Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

High Court ruling may delay war crimes trials

Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:06 AM EDT
politics, supreme-court, guantanamo, scotus, guantanamo-bay
Mark Sherman, Associated Press
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 6 photos
<p>In this image reviewed by the U.S. Military, soldiers patrol the perimeter of the Camp Delta detention compound, which has housed foreign prisoners since 2002, at Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base, in Cuba, Friday, June 6, 2008. (AP Photo/Brennan Linsley, Pool)</p>

In this image reviewed by the U.S. Military, soldiers patrol the perimeter of the Camp Delta detention compound, which has housed foreign prisoners since 2002, at Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base, in Cuba, Friday, June 6, 2008. (AP Photo/Brennan Linsley, Pool)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay may challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

In its third rebuke of the Bush administration's treatment of prisoners, the court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the constitutional rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The court's liberal justices were in the majority.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

Kennedy said federal judges could ultimately order some detainees to be released, but that such orders would depend on security concerns and other circumstances.

President Bush was unhappy with the ruling. "We'll abide by the court's decision. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it," the president said during a press conference in Rome. "It was a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented."

Bush also said he would consider whether to seek new laws in light of the ruling "so we can safely say to the American people, 'We're doing everything we can to protect you.'"

It was not immediately clear whether this ruling, unlike the first two, would lead to prompt hearings for the detainees, some of whom have been held more than 6 years. Roughly 270 men remain at the island prison, classified as enemy combatants and held on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaida and the Taliban.

The ruling could resurrect many detainee lawsuits that federal judges in Washington put on hold pending the outcome of the high court case. The decision sent judges, law clerks and court administrators scrambling to read Kennedy's 70-page opinion and figure out how to proceed. Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth said he would call a special meeting of federal judges to address how to handle the cases.

The decision also cast doubt on the future of the military war crimes trials that 19 detainees are facing so far. The Pentagon has said it plans to try as many as 80 men held at Guantanamo.

The lawyer for Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's one-time driver, said he will seek dismissal of the charges against Hamdan based on Thursday's ruling. A military judge had already delayed the trial's start to await the high court ruling.

The administration opened the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to hold enemy combatants, people suspected of ties to al-Qaida or the Taliban.

The Guantanamo prison has been harshly criticized at home and abroad for the detentions themselves and the aggressive interrogations that were conducted there.

The court said not only that the detainees have rights under the Constitution, but that the system the administration has put in place to classify them as enemy combatants and review those decisions is inadequate.

The administration had argued first that the detainees have no rights. But it also contended that the classification and review process was a sufficient substitute for the civilian court hearings that the detainees seek.

In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts criticized his colleagues for striking down what he called "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants."

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also dissented.

Scalia said the nation is "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens joined Kennedy to form the majority.

Souter wrote a separate opinion in which he emphasized the length of the detentions.

"A second fact insufficiently appreciated by the dissents is the length of the disputed imprisonments, some of the prisoners represented here today having been locked up for six years," Souter said. "Hence the hollow ring when the dissenters suggest that the court is somehow precipitating the judiciary into reviewing claims that the military ... could handle within some reasonable period of time."

The court has ruled twice previously that people held at Guantanamo without charges can go into civilian courts to ask that the government justify their continued detention. Each time, the administration and Congress, then controlled by Republicans, changed the law to try to close the courthouse doors to the detainees.

The court specifically struck down a provision of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that denies Guantanamo detainees the right to file petition of habeas corpus.

Habeas corpus is a centuries-old legal principle, enshrined in the Constitution, that allows courts to determine whether a prisoner is being held illegally.

The head of the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents dozens of prisoners at Guantanamo, welcomed the ruling.

"The Supreme Court has finally brought an end to one of our nation's most egregious injustices," said CCR Executive Director Vincent Warren. "By granting the writ of habeas corpus, the Supreme Court recognizes a rule of law established hundreds of years ago and essential to American jurisprudence since our nation's founding."

Five alleged plotters of the Sept. 11 attacks appeared in a Guantanamo courtroom last week for a hearing before their war crimes trial, which prosecutors hope will start Sept. 15.

Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman, said he had no immediate information whether a hearing at Guantanamo for Canadian Omar Khadr, charged with killing a U.S. Special Forces soldier in Afghanistan, would go forward next week as planned.

Bush has said he wants to close the facility once countries can be found to take the prisoners who are there.

Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama also support shutting down the prison.

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Mark Sherman's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: Anti-War, close Guantanamo, Examples of the Justice System Gone Awry, Political Analysis
  • Regions: United States , Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (193)
Jump to discussion page: 1 2
Issywise

After giving the Bush Administration years to get its constitutional house in order, the court has been forced to make the ruling it had to make--basic American laws do extend as far as the reach of the American government--there are no "out-of-bounds" areas for the reach of the law under the rule of law.

For God's sake, why did the administration force such a ruling?

  • 15 votes
#1 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:22 AM EDT
Andy Hunter

And why the hell was the ruling 5-4? This is a 9-0 case. I hate these guys.

  • 20 votes
#1.1 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:37 AM EDT
AdipicAcid

And a reminder to all of those people who claim they backed Hillary so they won't back Obama what a McCain Presidency will bring: a 5-4 vote in the other direction after a retirement or death on the Court.

  • 16 votes
#1.2 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:59 AM EDT
JoulesBeef

Scalia said the nation is "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

freaken punch drinking idiot
it's also "harder" to put murderers in prison when they have rights and yes rarely, sometimes they get out and kill again, but we suffer this problem so that innocent individuals arent harmed by their own government.

Rights make things harder for sure, but that is why we call them "rights" as they are the right thing to do... it's what makes us the good guys.

  • 19 votes
#1.3 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:14 AM EDT
Issywise

And a reminder to all of those people who claim they backed Hillary so they won't back Obama what a McCain Presidency will bring: a 5-4 vote in the other direction after a retirement or death on the Court.

I doubt it. Your opinion does not comport with the history of the two men's behavior in the Senate.

Party labels do not a man make.

  • 2 votes
#1.4 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:21 AM EDT
AdipicAcid

You know, there seem to be two Antonin Scalias. As a Constitutional Scholar he often makes very cogent arguments and seems to have a great deal of intellectual depth, even if you don't agree with him (which I usually don't, in fact). Then there's the jingo who wrote what is quoted above and completely ignored textualism* Bush v. Gore.

*I'll give you three guesses as to which well known Supreme Court Justice believes that textualism should be the only guide in interpreting laws. His initials are A. S.

  • 10 votes
#1.5 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:24 AM EDT
jazzman646

a McCain Presidency will bring: a 5-4 vote in the other direction after a retirement or death on the Court.

