Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees

[ross3909]

Further evidence that Liberalism is a mental disorder and an enemy within our borders. Now, anyone captured by our military forces will declare themselves protections under our US Constitution... a framework written for US CITIZENS ONLY!!! :doh:

This decision is just further evidence of the disdain for Bush and the lengths the Left will go to undermine the United States military. Furthermore, it's probably rooted in the belief that the Iraq war is unjust and illegal, perpetrated by a POTUS who should be impeached, therefore the combatants captured in this conflict aren't really guilty but innocent victims snatched up by the big bad military.

Disgusting... Liberalism... the enemy within.

Well said. :applause:

[Burgold]

Well said. :applause:

Except that it was a decision made by a Conservative Supreme Court. This decision was not a liberal decision. I know you like to castigate anything you disapprove of as liberal, but given the disposition of the U.S. Supreme Court and the actions of the Conservative movement over the past 8 years, it is would be wiser to think about what conservatism actually looks like today in practice versus just throwing stones.

If you disagree with this decision you have no one to blame for it but Bush and the conservatives.

[Larry]

Actually read a little about the decision today. (Wow. Research. What a concept.)

I disagree with at least part of it.

The summaries I've read (always dangerous, reading summaries. But I'm not a lawyer, so I have to rely on summaries) say that the court ruled that Congress doesn't have the authority to just suspend Habeas.

But the Constitution specifically says they do.

IMO, Congress are a bunch of spineless cowards who don't want the responsibility that comes with power. But they do have the power to outright suspend Habeas. And when they ass legislation that says "Habeas doesn't apply to Gitmo", then it doesn't.

IMO, it was wrong for Congress to pass such a law. (Especially without providing some other form of due process to replace it.) But it's within their Constitutional authority to do so.

[ccsl2]

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.

Dude please let it go with OJ...it has been 12 years already!

[ross3909]

Good for the Supreme Court. This is the right decision. I am glad that they still have some Constitutional backbone.

So you agree with giving foreign enemy combatants, the same rights as you and me? Rights that are reserved for US citizens. From now on, when American Soldiers are on a battlefield and capture a terrorist, they will have to prove in a US court that this person was in deed the enemy. This is rediculous and retarded.

[@DCGoldPants]

So you agree with giving foreign enemy combatants, the same rights as you and me? Rights that are reserved for US citizens. From now on, when American Soldiers are on a battlefield and capture a terrorist, they will have to prove in a US court that this person was in deed the enemy. This is rediculous and retarded.

You're looking at it backwards.

Its like torture. How can we denounce it....and do it at the same?

If we consider ourselves "better" than these people. Lets prove it by giving them something they'd never had before. A fair trial. If they are guilty and we have the evidence. There should be no problem convicting them.

What are we scared of? Having people that we can't prove were the bad guys?

[ross3909]

Dude please let it go with OJ...it has been 12 years already!

The OJ reference goes to the US Legal System that presumes innocence until proven guilty. This does not apply to foreign citizens caught on the battlefield. This will allow our enemies to lawyer up and use our system against us.

[ccsl2]

The OJ reference goes to the US Legal System that presumes innocence until proven guilty. This does not apply to foreign citizens caught on the battlefield. This will allow our enemies to lawyer up and use our system against us.

Well if we have all of this evidence against these "enemies", then they will be found guilty. I have faith in the US Legal System, even if Bush and some people on this board don't.

[ross3909]

You're looking at it backwards.

Its like torture. How can we denounce it....and do it at the same?

If we consider ourselves "better" than these people. Lets prove it by giving them something they'd never had before. A fair trial. If they are guilty and we have the evidence. There should be no problem convicting them.

What are we scared of? Having people that we can't prove were the bad guys?

Yes and by giving them this gift of our legal system they will love us and lay down their arms. Are you serious? These people blow up their children, kill innocents, hold an Iraqi family hostage in thier own home while they engage US forces from that home to rack up civilian casualties in the PR war against America. These "people" are not worthy of our laws and protections. If they get in to our legal system they will be set free to kill again. And make no mistake, this ruling will cost American lives. Detainees that have been released from Gitmo have already returned to Iraq to blow themselves up and kill more innocents. As for our "evidence" we have none except for the word of all the soldiers who will have to leave the battlefield to testify. And that will be seen as hearsay and not given any more credence than the terrorist. Make no mistake, we have just made America very vulnerable.

[Larry]

So you agree with giving foreign enemy combatants, the same rights as you and me? Rights that are reserved for US citizens.

There are no such things.

[ccsl2]

Yes and by giving them this gift of our legal system they will love us and lay down their arms. Are you serious? These people blow up their children, kill innocents, hold an Iraqi family hostage in thier own home while they engage US forces from that home to rack up civilian casualties in the PR war against America. These "people" are not worthy of our laws and protections. If they get in to our legal system they will be set free to kill again. And make no mistake, this ruling will cost American lives. Detainees that have been released from Gitmo have already returned to Iraq to blow themselves up and kill more innocents. As for our "evidence" we have none except for the word of all the soldiers who will have to leave the battlefield to testify. And that will be seen as hearsay and not given any more credence than the terrorist. Make no mistake, we have just made America very vulnerable.

