Everytime I read articles about GITMO or "illegal combatant" status I can't help but think of two of our close allies, United Kingdom and Spain, that have had attacks on their homeland. Somehow they've been able to haul the perps in front of a regular court, try them and imprison them when found guilty. All without a special status or prison in another country. Why is it that we couldn't have done this in the same way?
JUSTICE
Overplaying Its Hand
By denying Gitmo detainees basic legal protections, the Bush administration forced the high court to act.
From the magazine issue dated Jun 23, 2008
Member Comments
-
Posted By: NavyDave @ 11/14/2008 10:38:40 AM
-
Posted By: Want A Change @ 11/12/2008 3:25:03 PM
Due Process, Due Process, Due Process: That's the mantra that needs to stand the test of Conservatives, Neo-Cons, idiots and anyone else that thinks we have the right to hold someone indefinitely. The notion is ridiculous. If these guys are so horrible and have done horrible things then the government should have the goods on them to send them to prison: Period. Of course at this point the Bush hard-liners (read: idiots) have just created 270 very, very upset pseudo-terrorists that will go home and become the terrorists they always wished for. So, why don't we just do the Cheney thing and put a bullet thru their heads and call it a day. The GOP has created a self-fulfilling prophecy with their irresponsible actions and now Obama has to clean it up along with all the other crap they created.
-
Posted By: sprues2 @ 09/03/2008 6:15:50 PM
Reading this, I find myself, a little puzzled. We live in a country, that allows the law to force us to wear seat belts.
We live in a country where police forces can come to your home, on the basis of an anonymous phone call and examine your children.
We live in a country that allows the law, to force us to move from our homes, if deemed necessary.
We live in a country, where police forces are allowed to set up roadblocks and examine our documentation, where no probable cause exists.
The reasoning is the same, the state has an overiding interest.
The state, has an overriding interest? I'm so silly, that, I thought the state, existed, for my benefit.
I'm, also,so silly, that, I think, the state, has an overriding interest, in holding these people as long as is necessary, in their judgement -
Posted By: paulte @ 07/24/2008 10:41:13 AM
It all revolves around the question of defining a POW. Congress should define the subjects at Gitmo as POWs or as qulaifying for POW status and that would remove them from the jurisdiction of the US Courts. The Supreme Court could only put its 2# in because the subjects were in a gray area.
-
Posted By: Cliff-N-Cali @ 06/30/2008 12:51:07 AM
Personally I am in full support of the ruling. I believe that bringing these people to the public court system will bring the public eye back to the War on Terrorism. Sure why not? Lets let each detainee tell their story of why they will not stop fighting until the Western Society falls. Lets let them tell there story of how they were able to kill American and Allied soldiers while they conducted their war to promote their radical Islamic beliefs. Oh, yes this is really going to wake up all of you sleepy heads.
-
Posted By: Sultan Ahmed @ 06/25/2008 10:05:44 AM
It is right to say,
apex court was forced by repeatedly denying ,in providing basic legal rights
to the detainees.
Now the law of the land proceed with.
I hope,
Gitmo detaineed would get justice. -
Posted By: midnight05 @ 06/17/2008 11:53:59 AM
The Constiitution is who we are as a nation, both to ourselves and to the world at large. If we allow protections as old as that -- even oldler, going back to the Magna Carta -- to be abrogated, who are we? Are we any better than Pol Pot, Mobutu or other dictatorships?
-
Posted By: singularization @ 06/17/2008 8:36:11 AM
bush and cheney should simply be impeached .. and perhaps even tried for treason ... enough said..
-
Posted By: midnight05 @ 06/17/2008 7:32:47 AM
Neither Bush nor Cheney are lawyers and the lawyers around t hem are either bootlickers or graduates of a law school that teaches Christian Dominionism as part of the curriculum. Are we expecting these people to have respect for the Constitution? I don't think so. It is going to be the next Administration's job, led by a man who has taught law for years, to clean out the stables. It is nice that fivie out of nine justices thought the document had some life left in it and horrific that four did not. We need a new look at what is permitted and a new instistance on making sure the boundaries are not crossed.