Exactly.

Another great reason to vote for McCain!!!

  • 4 votes
#1.6 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:41 AM EDT
The Good American

If you are serious about preserving and maintaining our democracy, a vote for McCain would be a vote for fascism, the current mantelpiece of the Republican party.

  • 9 votes
#1.7 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:53 AM EDT
AdipicAcid

How positively Soviet of you, tovarisch.

When did the right adopt Stalin and his methods as role models?

  • 2 votes
#1.8 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:54 AM EDT
Barry Rutherford

a McCain Presidency will bring: a 5-4 vote in the other direction after a retirement or death on the Court.
Exactly.

Both McCain & Obama have vowed to close Guantanamo

  • 5 votes
#1.9 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:43 PM EDT
Sir. Thinkswaytoomuch

Both McCain & Obama have vowed to close Guantanamo

Only one in a large network of secret prisons...

Somehow I doubt either of them will ever get around to closing Guantanamo anyway...

  • 3 votes
#1.10 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:49 PM EDT
Pamela Drew

What is more horrifying, the years of lawless detention, tossed in a dungeon with no tools to be heard and defend yourself, or a court of mixed opinion as to the lawfulness?

It was not immediately clear whether this ruling, unlike the first two, would lead to prompt hearings for the detainees, some of whom have been held more than 6 years. Roughly 270 men remain at the island prison, classified as enemy combatants and held on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaida and the Taliban.

It reminds me of the film Marrakech Express, except there was a crime with evidence in that horror. Locked away in a foreign land, held in a place where torture is allowed and trials by jury denied, sure doesn't seem too confusing a concept to me. Murderous dictatorships do it, not the civilized.

  • 8 votes
#1.11 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:51 PM EDT
Barry Rutherford

or midnight express

  • 4 votes
#1.12 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:04 PM EDT
Barry Rutherford

Article clipped to my Close Guantanamo group ! Anyone wanting to join the group please email me !

  • 2 votes
#1.13 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:38 PM EDT
greenguy

Both McCain & Obama have vowed to close Guantanamo

You're missing the point, to say the least.

  • 3 votes
#1.14 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:02 PM EDT
Barry Rutherford

You're missing the point, to say the least.

Please elaborate its still only 5.00 am here and im a bit slow today...

  • 3 votes
#1.15 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:08 PM EDT
Behind My Screen

midnight express was a good movie.

  • 5 votes
#1.16 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:37 PM EDT
greenguy

Its about the American judicial system. McCain gets to pick Supreme Court justices and, if he had his way, the justices responsible for this decision wouldn't be on the bench. But he did state that he wants to close Gitmo.

  • 5 votes
#1.17 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:40 PM EDT
Barry Rutherford

YES !

  • 4 votes
#1.18 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:49 PM EDT
Cletus Wilbury

greenguy - 1.19

Yes, McCain has always said this 'neither POW nor criminal' category is not consistent with law.
(going from memory)

  • 3 votes
#1.19 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:18 PM EDT
greenguy

McCain has changed his mind in the past. I think that he should still be asked whether he favors closing Gitmo.

  • 3 votes
#1.20 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 5:08 PM EDT
Barry Rutherford

McCain has changed his mind in the past. I think that he should still be asked whether he favors closing Gitmo.

Duh ! Hes already said this publically a number of times includuuung on Meet the Press...

  • 4 votes
#1.21 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 5:52 PM EDT
Pamela Drew

or midnight express

tee hee, no wonder googling was fruitless, Midnight Express, a must see!! Gitmo Redux? *smirk*

  • 4 votes
#1.22 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:05 AM EDT
Bill Harrison

How many of you geniuses have even read the majority opinion and dissents? You may wish to do so before popping off.

  • 2 votes
#1.23 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 8:41 AM EDT
Behind My Screen

Antonin Scalia has shown himself to be a hypocrite in his dissent.

  • 4 votes
#1.24 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 8:43 AM EDT
Cletus Wilbury

Boumediene Et Al. V. Bush, my excerpts so far.

  • 2 votes
#1.25 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:15 PM EDT
AdipicAcid

Antonin Scalia has shown himself to be a hypocrite in his dissent.

Could you flesh that out a bit with some citations? I'm not saying you're wrong, but you need to bring something more that a one liner if you want to make such a sweeping accusation.

  • 3 votes
#1.26 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:24 PM EDT
Cletus Wilbury

Scalia:

In other words, any interpretation of the statute that would make it an adequate substitute for habeas must be rejected, Congress could not possibly have intended to enact an adequate substitute for habeas. The Court could have saved itself a lot of trouble if it had simply announced this Catch-22 approach at the beginning rather than the end of its opinion. ...

He's correct, because Congress cannot legislate away the judicial branch. That's the catch.

  • 4 votes
#1.27 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 1:42 PM EDT
Behind My Screen

The hypocrite comment was aimed at his comment about how these people should not have their day in court because we are at war, yet he considers himself a strict constructionist.

  • 5 votes
#1.28 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:50 PM EDT
greenguy

I believe he's actually an "originalist."

  • 2 votes
#1.29 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:55 PM EDT
Behind My Screen

Either way, his words are hypocritical to that stance.

  • 5 votes
#1.30 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:50 PM EDT
Reply
TheJonesGirl

Good. Thank you, SCOTUS for cooler heads prevailing.

  • 11 votes
Reply#2 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:28 AM EDT
finalcut

I'm glad to see the courts got it right. I'm a little disappointed it was so split along ideological lines though - I had hoped to see a more general consensus.

  • 12 votes
#3 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:29 AM EDT
Jeff-321287

Please tell me how the court got it right. It just gave Constitutional rights to people who are not citizens of this country. The very people who would like to destroy our way of life and love nothing more than to spill American blood in the name of Islam.

This is nothing more than the court trying to legislate from the bench. It is a disgrace.

I would like to see you convince anyone who has served this country overseas that this was the right decision.

  • 1 vote
#3.1 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:44 PM EDT
TheJonesGirl

if they haven't been charged and tried, how do you know what they are?

  • 6 votes
#3.2 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:02 PM EDT
Andy Hunter

Fire Controlman 2nd Class, USN, completely disagreeing with you Jeff, and yeah, I've got my service cred. But, who knows? Maybe I'm a traitor too.

  • 4 votes
#3.3 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:03 PM EDT
Behind My Screen

Jeff,
it is people like you who are destroying our way of life. Our constitution covers anyone that is under US jurisdiction, not just citizens.

And what of the high ideals of bringing freedom and liberty to the world?