OVER 4000 American Troops have been killed since the "war" started, while the "enemies" have been locked away at Gitmo...now all of a sudden we are in much more danger now because we provided some "enemies" the right to a trial after being held for 7 years because they "looked" like terrorist...not buying it.

[NavyDave]

The problem with liberals is that they keep looking at terrorism like its a criminal act, while ignoring that most of these guys were on the battlefield caught in the act not the victim of crappy GPS while out buying bread and milk. :doh:

This is a rebuke on making the nation safer but of course liberals see it as sticking it to Bush.

The reason for Gitmo was because it was considered to be foreign soil not CONUS.

On several a positive notes there should be less of an incentive to capture terrorist and instead follow NavyDave's mindset of 2 to the body 1 to the head.

And the Supreme court set a precedent reversing what the President and Congress agreed upon.

So now imaginary rights like late term abortions should be fair game and using the excuse of precedent to not progress in bringing change to an unjust act.

[ross3909]

There are no such things.

So...there are no rights for US Citizens...or no terrorists?

[gbear]

Ultimately, I think GTMO will be looked at like we looked at Japanese internment camps...not a shining moment for liberty in our nation's history, but one ultimately sort of remedied.

[Thiebear]

I have no idea how the military is going to maintain a "chain of evidence" while on the battelfield.

I agree with Larry, there should be an instant Military tribunal and a sentencing... done.

People in the country should not be mixed with people outside the country on the battelfield. Thats where the administration screwed everything up.

[NavyDave]

Ultimately, I think GTMO will be looked at like we looked at Japanese internment camps...not a shining moment for liberty in our nation's history, but one ultimately sort of remedied.

Doubtful because even an idiot knows the difference between placing American Citizens in Camps because they are of a race of the enemy we were at war with and there was a fear of espionage, etc and actually capturing terrorists on the battlefield like two of the SOB's who we caught before activating an IED earlier in the year.

[Larry]

So...there are no rights for US Citizens...or no terrorists?

There are no "Rights that are reserved for US citizens."

(Actually, now that I think of it, there may be one. The right to vote. That one might specify "citizen", I haven't checked.)

[Thiebear]

Whats the tally:

37 released Gitmo people have gone back and attacked civilians and us military?

[ross3909]

OVER 4000 American Troops have been killed since the "war" started, while the "enemies" have been locked away at Gitmo...now all of a sudden we are in much more danger now because we provided some "enemies" the right to a trial after being held for 7 years because they "looked" like terrorist...not buying it.

You didn't mention the 3000 that died in 2001. The "enemies" were caught on the battlefield with weapons trying to kill our military. And yes, turning those killers loose will put us in danger. You can stick your head in the sand and believe that there is no Extreme Islamic movement to kill as many non muslims as possible but that does not mean they will go away. Our military will assure that we are safe as long as they are allowed to do their job. This rediculous ruling just made that job much harder. I agree, from now on no prisoners. Two in the chest, and one in the head.

[ross3909]

There are no "Rights that are reserved for US citizens."

(Actually, now that I think of it, there may be one. The right to vote. That one might specify "citizen", I haven't checked.)

First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Second Amendment – Right to keep and bear arms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment – Powers of states and people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[Vicious]

We should have done what makes America, America and FREE AND WHAT OUR PEOPLE DIE FOR AND WHY WE MADE THIS COUNTRY in the first place. Then we would not be in this mess. PERIOD.

[ross3909]

Except that it was a decision made by a Conservative Supreme Court. This decision was not a liberal decision. I know you like to castigate anything you disapprove of as liberal, but given the disposition of the U.S. Supreme Court and the actions of the Conservative movement over the past 8 years, it is would be wiser to think about what conservatism actually looks like today in practice versus just throwing stones.

If you disagree with this decision you have no one to blame for it but Bush and the conservatives.

The 4 true non liberals on the "Conservative Supreme Court" disented and wrote scathing reviews of this action. This travesty was passed 5-4.

[ccsl2]

You didn't mention the 3000 that died in 2001. The "enemies" were caught on the battlefield with weapons trying to kill our military. And yes, turning those killers loose will put us in danger. You can stick your head in the sand and believe that there is no Extreme Islamic movement to kill as many non muslims as possible but that does not mean they will go away. Our military will assure that we are safe as long as they are allowed to do their job. This rediculous ruling just made that job much harder. I agree, from now on no prisoners. Two in the chest, and one in the head.

And you didn't mention all of the innocent people of IRAQ, who last time I checked, didn't attack us, that have died as well.

If these enemies were caught on the battlefield trying to kill our soldier, then have a quick trial and do away with them. Why all of the 7 years of holding them with no trial?? Especially if they were caught "red handed" trying to kill our military??

It just goes to show that if you gonna start a war, make sure you pick the actual enemy (Hello OSAMA BIN LADEN).

