Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees

[DarrellsMyHero28]

Didnt we just release one of the detainees that went to Mosul and blew himself up and killed others.

Great

Link? Proof?

[Cdowwe]

Link? Proof?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/world/middleeast/08iraq.html

[DarrellsMyHero28]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/world/middleeast/08iraq.html

And why was he released?

Still doesn't disprove my point, I think everyone in the world should be able to have a trial.

[Cdowwe]

And why was he released?

Still doesn't disprove my point, I think everyone in the world should be able to have a trial.

Sorry, I didnt even read whatever post you're referring to about your point.

If our justice system wasnt such a joke, I might agree with you though

[DarrellsMyHero28]

Sorry, I didnt even read whatever post you're referring to about your point.

If our justice system wasnt such a joke, I might agree with you though

My point is that they deserve a trail, Constitution/Geneva Convention or not, they're people--human beings, they deserve a fair (or at least as fair as we can make it) trial, so that we're not putting the wrong guys in prison.

Our justice system IS often a joke, but thats not a reason to not use it.

[Cdowwe]

My point is that they deserve a trail, Constitution/Geneva Convention or not, they're people--human beings, they deserve a fair (or at least as fair as we can make it) trial, so that we're not putting the wrong guys in prison.

Our justice system IS often a joke, but thats not a reason to not use it.

I dont consider someone who carries out a suicide attack on innocent people a human being. Only good thing that came from it is that he is dead and we didnt waste anymore of our money on him

[DarrellsMyHero28]

I dont consider someone who carries out a suicide attack on innocent people a human being. Only good thing that came from it is that he is dead and we didnt waste anymore of our money on him

But none of the people in Gitmo have carried out a suicide attack, otherwise they would be dead.

And theres a CHANCE that they weren't planning on it, and I will stand up for their right to a fair trial...call me what you want, they're people and until you prove to me that they're guilty they deserve fair treatment.

[bono44]

Because what you really mean is "Any time I can dream up an excuse, with nothing to support it whatsoever, then what happens is that all the parts that say 'the government cannot . . ' magically cease to exist, but all the parts which say 'the government has the power to . . . ' become infinitely powerful"

You're desperate to create a place or a situation in which all of the Constitution's limitations vanish. A place where the government can do whatever it wants.

You don't want a place where "the Constituti0on doesn't apply". You want a place where "these parts of the Constitution don't count, but these other parts do".

George Bush (and, apparently, the Congress) wants to claim that "the Constitution doesn't apply in Gitmo". Trouble is, the Constitution is the document which gives Bush his authority. If it doesn't apply, then he can't give orders there. If it doesn't apply, we can't spend money there.

What he wants is to pick and chose which parts apply. He wants the powers of his office, but without the oath of office.

Sorry for chiming in late to this thread, but the fundamental issue is that we are at war. Al Qaeda declared war on us (Bin Laden fatwa, back in '96 I believe) and since 9-11-01 we've acknowledged the same. Even the Supreme Court, in Hamdi and in this week's opinion acknowledged that this is war.

In wartime, those we capture, especially abroad, have never had constitutional rights. You only have to read three words into the constitution to realize that -- "We the people . . . ." The rest confirms the same. WE give power to the government to govern us and in return limit the government's authority over US. Those who are not citizens, or live here and have attachments to the country and do not undertake any societal obligations -- taxes, our laws, etc -- do not benefit from the limitations WE have placed on our government. The consitution does not apply to them. The Supreme Court has ruled likewise (i.e., no warrant required when DIA grabs a guy in Mexico). Note, even in this terrible decision, the Court didn't say what rights, if any, they'll have when they get to court. If it did how do you justify our soldiers kicking in doors w/out a warrant, from Shiloh to Mosul?