You betray and destroy the American way of life Jeff, more than any terrorist and his bombs could because your reaction to such tactics allows our laws and rights to be ridden over like they were guidlines rather than cement walls in the road of American life.

  • 7 votes
#3.4 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:38 PM EDT
Common Sense-291409

Actually, the Constitution applies only to citizens. There are other documents covering the rights and protections of foriegn nationals in the U.S. (diplomats). The Court has stepped out of bounds and should not be dictating law, but merely interpeting laws as Constitiutional or Non Constitiutional. That is their role. Now Congress should have addressed this issue from the very beginning and perhaps passed a law concerning due process for foriegn nationals being held under suspision of terrorist activities. Then the Courts could stand up and say "This law is Constitutional". Instead, they once again skipped past their role and took on Congress's duty.

Jeff is completely right when he said you can't give Constitional rights to non citizens. The Constitution is the basis we build our laws upon, but you still need the law. While I'm not sure, I would venture a guess that the split decision in the court was along this line of arguement. Right now, the detainees are only covered under international laws. As citizens of the greatest nation (freedom wise), I would think passing a law that gives forign nationals the same due process as citizens would be easy to pass. Perhaps it would even be a way to get rid of that annoying diplomatic immunity we give so freely to foriegn diplomats.

  • 3 votes
#3.5 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:31 AM EDT
Issywise

Actually, the Constitution applies only to citizens. There are other documents covering the rights and protections of foriegn nationals in the U.S. (diplomats). The Court has stepped out of bounds and should not be dictating law, but merely interpeting laws as Constitiutional or Non Constitiutional.

This is just factually wrong. There are bushels of cases where the Courts have applied the Constitution to protect aliens. You even know that to be the case yourself: How could slavery be prohibited without establishing a constitutional guarantee that aliens on our soil would not be enslaved. The concepts of due process applies to all subject to our courts and laws--including aliens and has applied for over a century. Just today, the Supreme Court ruled that aliens detained as terrorists have a constitutional right to challenge their detention in American courts.

You propose a startling and novel doctrine. If this is to be a nation under the rule of law, we can't go about exempting people from its protections and duties. Their reach must be coextensive with the laws own reach.

  • 6 votes
#3.6 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:48 AM EDT
AdipicAcid

Actually, the Constitution applies only to citizens.

You'd flunk Con Law with such an erroneous statement. There are parts of the Constitution that apply only to citizens, but there are huge parts that apply to persons.

By your thinking , a legal immigrant could be denied free speech, free association, and the right to a trial simply on the whim of the government. They can't, and the courts have said so, repeatedly.

  • 7 votes
#3.7 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 6:29 AM EDT
Meloney

Please tell me how the court got it right. It just gave Constitutional rights to people who are not citizens of this country.

Simply put the court recognized that in circumstances where the US extends it's jurisdiction it also extends it's operational principles.

Where the US wants to capture and detain it can not shirk it's responsibility toward those it assumes under it's jurisdiction.

  • 6 votes
#3.8 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 7:25 AM EDT
Issywise

Please tell me how the court got it right. It just gave Constitutional rights to people who are not citizens of this country.

It's called the RULE OF LAW. Power cannot exist outside of the law's reach if law is to actually rule.

  • 8 votes
#3.9 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:42 AM EDT
Common Sense-291409

I didn't flunk anything and a LAW is required, that is what the Constitution is set up to do, create new LAWS.... The cases you are referring to are based on laws under the Constitution. Do your research please. I know very well what I'm saying. Try reading the Constitution. You can find it at www.loc.gov.

All that aside, I'm not saying they shouldn't be given anything, I'm just saying the court is in the practice of making law instead of reviewing them. This isn't new and ignoring it is the very reason it continues. There should be no such thing as a liberal or conservative judges, just plain everyday judges who are able to keep their personal views out of their objective opinions. Case Close

  • 1 vote
#3.10 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:26 PM EDT
Issywise

I'm just saying the court is in the practice of making law instead of reviewing them. This isn't new and ignoring it is the very reason it continues. There should be no such thing as a liberal or conservative judges, just plain everyday judges who are able to keep their personal views out of their objective opinions. Case Close

Something's closed, but not the case you make. The courts have to interpret the laws that the legislature makes people come to them one by one saying, "Hey, the law screwed me out of my constitutional right." If courts couldn't evaluate the laws or other government action to see if it is or is not constitutional, then there would be no point to courts.

There is another reason that your simplistic presentation doesn't make for a closed case. Legislatures pass laws and they have ambiguities in them--people go to court to determine what the ambiguities actually mean. Should courts get out of declaring those "laws" too.

It ignorance that keeps the courts under attack for doing their job. Some of the most activist judges are also the most conservative.

Case closed my fanny.

  • 2 votes
#3.11 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 1:19 PM EDT
AdipicAcid

Would you care to explain the SCOTUS' reasoning in ZADVYDAS v. DAVIS et al. then?

As persons within our jurisdiction, the aliens are entitled to the protection of the Due Process Clause. Liberty under the Due Process Clause includes protection against unlawful or arbitrary personal restraint or detention.

Or from MATHEWS v. DIAZ

There are literally millions of aliens within the jurisdiction of the United States. The Fifth Amendment, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment, protects every one of these persons from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, 48 -51; Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 238 ; see Russian Fleet v. United States, 282 U.S. 481, 489 . Even one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection. Wong Yang Sung, supra; Wong Wing, supra. [426 U.S. 67, 78]

That makes it pretty damn clear that Due Process is a right that applies to all persons in US custody, while there are other rights that belong only to all citizens.

(All emphasis mine.)

  • 4 votes
#3.12 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 1:34 PM EDT
Cletus Wilbury

AdipicAcid -

Yes, that's the catch Scalia doesn't seem to like. Slightly different slant from my above, part of the same thing.

  • 4 votes
#3.13 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 1:46 PM EDT
Barry Rutherford

Actually, the Constitution applies only to citizens. There are other documents covering the rights and protections of foriegn nationals in the U.S. (diplomats). The Court has stepped out of bounds and should not be dictating law, but merely interpeting laws as Constitiutional or Non Constitiutional. That is their role. Now Congress should have addressed this issue from the very beginning and perhaps passed a law concerning due process for foriegn nationals being held under suspision of terrorist activities. Then the Courts could stand up and say "This law is Constitutional". Instead, they once again skipped past their role and took on Congress's duty.

This is where the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 & the Geneva Convention comes into play both documents of which the United States are signatories to.

  • 2 votes
#3.14 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:20 PM EDT
Behind My Screen

which, according to the constitution, means that they are laws of the land.