You reap what you sew.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Actually read a little about the decision today. (Wow. Research. What a concept.)

I disagree with at least part of it.

The summaries I've read (always dangerous, reading summaries. But I'm not a lawyer, so I have to rely on summaries) say that the court ruled that Congress doesn't have the authority to just suspend Habeas.

But the Constitution specifically says they do.

IMO, Congress are a bunch of spineless cowards who don't want the responsibility that comes with power. But they do have the power to outright suspend Habeas. And when they ass legislation that says "Habeas doesn't apply to Gitmo", then it doesn't.

IMO, it was wrong for Congress to pass such a law. (Especially without providing some other form of due process to replace it.) But it's within their Constitutional authority to do so.

Ok, I went one step further and actual read the opinion (holy crap!) Admittedly, it was a quick read. I will address some concerns people seem to have, as well as some inaccuracies:

First of all, here is what the Constitution says: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Here's what the statute that Congress passed and W signed says:

“(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

“(2) Except as provided in [§§ 1005(e)(2) and (e)(3) of the DTA] no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.”

Now, this is actually the most important point: the statute passed by Congress was NOT an attempt to suspend habeas corpus as permitted under the Constitution. It was, actually, an attempt to LIMIT THE FEDERAL COURTS' JURISDICTION. But, the SC correctly stated that habeas corpus is a right of a person, and not a question of jurisdiction. Because the Constitution gives people the right to habeas corpus, it cannot be limited by questions of jurisdiction. It CAN be altered as the Constitution permits.

The Constitution, however, requires that other due process be given. And Congress and the President passed the law trying to limit jurisdiction as a backdoor to get around habeas corpus, but more importantly to get around giving any other due process in accordance with the law of habeas corpus, i.e. follow the Geneva convention.

It should be noted that the U.S. did not argue that they acted pursuant to the habeas corpus suspension clause. Instead, they only argued that the non-citizen detainees in Guatanomo did not have rights to habeas in the first place. So, that should answer your question Larry. It doesn't say Congress doesn't have the authority to suspend habeas. The SC says it can't do it by means of limiting jurisdiction of the courts, and/or by not following the Constitution's process for limiting habeas.

The next question is whether these prisoners have habeas corpus rights. The court looked at three factors to decide whether habeas extended to Guatonomo, which was as they defined it a land leased by the U.S. where the U.S. maintained sovereignty, but not de jure sovereignty. The Court said: "Based on this language from Eisentrager, and the reasoning in our other extraterritoriality opinions, we conclude that at least three factors are relevant in determining the reach of the Suspension Clause: (1) the citizenship and status of the detainee and the adequacy of the process through which that status determination was made; (2) the nature of the sites where apprehension and then detention took place; and (3) the practical obstacles inherent in resolving the prisoner's entitlement to the writ."

The clincher for the SC was that because Cuba acknowledged that they did not have jurisdiction to hear these men's cases, sovereignty and jurisdiction fell to the US, which does maintain sovereignty on the island. This falls into the "practical obstacles" factor, and was determinative of the issue to the Court in this case. Ultimately, the SC ruled:

"It is true that before today the Court has never held that noncitizens detained by our Government in territory over which another country maintains de jure sovereignty have any rights under our Constitution. But the cases before us lack any precise historical parallel. They involve individuals detained by executive order for the duration of a conflict that, if measured from September 11, 2001, to the present, is already among the longest wars in American history. See Oxford Companion to American Military History 849 (1999). The detainees, moreover, are held in a territory that, while technically not part of the United States, is under the complete and total control of our Government. Under these circumstances the lack of a precedent on point is no barrier to our holding.

We hold that Art. I, § 9, cl. 2, of the Constitution has full effect at Guantanamo Bay. If the privilege of habeas corpus is to be denied to the detainees now before us, Congress must act in accordance with the requirements of the Suspension Clause. Cf. Hamdi, 542 U.S., at 564 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“ndefinite imprisonment on reasonable suspicion is not an available option of treatment for those accused of aiding the enemy, absent a suspension of the writ”). This Court may not impose a de facto suspension by abstaining from these controversies. See Hamdan, 548 U.S., at 585, n. 16 (“[A]bstention is not appropriate in cases ... in which the legal challenge ‘turn on the status of the persons as to whom the military asserted its power’ “ (quoting Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U.S. 738, 759, 95 S.Ct. 1300, 43 L.Ed.2d 591 (1975))). The MCA does not purport to be a formal suspension of the writ; and the Government, in its submissions to us, has not argued that it is. Petitioners, therefore, are entitled to the privilege of habeas corpus to challenge the legality of their detention."

Basically, its not true that non-citizens have never been granted habeas corpus rights... slaves were actually granted such rights in the 1800's. Also, its not true that American citizens in other lands have never been granted habeas rights. There was a weighing of the three factors, and the SC found that the Constitution extends to places where the US has jurisdiction if no other state has jurisdiction as well.

[ross3909]

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.

If you go by their actions...yes.