The prison at Gitmo has to be closed down and the prisoners borught to the US for trial. Not Inquisiton type trial but American style of trial. The 1993 World Trade Center bombers are tucked securely inito prison after all the safeguards the system afforded them. It has worked for over 200 years and habeas corpus has worked for over 700. Bush decided it was moot. Now we have to decide that this kind of thinking is stopped cold. -
Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/16/2008 8:03:53 PM
rastuso3, I don't think that you might have caught the gist of the U.S. Constitution. It is a mistake that many people make, thinking that only U.S. Citizens benefit from the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments. The language of the constitution says that Congress cannot pass a law infringing the protected rights. That means that whoever comes under the jurisdiction of our countries courts is protected by our constitution. This is why the administration was so desperate to find a place that they thought might let them abuse human rights. The court rightfully indicated that they are full of crap. Hope this helps.
-
Posted By: Thoughtful @ 06/16/2008 4:38:54 PM
It's a great pity that the criminals like george w. bush, that dick, cheney, rummy, wolfowitz, rice etc.etc. won't subject themselves to that non-torture called waterboarding. These people belong in jail. That moron President bush is quite shameless. In Europe he is still embarassing this country with the nonsense he spews. All these people need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
-
Posted By: meganodell @ 06/16/2008 2:44:06 PM
Many analysts believe the dollar???s protracted decline is a major factor behind oil???s doubling in price over the past year.
Too bad the Bush Administration was so pre occupied with war games to pay attention to our real threat! -
Posted By: tjirish34 @ 06/16/2008 1:01:08 PM
The fact is many detainees were innocent of any crime. Already a documetary out about one such detainee. I don't care who you are or what you did. Every person detained by this country (USA) should have the right to see evidence or accussers against them. That is what the foundation of our laws are based on. The fact that McCai and Obama wil closeown Gitmo speaks volumes. Oh and BTW Justice Scalia is a pr_ck. I may not agree with the conservatives on high court but I have no respect for Scalia . This guy helped decide the 2000 election and he goes duck hunting with Dick Cheny.
-
Posted By: georgou @ 06/16/2008 12:02:34 AM
Mr rastuso3,
If we deny constitutional rights of habeas corpus to anybody under US custody (for example, non-citizens), then:
1) these rights will be denied to everybody, even you. How would you prove that you're not an enemy combatant and you're US citizen, if you're denied access to the court of law?
2) US won't be able to contest any detention of an US citizen by any rogue government. They'll say: your country itself allows holding non-citizen without access to legal councel and court. So go F yourselves -
Posted By: rashinal@gmail.com @ 06/15/2008 11:34:06 PM
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
For rastus03 and those that hold similar position, this may appear "liberal". But this passage from the Declaration of Independence does not stipulate that rights go only to those born in this country. It speaks directly to who we strive to be; beyond the influence of others, beyond the random happenstance of where and to whom anyone is born.
It is about who we are, not who "they" are.
The founders of our country were quite clear and vehement about the "liberal" foundations of democracy. They intended us to be Leaders, not followers. They intended that we have strength and courage, to hold our values in the face of danger and adversity, not cowards who abandon our principals because "others" don't share them.
It was the Conservatives that held that America should be ruled by divine right.. pay taxes without representation, buckle to the whims of kings..
They were cowards and hypocrites, and apparently still are. -
Posted By: ayoss58 @ 06/15/2008 11:22:26 PM
Releasing these terrorists is one more failure for surely they will kill more innocent A mericans.If we can't even hang them when catch them what,s the point of fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan.Just hang them!!!.
-
Posted By: sparky716 @ 06/15/2008 10:05:25 PM
To people like rastus03...you should have been born in Germany in 1933,thats the kind of world you would like...people like you are sick and need help.....
STUPID RIGHT WING NUTS -
Posted By: mexed @ 06/15/2008 9:40:27 PM
Send them to Texas. There they can start a religion that exempts them from following the laws of the country, build their ranch and live off the food stamps.
-
Posted By: rastus03 @ 06/15/2008 9:34:13 PM
These enemy combatants and OTHERS do not get the rights afforded to US citizens. Period. This so indicative of how we have been conditioned to extend benefits to those who have snuck into this country, and now they get all of the same bennies of those who are born here.
We are the only country on the planet who does such a thing.
It's time we got wise and started retaining all these benefits for OUR people and not all of the rest of the world who sneaks across our borders or threatens our national security.