  • 3 votes
#3.15 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:53 PM EDT
Reply
Mars313

Supreme Court backs rights for Guantanamo detainees

SWEET JESUS! THEY SUPPORT TERRORISM???? DAMN LIBERALS!!!!!!!

where is Chuck Norris when we need him?

  • 14 votes
Reply#4 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:30 AM EDT
Sir. Thinkswaytoomuch

where is Chuck Norris when we need him?

Hey, he has a busy schedule. Standing behind Mike Huckabee and doing Mountain Dew commercials is tough work...

  • 4 votes
#4.1 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:39 PM EDT
Barry Rutherford

It is not about supporting terrorism nor is it about supporting muder or capital punshemnt rather it is about Supporting the rule of law.

  • 9 votes
#4.2 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:45 PM EDT
Mars313

It is not about supporting terrorism nor is it about supporting muder or capital punshemnt rather it is about Supporting the rule of law.

I know this, and you know this, but some people don't....

Jazzman:
It seems the 5 ultra liberal justices of the US Supreme Court have an ultimate goal of returning these terrorist detainees back to action, to kill more Americans.

I only hope they are all aboard the next aircraft these maniacs hijack.

  • 2 votes
#4.3 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:52 PM EDT
Pamela Drew

it is about Supporting the rule of law.

Why nit pick with details? *smirk*

  • 7 votes
#4.4 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:06 PM EDT
Barry Rutherford

Well at the moment they are just detainees and by all accounts rounded up by bounty hunters from Pakistan

  • 6 votes
#4.5 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:06 PM EDT
Barry Rutherford

well im good at that lol...

  • 2 votes
#4.6 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:37 PM EDT
squijiboDeleted
Reply
More Than Happy

Justice Roberts should be impeached and removed from the bench as soon as possible. Due process of law is not a mere luxury during peacetime.

  • 15 votes
Reply#5 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:31 AM EDT
The Confessor

"Due process of law is not a mere luxury during peacetime."

Amen.

  • 9 votes
#5.1 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:45 AM EDT
Cletus Wilbury

"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

Justice Anthony Kennedy - today.

Indeed, I would claim it was written precisely for extraordinary times, to protect the republic from its worse excesses.

  • 5 votes
#5.2 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:13 PM EDT
Jeff-321287

"They were designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times " for the citizens of this country. These people are not citizens and therefore are not extended the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

  • 1 vote
#5.3 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:48 PM EDT
Wheel

Jeff, we are citizens and as citizens we have some basic documents detailing how we deal with various situations. The way we are dealing with this situation is the correct way for citizens of our country to deal with them. That's why Bush must be impeached, he betrayed our trust in him and disobeyed the laws and guidelines laid down in the basic documents of our country.

You see, it's not about them (the terror suspects), it's about how we, as citizens, obey our own laws. If we don't respect them and demand that our leaders respect them, why should others have respect for our laws or us?

You're wrong Jeff, it's really that simple.

  • 5 votes
#5.4 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:18 PM EDT
Behind My Screen

They are extended the rights of our constitution if they are under our jurisdiction, and all people caught in a war zone, lawfully or not, are protected by basic human rights and the Geneva convention, none of which this administration cared to heed.

  • 4 votes
#5.5 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:43 PM EDT
Common Sense-291409

Behind My Screen, unfortunately, (as stated above) the Constitution does not extend past our citizens. The extended rights (or more appropietly, protection) needs to come in the form of a law from Congress. Yes, it should be there, but Congress has not even addressed it (at least not in any of the bills I've seen).

The Court is not suppose to make law... they are suppose to interpet law as Constituational or not. They've gotten into the habit of making up their own laws as they go, and we have let them.

  • 1 vote
#5.6 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:45 AM EDT
AdipicAcid

Behind My Screen, unfortunately, (as stated above) the Constitution does not extend past our citizens

See my comment above. You need to provide some case law citations, because your blanket statements are simply wrong. Even Justice Scalia would call your interpretation of the Constitution bull@!$%#.

  • 2 votes
#5.7 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 6:31 AM EDT
Common Sense-291409

Back to the difference between a law and the Constitution.... The Constitution is there to make laws stand.

I suppose i should have known better than to try to point out a fact that has been overlooked for a few decades now... So sorry, didn't mean to waste your time.

  • 1 vote
#5.8 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:30 PM EDT
Cletus Wilbury

"Even Justice Scalia would call your interpretation of the Constitution bull@!$%#"

I'm not so sure about that. Scalia seems to be making the same charge, albeit with at least attempted backup.

  • 1 vote
#5.9 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 1:49 PM EDT
AdipicAcid

No, if I read him correctly, he thinks the law as enacted extends adequate protections. He isn't arguing that Constitutional rights apply only to citizens. You may see it as splitting hairs, but from what I can see, most law is precisely about splitting hairs.

It also is about citation. Lots and lots of citation. You aren't allowed to make statements ex cathedra. Doing so is definitely bringing a knife to a gunfight.

  • 1 vote
#5.10 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:13 PM EDT
Cletus Wilbury

I saw that after my post,
acknowledged

    #5.11 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:41 PM EDT
    Reply
    Scott Isaacs

    Unfortunately we knew this day was coming. Now they'll have to start all over and scrub these military tribunals. They shouldn't have pushed the law this far.

    • 8 votes
    Reply#6 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:33 AM EDT
    JoulesBeef

    amazing they took so long to rule on this crucial issue and also shows what kind of injustices mccain would appoint and the scary america that would bring.

    • 10 votes
    Reply#7 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:34 AM EDT
    Lilly-319517

    Please - may I remind folks that "enemy combatants" do not have rights under the US Constitution. They have the rights granted to them under the Articles of War.

    There are ~230 men at Guantanamo... why? the vast majority are held because their own countries refuse to accept them. The Chinese Uighers (spelling?) have been offered releas and have requested to stay!

    Ask yourselves what rights you would have in any of the involved countries.. if you are female the answer is zero. iIf you are male the answer is precious few.

      Reply#8 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:09 AM EDT
      gatorhater

      I am glad that they upheld the constitution, but as I understand it, moving each detainee to civilian court merely gives each detainee the right to determine if they actually fall under civil jurisdiction or military tribunal.

      It is possible that some or all may be referred back to military tribunal and that this is consistent with rulings of the 1940's.

      During World War II, the Court unanimously upheld the power of the President to order to trial before a military tribunal German saboteurs captured within this Country. Enemy combatants, said Chief Justice Stone, who without uniforms come secretly through the lines during time of war, for the purpose of committing hostile acts, are not entitled to the status of prisoners of war but are unlawful combatants punishable by military tribunals.

      At least the rule of law is being established by the court system.

