What Next at Gitmo?

SMACE,
Who says these are bad people, know one has proven they are bad people, that is the problem.
The constitution defines everything this country is about and if you don't believe it read it again.
We would not be a democracy without it.. You talk about me being short sided your willing to keep people in prison for years without proof of any wrong doing in the name of democracy. That is rediculas.

The dissenting justices and the people who are critical of the majority opinion on the ground that the circustances of the campaign against terror require that we suspend habeas corpus are cowards. Not physical cowards but philosophical and political cowards. Their cowardice is manifest in their fear of trusting the constitution and the bill of rights. This cowardice is much more dangerous to our freedom than all of the terrorists who ever lived or will. Once we allow ourselves to surrender any one of the legal protections for our right to resist the government and its overreaching grip we are setting up the justification for surrendering another and another and another, until we are left with tyranny by default.

The issue is not GTMO but future wars and future POW's.

Do we now need to have our soldiers take videos of the capture like police and be removed from the front lines to give testimony at a habeas hearing?

Government always acts under the Law of Unexpected Consequences. This one will rank up there with the impact of the Ethanol.

Hey Johnny McBush. if Bush's own hand picked puppets rule against him, just wait until the Dem. President loads the court up with liberal judges.

There is ONE person who openly admitted to having a role in 911. at Gutmo. There are MANY innocent people there. How could anybody have a problem with a court hearing if the accused openly admits the crime? The innocent people deserve to be able to argue their case. America, STAND UP for your constitution. You're heading towards McCarthyism again, and are beginning to look like a modern Soviet Union. This tedency toward fascist ideas must be stopped before it's too late - the entire world is holding it's breath to see if the US will begin stomping on anyone who disagrees. Are you REALLY like that America?

This was a terrible decision by the Supremem Court. This undermines fundamental constitutional principles and legal precident during a time of war. Habeas Corpus was even denied enemy soldiers during wartime prior to the constitution by British Law. I guess the 5 liberal justice know better than the last 500 years of precident. The court system, once again, is legislating fron the bench. Are soldiers now supposed to collect evidence on enemy soldiers and combatants in the battlefield? Are we going to fly soldiers to court to testify?

This is a travesty. Why do more people not take notice that our constitution is being erroded by activist judges and the move towards socialism? You're losing your rights, folks, and not only are you allowing it to happen, you are voting for it.

People that act like these people do not deserve trials should be locked up for a few months without a lawyer. People that just want to throw our constitution out the window because of their fear are COWARDS.
Quit your stupid retorhic and fight for what makes America great, our Constitution. If these people are tried and found guilty then punish them accordingly,. To have prison camps where the people have no representation is a move of a Dictator. This is a democracy and even you cowards that spew your ignorant retorhic deserve a trial if your arrested. If you don't like the constitution then goto another country where dictators tell the courts what they can and can't do, where the leader of the country does not care about what the people.

As an American citizen, if I commit a crime I am guaranteed the right to a trial. The civil/criminal court system has not been the the jurisdiction for foreign soldiers captured on the battlefield...ever in our history. Read the dissenting comments, which uphold the rule of law. This decision flies in the face of all precident. I do believe that combatants should be tried, but is should be handled by military courts, not civilian courts.
And this is billed as a blow to the Bush administration.
It's yet another blow to us all.

Fair enough cinesimon. You may be right, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. However again, it's a short sighted comment. Their classification isn't the point. They are there for a reason; call them what you want. The goal is to ensure that they're behavior has consequences according to the laws and principles of our country. I think Chief Justice Roberts comments below sum that up. And as far as your torture comment, see England 2006 (i think it was 2006). The "bad guys" wanted to blow up 10 planes leaving from Europe over the Atlanitc. We (and the English government) foiled that plot through our interrogation of some of these detainees. I think those 2,000 on those planes are pleased with our efforts.

Actually they are classified as enemy combatants rather than POW's because they are not solidiers in the organized army of the occupied territory during a time of war. The enemy combatants come from neutral nations or allied nations that have normal diplomatic relations with the nation holding the prisoner and are not under the control or influence of the occupied's government, but act on the behalf of their own interests or the interests of an independent militia.

Article 4 of the geneva conventions explicitly excludes protection for this type of militia fighter.

Article 4 defines who is a Protected person: Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals. But it explicitly excludes Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention and the citizens of a neutral state or an allied state if that state has normal diplomatic relations with in the State in whose hands they are.

To say it doesn't do anything to apprehand bad guys is incorrect, because CIA agents have stated under oath during the period when Michael haden was defending the practice of waterboarding to congress that they have obtained information that had thwarted a dozen potential attacks.
By the way, our military pilots undergo waterboarding as part of their training so that they are familiar with the experience in case they are captured in a foreign country.

I am not a proponent of torture, I am just stating the facts as I find them...rather than having an emotional reaction to Bush's policies (and in the case of extending habeas corpus rights to foreign fighters during wartime, every other president's policy since this country was founded) or to the exsistance of Gitmo (which is used solely for the purpose of trying to save American lives).

regardless of how you feel about bush or the war, this decision is a disgrace and extremely dangerous. we have NEVER in our history extended habeas corpus to WAR CRIMINALS. untill now.
in an effort to smear bush (which some may think is justified) the supreme court has re-written the constitution.

I think you may not get much of a positive response by calling people's opinions short sighted. Bush et al are the people who made a point to changing their classification, not me! The English case had NOTHING to do with information garnered from torture. That is propaganda. INDEED bad behavior should have consequences ACCORDING TO THE VALUES AND PRINCIPLES OF YOUR COUNTRY. The constitution is just that, and the Bush administration is riding rough shod over a huge portion of tit.,

I have an absolute open mind on these types of matters. I'm not a lawyer and know very little about the law but I do know that our constitution states that EVERYONE, good and bad, deserves the right to a fair trail. However isn't it different for war criminals in a time of war? And while this may be the "right" decision, is it the best decision right now for our country? In other words, does this help us catch the bad guys? Unless someone out there can give me an intelligent answer to those questions, this decision seems extremely short-sighted to this American. Also, a note to the Katie Paul, you stated that this is a blow to Bush's Administration. To 90% of American's reading that, it seems this was about President Bush and again, that's extremely short sighted. Wasn't this about the Constitution of our country and the right to a fair trail? Present the facts, not your opinion.