STUPID LIBERALS!-
Posted By: marksgershenson @ 06/16/2008 2:27:23 AM
You might as throw everyone in the mix, who are others? Are they Black, White, Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, skin heads, Nazi, Communists, etc.?
-
-
Posted By: jdh1094 @ 06/15/2008 9:29:11 PM
The Bush administration dragged its feet so long, THAT'S what cued the court. Had they expedited the cases, there would ;have likely been no lawsuit.
-
Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/15/2008 9:18:08 PM
Well, Spacer, let's see. We released 500 detainees and you say that thirty of those joined an army against us. That leaves 470 people that we had no cause to imprison, so we let them go. Is it your theory that we should have wrongfully continued to imprison 470 people along with the thirty just to keep 30 from joining an army against us? Wrongfully imprisoning only one person is not consistent with our constitution. How can wrongfully imprisoning 470 people make any sense? This seems to have been Justice Alito's theory when he wrote in his dissent that there was some evidence that 30 released detainees had turned against us. All I can deduce from this is that he will hold a crowd in jail just in case one of them might get out and go bad. And I see by your blog that you buy it, too. We are all very fortunate that Justice Alito was in the minority in this case.
-
Posted By: bill4truth @ 06/15/2008 8:54:25 PM
Overplayed his hand, indeed. What Mr. Bush did was to ignore the US Constitution, Article 1, and a foundational principle of our common law - Habeas Corpus. It was instituted as far back as 1305 to protect people from the tyranny of rulers. George Bush's real legacy will be his tyranny.
-
Posted By: Spacer @ 06/15/2008 8:31:37 PM
The military has already released more than 500 detainees for a variety of reasons; most have gone back to their native countries, though there is some evidence that more than 30 have shown up as combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan and some have killed innocent people.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's less than 10% of those released after years of incarceration who committed terrorist acts. And I wonder how many of those 30 who were terrorists when they were released had not been terrorists when they were first sent to Guantanamo. Some of them could well have been innocent men radicalized by the abuse they received there. -
Posted By: Spacer @ 06/15/2008 8:28:22 PM
This notion of an "unlawful enemy combatant" is a legal fiction that the Bush regime concocted to create a twilight zone between the designation of detainees as criminal suspects subject to the judicial process and prisoners of war, which do not have the right of habeus corpus but do have rights under the Geneva Convention. And in that legal twilight zone, torture and other crimes against humanity have been perpetrated by our own government.
There is no "War against Terror" except in the metaphorical sense. Wars are fought between nations, and Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are not nations; they are bands of murdering criminals and should be treated as such -- that is, those who've been proven guilty by the normal legal processes.
I hope this Supreme Court ruling will miss up Bush's planned show trials of 9/11 suspects in his kangaroo court at Guantanamo. The trials were scheduled to be held just before the presidential election and were clearly intended to influence the outcome on John McCain's behalf. It's no wonder that McCain was squawking in outrage about the Supreme Court's decision. -
Posted By: bobdevo @ 06/15/2008 7:00:48 PM
The rights granted in the Constitution, specifically the right of habeas corpus, do not apply to "citizens" - they apply to "persons" - citizen or not. The Constitution says the right to habeas shall not be revoked except in cases of invasion or insurrection, neither of which obtains in the instant case. Only an idiot - or someone with a transparent agenda - would advance a legal argument to the contrary.
-
Posted By: C. MacLean @ 06/15/2008 4:54:16 PM
Not being able to confront the evidence against you is not justice, it is a witch hunt. Anybody anywhere can accuse you of anything and you have no recourse, no way to fight back, no way to prove you might be innocent. And there is enough evidence out there that says some of these men are tragically innocent.
And some are no doubt terrorists in the fullest sense of the word, and should be executed for war crimes. But either way, the Bush Administration took the lowest road possible when it chose to flagrantly deny any pretense of appropriate jurisprudence. What they did instead was expose themselves for the bullies they are, and gave our international reputation a blow it may take decades to repair.
But the Supreme Court ultimately did us no favors because they didn't fully address the issue - what, exactly, is the legal status of the men held at Gitmo, and what, exactly, are their rights?
We still don't know, we still look like bullies and thugs to the rest of the world, and the Bush Administration still doesn't understand the real reason they lost this legal battle - because they were flat out wrong.