      • 5 votes
      Reply#9 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:09 AM EDT
      AdipicAcid

      Correct, but the government must now produce the body and the evidence against them in open court. The checks and balances system may be on life support, but it appears to finally be reviving a bit.

      • 9 votes
      #9.1 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:14 AM EDT
      JoulesBeef

      most people didn't have a problem with military tribunals that at least held up the standards of a normal military court.. it was the many things that we concider inalienible rights.. like habeous corpus..challenging your detention, or seeing the evidence against you and challenging your accusers and last not being tortured into confessions, as with torture I could get you to admit to being the toothfairy.

      • 5 votes
      #9.2 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:16 AM EDT
      gatorhater

      military tribunals

      do not have to abide by such things as

      inalienible rights.. like habeous corpus

      That was the Courts ruling back in 1942.

      As for this...

      as with torture I could get you to admit to being the toothfairy.

      Oh stop, please, stop, I confess.... I played toothfairy on several ocassions and my kids are now doing the same with their children.

      • 2 votes
      #9.3 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:43 AM EDT
      AdipicAcid

      I hate to tell you this, but countless innocent people were burned alive because torture made them confess to the perfectly imaginary crime of being witches. There were never any women having sexual relations with the devil, flying on broomsticks, and placing effective magical curses on people. Yet they confessed to it. All of it.

      Evidence extracted by torture often says as much about what the torturer thinks you are guilty of as it does of what you actually did.

      • 8 votes
      #9.4 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:57 AM EDT
      gatorhater

      AdipicAcid

      I hate to tell you this

      Why were you compelled to do something that you hate?

      Maybe that was your point and I missed it.

      • 1 vote
      #9.5 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:31 PM EDT
      AdipicAcid

      I hated to it, because I feared the effort would be wasted.

      You proved that assumption correct.

      • 7 votes
      #9.6 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:39 PM EDT
      gatorhater

      Your problem is, that you assumed that I was in favor of torture. Which I am not.

      Now prove your assumption, by citing what and/or where in string #9 that I stated being in favor of torture.

      You can't. That assuming something that is not there, is what led to people being burned at the stake, etc.

      That's Irony!!!

      • 1 vote
      #9.7 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:45 PM EDT
      Wheel

      as with torture I could get you to admit to being the toothfairy.

      Oh stop, please, stop, I confess.... I played toothfairy on several ocassions and my kids are now doing the same with their children.

      I suspect he's referring to this, the mocking tone seems to say that you belittle the fact of torture or the effect of it.

      • 2 votes
      #9.8 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:59 PM EDT
      gatorhater

      Wheel
      I suspect he's referring to this, the mocking tone seems to say that you belittle the fact of torture or the effect of it.

      If your general tendency is to label me, from the start based on presumed mocking, then there is literally nothing I can do to dissuade your opinion of me.

      Where you see a mocking tone, I see an attempt at a humorous response to lighten the subject.

      You have chosen the mocking tone, which would be the Salem Witch hunt type response..... facts mean nothing, only what I assume to be true.

      You may think what you want and burn me at the stake, etc.

      The irony of AdipicAcid's post is further strengthened.

      • 1 vote
      #9.9 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:12 PM EDT
      Barry Rutherford

      In the end they will probably be tried by the civilian or nomal court martial system the military commissions are just too flawed an a court will find them so !

      • 3 votes
      #9.10 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:46 PM EDT
      Pamela Drew

      The checks and balances system may be on life support,

      But still managing to feed record numbers of hungry contractors. Congress, gettin' job one done nicely, funding Wall Street, protecting their rights to operate unfettered. Individual rights? Pshaw!

      • 6 votes
      #9.11 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:11 PM EDT
      Cletus Wilbury

      yes, gator's points in 9.0 and 9.3 are accurate.

      "each detainee the right to determine if they actually fall under civil jurisdiction or military tribunal."
      (i'm guessing gator's right on that, i haven't read the decision yet) It makes sense. The problem was Bush was trying to say 'neither'. That that's consistent with the parts the Geneva Convention which we have signed into law was, and remains, a ridiculous argument. (and so say 5 out of 9)

      • 2 votes
      #9.12 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:22 PM EDT
      Reply
      djd

      Gitmo detainees - rights? Wow this is a surprise. I thought Bush owned the Supreme Court. There's hope for America yet.

      • 8 votes
      Reply#10 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:13 AM EDT
      JoulesBeef

      he was one vote short of owning it.... shows how critical this election is and why mccain MUST NOT WIN.

      • 8 votes
      #10.1 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:17 AM EDT
      Celestina

      Yep, it is actually a bit of a surprise (scary, how cynical I have gotten), but the best surprise I have had in months. Thank goodness the Court had the guts to do what Congress wouldn't.

      • 6 votes
      #10.2 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:15 PM EDT
      Reply
      demo scout

      Those who fear the "liberals" who made this decision in favor of the rule of law and the sanctity of our constitution should stop to think seriously about the fact that it is their law and their constitution. While they may not see a direct connection to their personal freedom, it is an immutable lesson from history that the abuse of power always grows until tyranny encompasses everyone unless we honor the rule of law in all cases. These detainees may or may not be guilty of terrorism, but the present terrorism is just an evil dot on the continuum of history compared to the many periods of despotism that mankind has allowed to occur when we fail to honor the rule of law and the rights of individuals. This decision strengthens our freedom and is a step toward the restoration of our national honor.

        Reply#11 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:15 AM EDT
        khalid-rahim

        Justice is a machine, that when someone has given it the starting push, rolls on of itself(J Galsworthy).
        But it was unfortunate that this Machine had been sabotaged by Bush dynasty and their proteges: Now that some honest Mechanics have put it in order to function once again. It is upto the Public to see that it
        is kept running smoothly.

        • 2 votes
        Reply#12 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:18 AM EDT
        rebazhin

        "terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution"!!! I thought the constitution was for U.S. citizens. These terrorist have NO rights! They are being treated better than most Cubans! What kind of judges have our presidents appointed???

        • 4 votes
        Reply#13 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:25 AM EDT
        More Than Happy

        I thought the constitution was for U.S. citizens. These terrorist have NO rights!

        That's not a very American attitude. U.S. law applies wherever our jurisidiction reaches, and that includes Guantanamo bay.

        • 5 votes
        #13.1 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:30 AM EDT
        AdipicAcid

        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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

        I wonder what loopy idiot libruls came up with that garbage.

        • 10 votes
        #13.2 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:38 AM EDT
        Barry Rutherford

        the Liberals are the ones that opened schools so people could learn to spell

        • 3 votes
        #13.3 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:52 PM EDT
        Common Sense-291409

        Nice quote, but you're referring to the treatment of detainees, not due process. U.S. citizens placed under arrest only have the right to remain silent (not to self incriminate), yet they also are to be treated as human beings.