War is not the same as criminal trial. If we capture someone fighting againt us or a member of those fighting againt us we hold them until the war's over. Done. Do you think every private in the Nazi Army we captured wouldn't like the opportunity to say he was forced to join and loves America? I'm sure some, if not most, were forced to join. The point is that if we let them go they'll rejoin the fight (as 30+ have done in this war). And if he's committed, I bet he, and his lawyer, would love to have us show him all of the information we have on the him, his Army, and the details of how we know he's a member.

This decision is an abomination.

[ACW]

Don't usually do hypotheticals, but if so he'd have to be acting in that capacity. That means he'd be doing so against US citizens and against the US Constitution, unless this court got rid of the 2nd Amendment, which wouldn't surprise me.

Then he'd encounter the true meaning of the 2nd AMendment and the Declaration of Independnce, which basically allows people to have guns to get rid of an oppressive government

So Sarge DOES recognize some of the Constitution. Keep going, you'll respect the whole thing soon enough :thumbsup:

[SUSkinsFan]

Then he'd encounter the true meaning of the 2nd AMendment and the Declaration of Independnce, which basically allows people to have guns to get rid of an oppressive government

Actually you can't use the Declaration of Independence as a defense in a court of law...

[Larry]

The supreme court found that since the United States has occupied Gitmo since the conclusion of the spanish american war in 1890's and since the early 1960's over the objections of the Cuban government; It was United States Territory.

Oh, so the Constitution does apply to Gitmo.

Does it apply to Iraq?

[Sarge]

But none of the people in Gitmo have carried out a suicide attack, otherwise they would be dead.

And theres a CHANCE that they weren't planning on it, and I will stand up for their right to a fair trial...call me what you want, they're people and until you prove to me that they're guilty they deserve fair treatment.

You realy need to join the miltary and see some of the real world

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Because they are enemy combatants. (period)

You should be happy The United States is kind enough to not line them up and shoot them or drag them through the streets and hang them from bridges.

Because he's the Commander in Chief

That doesn't really make sense to me. Even the commander-in-chief has checks and balances on his power. Are you saying we declared war in gitmo?

Basically, by trying to set up a place where the President can exercise his executive authority, but to also try to remove judicial due process from it, you have a clear separation of powers problem. I think its pretty straight forward if you think of it like that.

[Larry]

Sorry for chiming in late to this thread, but the fundamental issue is that we are at war.

Ah the "the Constitution doesn't apply when we're at war" excuse.

Again. Either the Constitution applies (in which case there are things which the government cannot do), or it doesn't (in which case, the government has no powers whatsoever. In fact, without the Constitution, the government does not exist.)

There is no redacted Constitution. No "In case of [insert excuse], the following parts don't count (but these other parts do)."

In wartime, those we capture, especially abroad, have never had constitutional rights.

There is no such thing as constitutional rights. The Constitution doesn't grant rights. The Constitution creates a government, and specifies the things which the government can and cannot do.

You only have to read three words into the constitution to realize that -- "We the people . . . ."

". . . do hereby ordain and establish this Constitution".

Not "do hereby grant the following rights to ourselves (but not to anybody else."

The Constitution wasn't written for the purpose of giving white male landowners (remember, when it was written neither women, blacks, nor indians were "people") Freedom of Speech. They already had Freedom of Speech. The Constitution (the word is another way of saying "the making") was written for the purpose of creating a government that didn't have the power to take away Freedom of Speech.

The Constitution is written in black and white. It isn't written with parts in red ink, parts in blue, parts in green. There is no note at the bottom that says "Non citizens, please hold a red piece of cellophane in front of your face, and see which parts disappear."

War is not the same as criminal trial. If we capture someone fighting againt us or a member of those fighting againt us we hold them until the war's over. Done. Do you think every private in the Nazi Army we captured wouldn't like the opportunity to say he was forced to join and loves America? I'm sure some, if not most, were forced to join. The point is that if we let them go they'll rejoin the fight (as 30+ have done in this war). And if he's committed, I bet he, and his lawyer, would love to have us show him all of the information we have on the him, his Army, and the details of how we know he's a member.

Agreed.