I wonder where Obama and McCain stand on this issue, and what they plan to do with Gitmo and the other prisons, and prisoners?
Because clearly, neither the Court or the Administration has any good ideas.-
Posted By: Nins @ 06/15/2008 11:45:03 PM
At a MINIMUM these prisoners should have the rights they are given under the GENEVA CONVENTION, which is signed by the USA, but Bush conveniently ignores. And you wonder why the international community thinks we are hideous?
The US Government with liberty and JUSTICE for all, tortures people and holds them for years without being charged, without getting trials. We, the mighty banner of liberty and freedom, torture people. Remember when we used to abhor this as inhumane, and disgraced other nations and dictators who stooped this low?
I am a Republican and ASHAMED of my party.-
Posted By: C. MacLean @ 06/16/2008 12:01:50 PM
Couldn't agree more. I have been ashamed of being an American since the day Bush took office, and I'll remain ashamed until January 21, 2009, which can't come soon enough. I can't vote for McCain, but I don't believe he would have sold out the US Constitution or the Geneva Convention the way Bush, et al have.
The real war criminals, the true terrorists, are Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Gonzalez.-
Posted By: Braes @ 06/23/2008 12:49:09 AM
The list of those culpable under Geneva is longer than your arm in Microfilm. Look up the Yamashita Standard. Indictments in the Eurozone are already flying around over kidnappings and other illegal acts.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/15/2008 2:36:13 PM
Please refer me to the volume which contains the, "human rights laws".
-
Posted By: marksgershenson @ 06/16/2008 2:29:28 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_law
-
-
Posted By: wnzin @ 06/15/2008 2:00:37 PM
They are not prisoners of war (POW) under international law because they are not the military of a State (government).
The International Red Cross has a discussion of this and why they are not POW's.
Even then we are required to meet our obligations towards them under human rights laws, which as far as I can tell by reading the military tribunal documentation on the web, we do meet. -
Posted By: wnzin @ 06/15/2008 1:53:21 PM
They are not prisoners of war, they are unlawful combatants.
The Constitution specifically states that the priveledge of habeas corpus can be removed as a right for rebellion and invasion. Terrorism is a form of rebellion.
The military tribunal rules are posted on the web. It is a rather extensive process that prohibits evidence gained by terrorism, provides a way to appeal (which none that have been convicted have used), and provides for a variety of other rights. Those that criticize the system without referencing this document are basically spreading propaganda because they do not base their view on the actual system used.
Perhaps the US Courts should be forced to deal with all of the captured unalwful combatants. The government has the right to have secret evidence in cases of national security even in the civilian courts. Let the courts handle it, with every case open and documented on the web, including the secret evidence that the defendents are not allowed to view. The courts will be have to either convict them or let them go. Perhaps they will let the ones that their native countries do not want back here, as they did with the Cuban terrorist. Our oh so just courts that forget real justice prosecutes those who commit crimes. Perhaps then citizens of this country will see that the far left who control so much, and complain of the injustice of our nation, with the rhetoric and demogaugery do not seek justice at all. Their form of justice considers these terrorists as right in their actions, because in their view of the world, terrorism is a form of just rebellion against what they view as this nations unjust actions. Another words, we deserve it.-
Posted By: Braes @ 06/23/2008 1:57:33 AM
Terrorism is not rebellion. Terrorism is a form of asymmetrical warfare. The United States are not undergoing a political rebellion that has caused a civil war to break out, and law and order descended into anarchy or military rule at the opposites. Nope rebellion is not occuring. Anyone can file a writ at the courthouse or conduct business and communication freely, as long as they don't want to fly.
The unlawful Combatant designation was never given the weight of the treaties it attempted to abrogate.
The highest purpose of the law is to represent us, not punish offenders. What we do and how we do it, down to dotting I's and crossing t's speaks about us.
I have read the Military Comissions Act. It was a political CYA by the Republicans to legalize the wrongs already done. -
Posted By: tyler214 @ 06/15/2008 10:35:19 PM
When some of these same captives used the same tactics against the Soviet army in Afghanistan, with our weapons and our backing, they were called Freedom Fighters". Now because they have turned against us, they are "terrorists". In both cases they were fighting against an illegal invasion and occupation of their country. You can't have it both ways. Which are they, Freedom Fighters or terrorists. By your thinking, George Washington's army, often fighting without uniforms,and using guerilla tactics instead of orderly formations, were "unlawful combatants".