        • 1 vote
        #13.4 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:55 AM EDT
        Behind My Screen

        Common Sense... US citizens have a right to due process too as do none citizens. the court simply reiterated that right.

        You are aware that this is the united States of America and not Soviet Russia.

        • 3 votes
        #13.5 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 8:36 AM EDT
        Common Sense-291409

        You are right, I missed that... due process is a law that applies to those who commit crimes in this country. My fault for not checking up on the letter of law on due process.

        And yes, I know this is the Soviet Union (Russia). Again, I never said they shoudn't have the right. Just because I made a comment talking about how it was done, I automatically became an agent of evil to everyone here.

        I come to these to try to actually dicuss topics. This past week, I see this is more of a "bashing party" than anything else.

        • 1 vote
        #13.6 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:36 PM EDT
        Cletus Wilbury

        "due process is a law that applies to those who commit crimes in this country"

        From my reading, Roberts and Scalia (not so sure about the latter) agree that the detainees in question have the right to due process. Their argument is that the courts set up by the Executive fill that bill.

        From my excerpts :

        The majority appears not to understand how the review system it invalidates actually works—specifically, how CSRT review and review by the D. C. Circuit fit together. ... the Court proceeds to dismiss the tribunal proceedings as no morethan a suspect method used by the Executive for determining the status of the detainees in the first instance.... (CSRTs) .. are instead a means for detainees to challenge the Government's determination.

        • 1 vote
        #13.7 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 1:56 PM EDT
        Barry Rutherford

        One of the reasons that due process has taken so long is the initial Military Commissions Act either deliberately or wrecklessly failed to address well founded methods of evidence used in courts of law around the world. This included heresay evidence, evidence taken under durress or torture. Other evidencenot presented to the defence for probity & examination. The list goes on...

        • 2 votes
        #13.8 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 PM EDT
        Reply
        Erik the Read

        This goes to expose a weakness of the judicial system. In six years major wars can be won or lost, administrations come and go. It would make sense to let the judiciary take the initiative when it seems major legal problems going unresolved. Now they have to wait until someone presents a case, at that case has to wind its way through lower courts.

        Last time a case like this was brought to the attention of the supreme court, lawmakers simply modified the law after an unfavourable ruling.

        I have been given an understanding that Italy and France practices a system whereby judges can bring up cases themselves.

        The British "The guardian" calls attention to other US prisoners. Now they are stuffing them in Navy vessels.

        • 5 votes
        Reply#14 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:26 AM EDT
        jazzman646

        Now they are stuffing them in Navy vessels.

        That story is total BS.

        • 3 votes
        #14.1 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:53 AM EDT
        Erik the Read

        Yes, The Guradian is famous for it. We can only trust the American mainstream media on things like this. They have the facts! And even if they don't, they'll give them to us anyway.

        • 3 votes
        #14.2 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:01 PM EDT
        Entelechy

        That story is total BS.

        Based on what evidence?

        • 2 votes
        #14.3 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:07 PM EDT
        Barry Rutherford

        You can bet your bottom dollar that is the guardian says the US is putting prisoners in navy brigs they are doing just that...

        • 3 votes
        #14.4 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:53 PM EDT
        Issywise

        This goes to expose a weakness of the judicial system. In six years major wars can be won or lost, administrations come and go. It would make sense to let the judiciary take the initiative when it seems major legal problems going unresolved. Now they have to wait until someone presents a case, at that case has to wind its way through lower courts.

        I have been given an understanding that Italy and France practices a system whereby judges can bring up cases themselves.

        Most Americans aren't aware of them but there are plenty of examples of the executive and the legislative in America just ignoring a Supreme Court decision they don't like. It is no mistake that this decision finally came down in the last months of an administration that shows little interest in following it, while both remaining candidates will follow it and by doing so add to the precedental authority of the case.

        In our system, the political branches have the legs and arms to act--all the court has is the power of persuasion. That can be a mighty thing if the public agrees with the court and feels strongly about it, but otherwise the court tends to tread lightly when confronting its co-branches.

        • 3 votes
        #14.5 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:11 PM EDT
        Cletus Wilbury

        Issywise -

        I was thinking the same thing. The primary example being Jackson's actions regarding Florida natives. He bragged about his defiance of the court, and the people loved it.

        • 2 votes
        #14.6 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:28 PM EDT
        Reply
        magz

        SCOTUS should compel Justice to either charge or release remaining detainees. The Administration has been turning its nose up at habeus corpus for an intolerable amount of time and is a setting a horrible example for the rest of the civilized world, not to mention its own law abiding citizens.

        • 7 votes
        Reply#15 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:29 AM EDT
        jazzman646

        SCOTUS should compel Justice to either charge or release remaining detainees.

        These prisonsers are not inn the custody of the Justice Dept.

        They are in the custody of DoD, and were pending trial by military tribunal, until this ruling, which means they were going to be charged at each trial

        • 3 votes
        #15.1 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:50 AM EDT
        magz

        There is only one Supreme Court, and when they tell you to produce the body and either charge or release them, I don't care i you're DoD, US military or whatever. You can't hold someone prisoner in the name of the US without charging them with something. Holding someone against their will when you have no evidence admissible in court is tantamount to kidnapping.

        • 5 votes
        #15.2 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:02 PM EDT
        jazzman646

        I guess that's your way of admitting you were wrong, while not admitting it.

        • 3 votes
        #15.3 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:08 PM EDT
        Issywise

        The Administration has had the benefit of habeus corpus statutes that accommodate its wishes.

        Moreover, do you feel that all of the accused in Cuba are domestic criminals or are some of them indeed enemy combatants. Didn't last weeks news reports indicate how they feel about themselves? If they think they are enemy combatants, what sense does it make for us to treat them like shoplifters?

        Certainly they are entitled to some kind of due process--so the innocent can be released ASAP at all times, but the normal mechanisms of criminal justice do not--in fact, apply to enemy combatants. The normal term of their incarceration is limited to the term of the war. But if it is there intent to maintain war for decades, should we artificially cut short their detention?

        • 1 vote
        #15.4 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:17 PM EDT
        Barry Rutherford

        Jazzman We dont know whether they were going to be tried or not. So far only a couple have been charged in six and a half years. That time frame is beyond the Rule of Law. "Justice delayed is Justice denied.." Lord Hailsham.

        • 4 votes
        #15.5 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:36 PM EDT
        magz

        Jazzman, they may be in Gitmo, but the ruling means Justice picks them up, puts them in US prison cells and ready charges and grand juries, or release them.