This decision agrees with you, too.

Contrary to the spin being flung at the decision, this decision doesn't entitle anybody, at Gitmo or anywhere else, to a criminal trial.

What it grants them is the right to demand that the government pick a set of rules that are going to be used against them, and to then follow those rules.

If the Habeas hearing rules that Abduhl bin Bombin is an enemy combatant, then he's subject to the military's rules for dealing with enemy combatants. (Which include not releasing him until the end of hostilities, and do not include civilian, criminal, trials.)

What this decision says is that the government can't claim that there are no rules. Nor can they play the "shuffle the prisoner from system to system, so we can hide him from Justice" game.

They can announce "he's a POW". (And he can attempt to challenge the classification). But they then have to treat him according to the rules for POWs.

[Larry]

You realy need to join the miltary and see some of the real world

So, in the real world, people do carry out suicide attacks and then get captured and sent to Gitmo?

Please, tell us, Sarge, how many people you, personally have captured after they carried out a suicide attack.

[ACW]

So, in the real world, people do carry out suicide attacks and then get captured and sent to Gitmo?

Please, tell us, Sarge, how many people you, personally have captured after they carried out a suicide attack.

:laugh::laugh:

[Cdowwe]

But none of the people in Gitmo have carried out a suicide attack, otherwise they would be dead.

And theres a CHANCE that they weren't planning on it, and I will stand up for their right to a fair trial...call me what you want, they're people and until you prove to me that they're guilty they deserve fair treatment.

Haha I wouldnt call you anything but an idealist

[Sarge]

You really need to go back to High School, and read the Constitution.

You could stand a stint in the real world as well. Or at least scale back the ACLU meetings

In the real world, these people were scooped up fighting against US troops. In the real world, these people were fighting for the same ideals that the *******s that brought down the WTC believed in.

When I see and hear about these pieces of ****, I think back to the poor schmuck that went to work years ago, not bothering a soul, and ended up having make a choice to burn to death of jump from a 100 stories up

**** those pieces of ****.

I've already gotten emails from friends overseas that said they're done taking prisoners because of this.

Good on 'em

[Sarge]

". . . do hereby ordain and establish this Constitution".

Not "do hereby grant the following rights to ourselves (but not to anybody else."

And just who do you think "We the people" are? If it was the entire planet, then surely they would have extended those rights to the British monarchy, right?

[Larry]

In the real world, these people were scooped up fighting against US troops. In the real world, these people were fighting for the same ideals that the *******s that brought down the WTC believed in.

So, when are we gonna find those WMDs in Iraq? You being the possessor of all that inside knowledge, like being personally familiar with the circumstances of every single person in Gitmo, and all?

Here's some news that seems to contradict your blanked (and completely imaginary) declarations of 100% infallibility:

When Gitmo was first set up, and the military began sending people there, the Pentagon began the procedure for having classification hearings for the prisoners. These are, supposedly, the first "court date" that military prisoners receive. Required for all prisoners by Geneva, their purpose is to classify which set of rules apply to the prisoner. They've been standard procedure for all military prisoners in every war we've fought since we signed Geneva.

To get ready for these hearings, military lawyers reviewed the paperwork on each of the prisoners, so that the military lawyers would be prepared to explain why Prisoner Abduhl bin Bombin should be considered an "illegal combatant" or whatever. To prepare the prosecution's case, so to speak.

George Bush ordered the proceedings canceled, and pronounced that all prisoners at Gitmo (and all future prisoners sent there) were illegal combatants by Presidential Order. The first time since we signed Geneva that we haven't held these hearings.

According to the military lawyers who actually reviewed the paperwork on the prisoners at Gitmo

, 11% were captured at an actual battlefield. 9% had evidence which suggested a possible link to al Qaeda.

Not 100%. 11%. And that's according to military personnel who were actually assigned to handle the prosecution's cases.

