And since Congress (even the one controlled by the President's party. Remember? The GOP used to be 100% in charge of the government.) hasn't granted an authority which only they posses, (because that would require them to actually make a decision and take the political heat for that decision.) the Constitutional thing to do is to have the President decide that he's gonna grant the authority to himself?

Oh wait. The Congress is headed by Harry "The war is lost" Reid and Nasty Pelosi.

Leftist terrorists sympathizers both

Oh wait. The White House is headed by Bush and Cheney.

Rightist Nazi sympathizers both.

(Boy. That sure settled things.)

[WVUforREDSKINS]

Always wondered this, Sarge where/what is CTU?

And one more thing, you have as much if not more passion for politics than probably anyone on this board. But do you honestly think that liberals are terrorist sympathizers? And I mean terrorists (dedicating you life to killing Americans, wiping out Israel etc.) not muslims.

[Larry]

Anyone notice the sides in this thread?

Those who value the Constitution and the Rule of Law, and those who value their political party?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Anyone notice the sides in this thread?

Those that are in the military, law enforcement or other intel agencies think this is a horrible idea

Those that don't have to lift a finger to stay safe (Like the Supreme Court) think it's just a swell idea

Hmmm

Or, maybe anyone who has ever studied the Constitution, or the law in general, knows that this was the right decision. And those who think they know, but really don't understand the way the government works, separation of powers, checks and balances, and the supreme law of the land, are all against it.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I haven't read this, but I understand that Scalia wrote the dissent claiming that this will lead to more terrorist killings...

How in the heck is that originalist strict interpretation? Losing credibility?

[Waldo da Magnificent]

Anyone notice the sides in this thread?

Those that are in the military, law enforcement or other intel agencies think this is a horrible idea

Those that don't have to lift a finger to stay safe (Like the Supreme Court) think it's just a swell idea

Hmmm

I'm former military, and I agree with the decision, if for no other reason than it follows the historical interpretation of the Constitution, where if one is detained under the authority of the US, and is not a prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention, they are afforded rights under the Constitution.

Even in dissent, Scalia and Roberts don't deny the doctrine, only that it doesn't quite apply. Roberts makes a good point that for habeas corpus to apply, the defendants should first exhaust all other legal remedies. However, Roberts fails to note (1) the length of time the proceedings have taken so far, and (2) that most of the remedies have been removed by acts of Congress.

Scalia doesn't even cite law, he cites wartime and terror conditions. He is apparently quite willing to suspend Constitutional guarantees based upon outside conditions. In his view, during wartime, other non-Constitutional rules should apply, which is normally true. But those rules consisted of the Geneva Convention.

If you you want to blame someone for this decision, blame Bush. He thought he could do an end run around Geneva, and it turned around to bite him in the ass.

[Sarge]

Always wondered this, Sarge where/what is CTU?

And one more thing, you have as much if not more passion for politics than probably anyone on this board. But do you honestly think that liberals are terrorist sympathizers? And I mean terrorists (dedicating you life to killing Americans, wiping out Israel etc.) not muslims.

I know they think they're doing the right thing, but because of the way they were brought up and or/the company they keep, they are not based in reality

And much like the ACLU, who pretends to be all about rights for the little man, know damn well that one of the side effects of their fight for rights is that terrorists and other scum by proxy receive the same protections as the people that they say they are fighting for.

I think a lot of them don't mind that because it helps tear down the country, bit by bit

[Larry]

I think a lot of them don't mind that because it helps tear down the country, bit by bit

Well, we have to tear it down bit by bit. We don't have a President on our side who can just dissolve the whole thing by writing a memo.

[ACW]

I do now believe that Sarge is actually a parody.

[Ax]

No one on this board has said that we want these individuals to just go free. All we want is for the government to prove in a fair trial they are guilty of something and if they are found guilty, by all means throw them in prison and no one here will complain.

And yet, with a mountain of evidence against him, OJ Simpson walked. So let's put the Marcia Clark's of the legal system in charge of national security.

Brilliant!

So now, al Qaeda has the same rights in this country as me and every other American citizen.