        • 3 votes
        #15.6 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:51 PM EDT
        jazzman646

        Jazzman We dont know whether they were going to be tried or not. So far only a couple have been charged in six and a half years. That time frame is beyond the Rule of Law. "Justice delayed is Justice denied.." Lord Hailsham.

        Barry,

        I agree Bush should have brought these men to trial by military tribunal long ago.

        • 1 vote
        #15.7 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 6:26 PM EDT
        magz

        Issywise:

        I don't know where the concept of sliding scale justice comes from. The term enemy combatants appears to me simply rationalization for illegal imprisonment and torture, at least insofar as the present Administration and its Congressional apologists are concerned.

        In the race to an end-around about Constitutional absolutes, various legal *experts* have contrived a new class of human beings with no right to anything except the certainty of punishment without due process.

        I take note of the defiance of those confessed conspirators in the 9/11 tragedy, but the context of their confessions stains the very principles this nation struggles to uphold. In effect, the effort spent to bring them to trial under the circumstances of their incarceration and interrogations invalidates our desire to rise above their confessed intent.

        I have enough faith in the wisdom of the Constitution to overcome those without and within who wish to debase this nation.

        • 3 votes
        #15.8 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:24 AM EDT
        Barry Rutherford
        Barry,

        I agree Bush should have brought ago.
        these men to trial by military tribunal long

        Thats good that we agree on somethings in this debate...

        • 1 vote
        #15.9 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:25 AM EDT
        Issywise

        I don't know where the concept of sliding scale justice comes from. The term enemy combatants appears to me simply rationalization for illegal imprisonment and torture

        I have no defense of torture.

        The "sliding scale" isn't sliding at all--it is dual tracked system: It comes from the reality of war. Prisoners are taken--usually (thank God for us) on foreign soil. As enemy combatants they aren't really criminals-- they are serving their national flag just as our soldiers do ours. They are not, have never been and should not be entitled to every protection of our criminal justice system.

        If one is suspected of being enemy combatants, then due process requires that a fact finding hearing of some sort must be held--to free the "innocent" and then they can be held indefinitely as prisoners of war. They have no normal right of appeal to our courts. Usually wars last for a finite period of time, after which they are released. During detention, they are treated under the mandates of the prisoner of war treaties we have entered. The Constitution required those treated be given high dignity and observation.

        With the Gitmo dudes there are numerous questions present about their detention: its open ended duration and many due process questions--effective counsel, isn't holding them as an enemy combatant for years before charging them with crimes inconsistent with our laws, etc., are the standards of the prisoner of war treaties being complied with.

        All of that does not mean that a separate set of rules for criminals and combatants is inherently a bad thing. What Bush is doing is bringing the two tracks closer by abusing one--the Supremes faced with clear violations of Due Process keep having to affix domestic criminal protection on enemy solders to whom they did not apply earlier. The Court doesn't want to do it because the system is actually pretty rational in concept--it is only the irrationality of the administration of it that requires court mitigation.

        • 1 vote
        #15.10 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 7:08 AM EDT
        Barry Rutherford

        I agree in part to what you say here, But the reality was there was no way of determining enemy combatants or the unlawful belligerant status imposed upon them. The detainees were denied the right to challenge their status until this point in time...

        • 2 votes
        #15.11 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:34 PM EDT
        magz

        Issy:

        My problem with that argument is precisely the "dual track" approach. Not only does this introduce an unacceptable measure of politic to judicial deliberations, it creates and marginalizes an amorphous demographic with no national boundaries.

        If you are willing to posit that Al Qaida is the enemy, then where, exactly, do you repatriate its soldiers? That's not even assuming that any sovereign nation would touch them with a thousand foot pole.

        Terrorism is criminal. Trying to create a sovereign nation from a political movement that declares itself an organization will only complicate the rightful conviction of criminals.

        They are the enemy only in the sense that their value set does not match ours. Their insistence on murder as a tool in furthering their objectives makes them assassins.

        Let's treat them that way. Bring them to court.

        • 3 votes
        #15.12 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 8:22 PM EDT
        Reply
        Wilfred of Ivanhoe

        Nice move by SCOTUS but far too late in time. I guess the Justices decided to try to restore some credibility to the Court after they let Bush gut the Bill of Rights for years. Bush and this Court will go down in history as one of the darkest chapters in American legal history.

        "The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
        --Winston Churchill

        • 2 votes
        Reply#16 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:39 AM EDT
        jazzman646

        It seems the 5 ultra liberal justices of the US Supreme Court have an ultimate goal of returning these terrorist detainees back to action, to kill more Americans.

        I only hope they are all aboard the next aircraft these maniacs hijack.

        • 2 votes
        #17 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:39 AM EDT
        Behind My Screen

        ultra liberal? Is that the opposit of being an ultra kook?

        • 4 votes
        #17.1 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:54 AM EDT
        More Than Happy

        The Bush Administration and the people seeking to undermine the due process of law have no interest in protecting Americans.

        • 2 votes
        #17.2 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:54 AM EDT
        deb dellapiana

        So, let me get this straight. Those who believe in the basic civil rights guaranteed by our Constitution are ultra liberal? Interesting. The four who dissented must then be fascists, like our fearless leader and his minions.

        Let's remember something about those languishing in Guantanamo: THEY HAVEN'T BEEN CHARGED WITH ANYTHING. They can't be called terrorists because nobody has charged them. It's just that our imperial president has called them 'enemy combatants.' He's just keeping them locked up in solitary until his term is over so he won't be embarrassed that they have had six years to get something on them and haven't been able to do it. Get it together and charge them or let them go.

        Get your head out of the sand. Allowing our government to violate basic civil rights destroys our credibility, and it means that they can do it to you someday if they feel the need.

        • 6 votes
        #17.3 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:17 PM EDT
        Mars313

        It seems the 5 ultra liberal justices of the US Supreme Court have an ultimate goal of returning these terrorist detainees back to action, to kill more Americans.

        I only hope they are all aboard the next aircraft these maniacs hijack.

        Wow. You stay pretty ill-informed, huh? I'm sure you can prove that the detainees are all terrorists, since the military can't. Let's see your sources, Mr Holier-than-thou.

        Your apologies for an administration full of war criminals leads me to believe YOU are a terrorist. Maybe you should find a new home.

        • 5 votes
        #17.4 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:27 PM EDT
        Barry Rutherford

        Let's remember something about those languishing in Guantanamo: THEY HAVEN'T BEEN CHARGED WITH ANYTHING. They can't be called terrorists because nobody has charged them. It's just that our imperial president has called them 'enemy combatants.' He's just keeping them locked up in solitary until his term is over so he won't be embarrassed that they have had six years to get something on them and haven't been able to do it. Get it together and charge them or let them go.