-
-
Posted By: wnzin @ 06/15/2008 1:53:07 PM
They are not prisoners of war, they are unlawful combatants.
The Constitution specifically states that the priveledge of habeas corpus can be removed as a right for rebellion and invasion. Terrorism is a form of rebellion.
The military tribunal rules are posted on the web. It is a rather extensive process that prohibits evidence gained by terrorism, provides a way to appeal (which none that have been convicted have used), and provides for a variety of other rights. Those that criticize the system without referencing this document are basically spreading propaganda because they do not base their view on the actual system used.
Perhaps the US Courts should be forced to deal with all of the captured unalwful combatants. The government has the right to have secret evidence in cases of national security even in the civilian courts. Let the courts handle it, with every case open and documented on the web, including the secret evidence that the defendents are not allowed to view. The courts will be have to either convict them or let them go. Perhaps they will let the ones that their native countries do not want back here, as they did with the Cuban terrorist. Our oh so just courts that forget real justice prosecutes those who commit crimes. Perhaps then citizens of this country will see that the far left who control so much, and complain of the injustice of our nation, with the rhetoric and demogaugery do not seek justice at all. Their form of justice considers these terrorists as right in their actions, because in their view of the world, terrorism is a form of just rebellion against what they view as this nations unjust actions. Another words, we deserve it.-
Posted By: effilcdar @ 06/15/2008 10:16:41 PM
The Objection to the dentention and renditions of terror suspects is on the basis of these actions being in the public view and the administration not acting with competence in support of 'Humane Rights' for people at their mercy. They misuse their advantage over helpless individual and permit atrocities against them and dismiss criticism with vague language. They miss the opportunity to present a vaible solution to every challenge that presented itself, they just threw up thier hands and said there's no law on the book for dealing with this situation and use in the place of law something that causes critics and allies to cringe and ask ; is thiscoming form people we trust and call world leaders? They assure us that they are doing the right thing but refuse to act transparently, and whenever exposed the facts do not align with what the administration has declared as infallable evidence. The Bush administration humiliates all american principle of right and fair dealings by not leading the world out of the tragedy of 9/11 but by exploiting and aggravating the situation in service of imperial agendas, which give rise of credibility to the most absurd critics with blood on their hands and torture chamber in their cellars. In the name of national defense the administration has geven reinforced arguement strategies to the worlds worst dictators, (ie. Look at what Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe is using as his justification for his crimes against his own people). We are the cheif sponsors of the U.N., when we dismiss their questions about our actions regarding 'Human Rights' we erode 50 years of progress on that front. How we do what we do matters. There is no way to eleiminate all risks for life and to do so by trampling on the rights of others will perpetuate the conflicts and escalate tensions. What we look to presidents for is leadership, not imperious pronouncements. Trust in every situation only goes so far and at some time you have to produce good measurable results or be declared a fraud.
-
-
Posted By: funkdome @ 06/15/2008 12:36:06 PM
What a bunch of crap. As the writer points out, there are no good solutions. No matter what we do with these terrorists the media will ascribe it to a Bush failure instead of just a difficult situation.
For all of the moronic bleating of the Bush haters on this boiad, none of them offer any alternative mechanism for dealing with terrorists. Maybe that's because there isn't any good answer.-
Posted By: Braes @ 06/23/2008 1:12:47 AM
We don't know that they're terrorists for the most part, and that's the problem. The bulk of these people have been just gathered willy-nilly by the governments own account. Torture has likely elicited confessions of plans to nuke an aquarium, or take out landmarks that these shepherds couldn't pick out of a line-up.
This isn't Bush bashing, this is a recognition of how miserably incompetent some of his help has been.
The clown who is now the military guy on the commissions Brig. Gen Hartmann has a smaller ribbon rack than you'd find on an NCO. He was made a General to do the dirty work of getting the people the commander wants executed, dead. We didn't use Nuremburg, or our own UCMJ to set up these trials, but wrote a set of laws that are intended to produce the results the commander wants. That is why 5 of 9 justices intervened. Now the fact that we abandoned international laws and norms is why we are stuck making them up on the fly, as per the likes of John Yoo, and other advisers to this executive.