Oh, happy day.

[81artmonk]

Please, point me at the part of the Constitution they're ignoring.

(Let me guess: In your careful legal opinion, the words "commander in chief" clearly means "Power to do anything I want, and make up any rule I want, without any limitations whatsoever". Is that it?)

Well, in over 232 years we have never given foriegn comabatants rights under our constitution, it's never happened.

Second, this court that ruled today, went against it's own precendent. The Eisentrager ruling. Simpley put, not foriegn combatants detained outside of soviergn territory are allowed habeas rights.

So the supreme court can now rule, change it's mind and forge a new law?

And where in the constitution does it allow people not of our country who are enemy combatants rights?? To the best of my knowledge it doesn't.

Just so you're aware, this could allow known terrorists, who admitted and were known to be involved in 9/11 go free! Good for america, good times.

[Sarge]

Always wondered this, Sarge where/what is CTU?

It's where Jack Bauer lives

[Burgold]

Just so you're aware, this could allow known terrorists, who admitted and were known to be involved in 9/11 go free! Good for america, good times.

Doesn't pleading guilty disqualify them from going free in court? (I guess they could say they admitted it under duress, but if they are a "known" terrorist and you have an admission I don't see them walking free.

[JMS]

Those who value the Constitution and the Rule of Law, and those who value their political party?

I think that doesn't give the folks on the other side of this argument enough credit.

I think American foreign policy has been defined by four philosophies..

(1) Hamiltonian - involvement based on our economic interests.

(2) Wilsonian - involvement based on spreading democracy.

(3) Jeffersonian - don't get involved.

(4) Jacksonian - involvement based on our national interest to the exclusion and even over the objection of everybody else in the world.

Bush is an idiot and has stated all three foreign policy ideals which advocate intervention to justify Iraq. But that doesn't mean folks who believe in any one of the concepts necessarily are idiots like Bush.

[JMS]

Doesn't pleading guilty disqualify them from going free in court? (I guess they could say they admitted it under duress, but if they are a "known" terrorist and you have an admission I don't see them walking free.

Well that depends on if the supreme court takes the next step. If the administration pulled their toe nails out for two years to get them to confess, then you certainly could and would have self confessed terrorists set free..

Lucky for us the Supreme Court hasn't gone completely insane and we are still allowed to use the fruits of abuse/torture to convict these animals.

[JMS]

Well, in over 232 years we have never given foriegn comabatants rights under our constitution, it's never happened.

Very true... that's because for 232 years there never was a catagory of prisoner called "enemy combatant", Bush made it up on 2001 after 911. Prior to that all prisoners fell into the criminal catagor or prisoner of war; each group having rights by law and by international treaty.

Bush called them enemy combatants expressly so he would be the sole arbitrator of their future. As if he were Henry the VIII only without the wives.

Second, this court that ruled today, went against it's own precendent. The Eisentrager ruling. Simpley put, not foriegn combatants detained outside of soviergn territory are allowed habeas rights.

Johnson v. Eisentrager, circa 1950 dealt with convicted war criminals who were found guilty in an international court presided over by a United States supreme court justice. In this precident there was a formal declaration of war, a formal surrender, and the people in question passed from POW status to war criminal proces through a legal trial. That is why the supreme court found the prisoners in question did not fall under American law....

The court never found the president could kidnap folks off the streets of countries including the United States and hold them indefinitely without any trial or indepenent oversite.

So the supreme court can now rule, change it's mind and forge a new law?

And where in the constitution does it allow people not of our country who are enemy combatants rights?? To the best of my knowledge it doesn't.

The enemy combatant term was made up by bush and has no legal standing in international treaty or American Law.

Just so you're aware, this could allow known terrorists, who admitted and were known to be involved in 9/11 go free! Good for america, good times.

Only if their confessions were tortured out of them. And if they were tortured out of them, how reliable are those confessions anyway. Fact is it likely will let terrorists free. It will let free all the folks we have no evidence to hold as judged by an indepenent party. Seems to me like a sufficiently low thresh hold to hold.