Now, frankly, I assume that those stats aren't even close to representing the people who are there now. That information came from leaked sources. (Leaked military sources, but still, leakers often have an agenda). And they came at a time when "the system" was still being set up. If nothing else, I assume that we're not sending people to Gitmo for "walking their sheep", simply because space there is limited, and it's expensive.

But so far, the facts as to the question of the "guilt" of the people at Gitmo are:

• The only information that's been made public from people who actually had access to the information is: 11% of the people at Gitmo were captured at a battlefield.
  
• If the prisoners were, in fact, captured on a battlefield, then it would be ridiculously easy to have a classification hearing in which the prosecution says "prisoner was captured actively engaged in combat against coalition forces", and the judge says "next case". In act, if the entire population of Gitmo can't be classified in a single day, I'd be really surprised.
  
• And yet, there has been no such classification.
  
• The reason there is no more accurate information available, is because the President has spent 5 years frantically claiming that no one is permitted to actually look at the information. (Because the Bush administration is concealing a lack of evidence? Or because the Bush administration knows that, once the prisoner is classified, then they can't claim that there are no rules concerning prisoner treatment?) (My money'd be on the latter. I assume that the government actually has a pretty good reason to send people there.)
  
• This, however, does not in any way prevent people with no information whatsoever from declaring that 100% of the people there were on a battlefield.
  

When I see and hear about these pieces of ****, I think back to the poor schmuck that went to work years ago, not bothering a soul, and ended up having make a choice to burn to death of jump from a 100 stories up

News flash, Sarge: In the real world that you like to talk about (but not live in), every one of the people who hijacked those planes died on 9/11. You can't get revenge on them by torturing somebody who happens to belong to the same political party or religion as they did.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Sarge,

I just think you are being overcome by a lot of bad reports of what this opinion says. All those things you said about war-time being different, and the President being commander-in-chief are true.

But you are missing that Gitmo was not a place where habeas corpus was suspended. The U.S. did not even argue that they suspended habeas corpus in this case. The U.S. argued that when someone is at guatanomo bay there is no rule of law that needs to be followed EXCEPT what the President says.

If Bush wanted to treat the Gitmo prisoners as POW's, and give them military trials, etc. etc., he can do that. But he tried to claim that Gitmo is a unique place in the world where no one has any rights except what the President of the United States says. That is a CLEAR separation of powers problem.

No single branch of the government can claim that they have a constiutional monopoly on one geographic location in the world. Its basic checks and balances. And if you really think checks and balances are a problem, then you have a problem with America.

Also, I can hear the "war-time" argument again brewing up... If we're at war, there are still checks and balances on the President. But he chose to circumvent even the smallest checks on his power here.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

And just who do you think "We the people" are? If it was the entire planet, then surely they would have extended those rights to the British monarchy, right?

Its also factually inaccurate to claim that only US citizens have rights under the constitution in the past. That is just not right.

[Larry]

And just who do you think "We the people" are? If it was the entire planet, then surely they would have extended those rights to the British monarchy, right?

Again, RIF.

"We the People of the United States, . . . , do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Not "do hereby grant these rights (but only to ourselves)"

"We the People, hereby form a government".

That's the stated purpose of the Constitution. Form a government. Not grant rights. (The People already had those Rights.)

If the Constitution disappeared tomorrow, the People would have Freedom of Religion. They just wouldn't have a (federal) Government.

Getting rid of the Constitution doesn't get rid of the right to keep and bear arms. It gets rid of Congress. (Hey, I like the sound of that. )

The Constitution didn't create Habeas Corpus. It created a President. And it specified that that President cannot ignore Habeas Corpus. (But that Congress can, in emergency, suspend it.)

The word Constitution comes from "to make, or to create".

What you and the rest of the "The Constitution doesn't apply to [insert excuse]" crowd are really trying to achieve is "The parts of the Constitution that limit government power don't count if [insert excuse]"

You're trying to claim that "In case of [insert excuse], the 'probable cause' part doesn't exist, but the 'Commander in Chief' part still does."