As far as it being a bad situation, it took several years of horrid decisions to get us here. Many of those decisions were already against United States law, regardles of location. Others are against international law and treaties we are a party to.
Now the Protecting Terrorists mantra is funny. ne of these people detained as an unlawful enemy combatant was a United States citizen who might have been comitting treason for all God knows, Jose Padilla, but because they wanted to even run him through the military system they lost in court. So it was about a citizens rights too. <Even if he was found to be a reprehensible bast@&*> This administration in trying to reinvent the wheel where law was concerned. broke the wheel and lost. What we have to hope is that we haven't actually been weakened thereby.
-
-
Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/14/2008 10:44:16 PM
Wisdom of the founders. Better have at least one branch of government not dependent on votes to forestall injustice. We taught the world how to protect individual freedom with our constitution. It is unforgivable for our president, who should know better than any citizen how to protect individual freedom, to treat the law with such contempt. He blew it and the court finally had to tell him. The law applies the same to all people, no matter how hard the facts. This is when our own freedom is either kept or lost forever. Once the wrong decision is made by the court, you need not only to focus on the hard criminals at hand but you need to consider that this is the same law that your local constable will wield on you and your family. The writ of habeas corpus is what keeps him from holding you indefinitely without a hearing. The decision protects you just as much as the detainees. Once the power of abuse is given, it will be used by all.
-
Posted By: Azephyr @ 06/14/2008 8:33:18 PM
Everyone seems to be blaming everyone else, except the terrorists. Wake-Up America. The anarchistic zeal of radical muslim terrorists hate all christians and all jews. Muslim terrorists commenced this senseless killing to attempt to rule the world according to their beliefs and they will continue killing until they are stopped.
-
Posted By: Azephyr @ 06/14/2008 7:44:53 PM
Kill the terrorists.......That's what they are doing to us and will continue to try to do.
-
Posted By: Nins @ 06/15/2008 11:36:22 PM
Amazing how all these pro-Life anti-abortion ranters all want to kill Muslims.
-
-
Posted By: lowelldaleyoung@msn.com @ 06/14/2008 7:14:53 PM
katanao182, there's a lot of sense to what you say and if the Bush administration had done this from the start they would've avoided most of this mess. If it's a war, why are they not POWs? Yet, when you say "hold them until the War on Terror is over", I have a problem. Who makes the decision it is over? How does one tell? Look at history, bombings, political assasinations, guerrilla tactics keep on happening between traditional, declared wars. They will always happen somewhere and they will never stop. They haven't stopped since before the Roman Empire. The POWS who haven't committed war criimes spend their lives in prison? .
-
Posted By: randy@postmarks.com @ 06/14/2008 6:55:22 PM
I don't understand why people like Lindsay Graham and John McCain aren't outraged by the same basic issues that offend most Americans. This is not about habeas corpus for combatants. This is about a President who's arrogance is so all consuming, he believes even his own egregious blunders are sacrosanct. The simple fact is, there are clearly documented cases where American operatives have abducted, tortured, and then incarcerated completely innocent foreign nationals. Furthermoe, these abductions have occurred not on any field of battle, but while these people have been on vacation.
Yes, it's true in the fog of war, mistakes are made. But in one case, even after it was understood that the individual, Mr. Kurnaz, was completely innocent, the Bush administration held him at Guantanamo for an additional 4 years! How can two ostensibly honoroable members of the US Senate ignore these facts? How can they condemn a rulin by our courts which simply reaffirms some of the most basic rights we grant to even our worst criminals? By attempting to avoid accountability for these outrageous actions, they undermine the legitimate needs our military has to hold true combatants in time of war. As a Republicvan, I am ashamed of them.-
Posted By: Nins @ 06/15/2008 11:37:21 PM
You are right on all points, Randy. Thank you.
-
Posted By: Braes @ 06/23/2008 1:21:34 AM
Yep, kinda down the line.
-
-
-
Posted By: GatorVol @ 06/14/2008 6:38:15 PM
Gosh, beginning to sound like the Supreme Court remembers their job is to uphold the Constitution! I love my country for which it stands, and I am proud of the 5 justices who are loyal to the Constitution and do not bow to political pressures.
-
Posted By: katana0182 @ 06/14/2008 6:37:23 PM
It's quite simple: treat them as prisoners of war, under the Geneva Conventions. The ones who have committed war crimes, try them in a civilian court, or by court martial. If they're found not guilty, they're still POWs. The ones who haven't committed war crimes, hold them as POWs until the War on Terror is over.
Constitution protected, Geneva Conventions respected, America defended, problem solved.-
Posted By: Braes @ 06/23/2008 1:45:09 AM
If you had only been the Secretary of Defense. <want a really cool day job with a lot of jets?>
-
Posted By: lowelldaleyoung@msn.com @ 06/14/2008 7:11:29 PM
katanao182, there's a lot of sense to what you say and if the Bush administration had done this from the start they would've avoided most of this mess. Yet, when you say "hold them until the War on Terror is over", I have a problem. Who makes the decision it is over? How does one tell? Look at history, bombings, political assasinations, guerrilla tactics keep on happening between traditional, declared wars. They will always happen somewhere and they will never stop. The POWS who haven't committed war criimes spend their lives in prison? Even Albert Speer, convicted of war crimes, was released.
-
Posted By: firemedic258 @ 06/15/2008 10:34:46 PM
I agree that Katanoa182 offers an excellent solution. Try them and actually determine if they are guilty. If they are, I have no problem holding them for the rest of their lives (or even execution) since we all know that these radical Muslims will not stop until they kill all of us Americans. If you are found guilty of this, we cannot safely let you go. However, you have been given your trial. Everyone's rights were protected and America would stop looking so horrible to the rest of the world. It's hard to keep claiming that we want to champion freedom for everyone else in the world when Bush breaks the oldest legal principle of basic freedom recognized as fundamental to that same freedom.
-
Posted By: funkdome @ 06/15/2008 12:38:52 PM
Let's just let them all go.
Better for thousands of innocent people to be killed than risk the civil rights of a terroist, right?-
Posted By: PuddleDuck @ 06/15/2008 7:01:46 PM
We do it every day, in this country. We let murderers go free, to kill again, because we can't prove that they are guilty. Why not just try these guys in federal courts? The U.S. government can prosecute them, in coordination with military lawyers. If they are proven to be guilty, by a jury, they they will be sentenced accordingly. If found not guilty, they will be set free, but Bush isn't going to let that happen.
that the pris
-
-
-
-
Posted By: radlib @ 06/14/2008 5:42:24 PM
Thank God for the Constitution and the Supreme Court. Since "Gitmo" is in Cuba, on foreign territory, I hope this decision will apply to any U.S.-operated prison in the world, ending the brutal practice of "rendition."
Any lawyers out there who care to comment?-
Posted By: Braes @ 06/23/2008 1:41:10 AM
Physical location is not always a matter in United States law. Many of our laws by design only require the presence of an American Citizen in any facet of the crime. <Victim, perp, co-conspirator, etc.> The argument that by not bringing them onto United States soil would somehow quiet the reach of United States law was always incredibly weak. We send to interpol warrants for detention for United States hold and lawful rendition/extradition all the time. Many of these just like Manuel Noreiga, were neither United States citizens, nor did they commit their crimes against the United States while here, but were taken from foreign soil by United States forces and handed to a Federal Court by that great liberal appeaser, Bush 41.
-
Posted By: marksgershenson @ 06/16/2008 2:37:00 AM
they are all too afraid to comment....as a layman, I think there is going to be some heads on the chopping block after the November elections, regardless who wins...nothing would surprise me personally...
-
Posted By: Nins @ 06/15/2008 11:39:11 PM
I am not a lawyer but I agree with you.
Geo. W. Bush is a war criminal.
-
-
Posted By: dtschuck @ 06/14/2008 3:52:44 PM
When the Supremes, driven by the Conservative Branch, took the 2000 election out of the voters hands and decided it for us, they were just doing what was necessary. When, after several years of detention without even minimalist progress toward a finding of guilt, the Supremes tell the Administration to 'put up or shut up', suddenly this is deemed a power grab by the Conservatives. Seems the labels for the actions are correct--just reversed is all.
Loading Menu
Discuss