[81artmonk]

Your irronious claim was that the supreme court has never granted legal rights to enemy combatants in 232 years. I was just pointing out that Bush created that catagory of prisoner in his first term in office in order to get around legal protections and minimum standards of care set up by law for both POW's and criminals.

So I'm saying you are wrong. 232 years of legal precident says you call prisoners POW's and apply international treaties, or you call them criminals and send them to court. We've never had the Bush tweners before.

I never said that the supreme court didn't. I said that in the 232 years of ameriocan history we haven't.

As for the democrats obstructing Bush who really is trying to give these guys fair trials... Where have you been for the last 7 years. Bush has been kicking and screaming to keep these guys out of coart and even deny them any indepenent review or oversite....

As for these "terrorists" are foreign fighters captured on foreign soil.. Just

WRONG!!! Bush has taken people off the streets of the United States including United States citizens and tried to claim them as enemy combatants. Google up..

We don't agree.

If they are terrorists, and I believe the reality of the situation is the vast majority of the people we detained were not terrorists. I say this because the vast majority of the people we have detained in the war on terrorism have been released. In Abu Grab we released 97% of the folks inprisoned there. Their offenses ranged from being on the wrong street at the wrong time, being out after curfew, being proximal to a bomb being detonated. In Git mo Bush and other independent sources have claimed that as many 90,000 people have passed through that prison. The prison only holds fewer than 700 people. That means that the folks held at Gitmo 92% of them were also released after a period of incarsoration.

Literally we are not holding mostly terrorists in Gitmo. Literally we are holding folks who were unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

So says you. I don't agree.

But if they are terrorists, why would anybody object to an independent review of the evidence against them?

Becuase they should be tried by a military tribunal which Bush has been trying to do and hasn't been able to. he has been told that is unconstitutional.

Do enlighten me. When have the United States ever detained 90,000 folks, transport them to an out of country detention camp, claim they have no legal rights, subject them to torture, kill more than 100 of them, all without any indepenent oversight? Please do tell.

Maybe Jackson in the trail of tears... Wonderful precident for a modern foreign policy.

again so says you, I don't agree

The armed forces and the President of the United States don't swear an oath to protect the United States. Oddly enough that wasn't the chief concern of the founding fathers who wrote the oath of office. They swear an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States. You can't protect the nation by abandoning the rule of law is the leason to be learned from every oath of office civilian polititians or military personel commit too.

Dude, this is the administration who offered a carpet merchant with no ties to any terrorism group a million dollars to sell a missle to terrorists. No matter that the guy didn't have a missil. No matter that the guy didn't know anybody who had a missile. No matter that the guy in question never agreed to the sale, just by being pressent when two government informers discussed the deal this administration charged him with terrorism and he faced the death sentence.

This is the administration who charged an Army Chaplin with aiding the enemy and charged him with high treason punishable by death. When the Chaplin refused to a plea bargan which would reduce his death sentence to months in jail and demanded a trial after more than a year of incarsoration; this administration changed the charges to recieving pornography on a government computer. No matter that the pornography was part of an email which was not solicited by the Moslem Chaplin, No matter that the chaplin never viewed the unopenned email.... The pornography charge was thrown out of military coart.

This is the administration who approached homeless men in Miami, and offered these guys thousands of dollars if they would agree to work for Al Quada. These 17 men didn't have 20$ between then. Some were mentally impared and didn't even know what Al Quada was. None of them had a record of violent crimes, None of them was a terror suspect. No weapons were found on them when they were arrested. They were never even accused of planning an attack; But because they accepted the money from a team of government agents who targeted them; they were charged with terrorism..

I say if you have evidence folks are terrorists then by all means try them. If you don't let them go. This crap about we have no evidence, but we still know their terrorists is bunk.

Huh, what. I kinda lost my place. Your one of those evil, bush administration conspiricy types, huh?? We don't agree. nuff said!

[ACW]

Rif???????