        Well said Deb dellapiana

        • 3 votes
        #17.5 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:55 PM EDT
        jazzman646

        ultra liberal? Is that the opposit of being an ultra kook?

        No, its exactly the same.

        • 1 vote
        #17.6 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:46 PM EDT
        jazzman646

        So, let me get this straight. Those who believe in the basic civil rights guaranteed by our Constitution are ultra liberal? Interesting. The four who dissented must then be fascists, like our fearless leader and his minions.

        Try to understand this.

        These terrorists are not US citizens, were not captured on American soil by any law enforcement agency , and are should not be afforded any protection by the US Constitution, except as it pertains specifically to prisoners of war (which I don't believe it mentions).

        • 1 vote
        #17.7 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:52 PM EDT
        jazzman646
        THEY HAVEN'T BEEN CHARGED WITH ANYTHING. They can't be called terrorists because nobody has charged them.

        They were about to be charged and tried by military tribunals, until the US courts decided to intervene in that.

        • 1 vote
        #17.8 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:54 PM EDT
        jazzman646

        Wow. You stay pretty ill-informed, huh? I'm sure you can prove that the detainees are all terrorists, since the military can't. Let's see your sources, Mr Holier-than-thou.

        Your apologies for an administration full of war criminals leads me to believe YOU are a terrorist. Maybe you should find a new home.

        see my comment @17.8 for your answer.

        • 1 vote
        #17.9 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:55 PM EDT
        jazzman646

        Might they include the Republican Appointee Anthony Kennedy, who said:

        Kennedy is a sell out.

        Reagan probably turns in his grave on most of Kennedy's votes.

        He's a CA conservative, which is equal to a liberal in all other states of the union.

        • 2 votes
        #17.10 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:00 PM EDT
        jazzman646

        Your apologies for an administration full of war criminals leads me to believe YOU are a terrorist. Maybe you should find a new home.

        Mars 313,

        I fought in a war (Gulf), and more for this country you little punkass mfker.

        You find a new home.

        • 2 votes
        #17.11 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:03 PM EDT
        greenguy

        They were about to be charged and tried by military tribunals, until the US courts decided to intervene in that.

        The court sought to question the legitimacy of said legal procedures.

        • 1 vote
        #17.12 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:05 PM EDT
        Barry Rutherford

        So, let me get this straight. Those who believe in the basic civil rights guaranteed by our Constitution are ultra liberal? Interesting. The four who dissented must then be fascists, like our fearless leader and his minions.
        Try to understand this.

        These terrorists are not US citizens, were not captured on American soil by any law enforcement agency , and are should not be afforded any protection by the US Constitution, except as it pertains specifically to prisoners of war (which I don't believe it mentions).

        No they are neither terrorists nor prisoners of war. The military Commissioners were designed as to preclude them being classified as either. They are known as enemy belligerents if you read the charge that laid on Australian David Hicks. Had Hicks not entertained a plea bargain he would now not be free but still held at Gitmo..

        • 1 vote
        #17.13 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:13 PM EDT
        jazzman646

        The court sought to question the legitimacy of said legal procedures.

        No what the court did was create a mess.

        There is US historical precedence for military tribunals in time of war, which is the correct way these men should be tried.

        One of the reasons it has taken so long to bring them to trial is because their self appointed lawyers have delayed proceedings with this appeal and others.

        Hopefully Congress will once again act to protect Americans (but I don't count on it).

        These men are prisoners of war, and they are usually held until hostilities end.

        Hostilities have not ended.

        • 2 votes
        #17.14 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:22 PM EDT
        Wheel

        These men are prisoners of war, and they are usually held until hostilities end.

        No, they weren't. Prisoners of war have rights, these men were victims.

        • 3 votes
        #17.15 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:30 PM EDT
        Barry Rutherford

        The court sought to question the legitimacy of said legal procedures.
        No what the court did was create a mess.

        There is US historical precedence for military tribunals in time of war, which is the correct way these men should be tried.

        Jazzman wrong.

        They were not being held as prisoners of war. Please get that !

        • 3 votes
        #17.16 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:38 PM EDT
        Cletus Wilbury

        "There is US historical precedence for military tribunals in time of war, which is the correct way these men should be tried."

        jazz, if Bush had done this, it would have been perfectly legal. The Geneva Convention just just says that we have to have a court hearing to determine what their status is, POW or criminal. I don't care either way, and i don't think any of the justices do.

        See my 5.2

        If we as a country don't like the provisions in the Geneva Convention referred to here, fine. Repeal it. But to say 'neither' is allowed under those provisions is sophistry. There's probably a better word for it in this case:
        lies

        • 3 votes
        #17.17 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:40 PM EDT
        Behind My Screen

        jazz, I am pretty sure that ultra liberal is opposit of being ultra kook.

        • 4 votes
        #17.18 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:44 PM EDT
        Cletus Wilbury

        Behind My Screen - I could provide some counter examples.

        • 1 vote
        #17.19 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:47 PM EDT
        jazzman646

        No, they weren't. Prisoners of war have rights, these men were victims.

        Right,

        In most cases they became prisoners while engaged in fighting against US troops.

        Yeah victims alright.

        • 2 votes
        #17.20 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:47 PM EDT
        jazzman646

        Jazzman wrong.

        They were not being held as prisoners of war. Please get that !

        Ok...formally...enemy combatants...

          #17.21 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:49 PM EDT
          jazzman646

          Cletus Wilbury#17.17

          Cletus whatever happens now, the next President will probably be left with this mess.

          • 2 votes
          #17.22 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:50 PM EDT
          Barry Rutherford

          So there is evidence that they were fighting US troops why havent they been tried?

          • 2 votes
          #17.23 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:52 PM EDT
          Cletus Wilbury

          Jazz- 17.22

          What do you think we should do? These are the choices as i see 'em, make up another if you wish:

          1: Keep trying make up a new category without changing the law.

          2: Change the law so there is a 3rd category, and define how they will be treated.

          3: Obey the law.

          • 2 votes
          #17.24 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:22 PM EDT
          jazzman646

          Cletus,

          They should be tried by military tribunal.

          But I'll admit that should have taken place a long time ago.

          Although court challenges had some bearing on the delay.

          What I don't want to see is these men moved to mainland prisons.

          Millions of dollars would then have to be spent for security modifications to mainland prisons to receive them, after we've already spent $millions to give them hotel like accommodations no prisoner in a US jail would ever have.

          • 2 votes
          #17.25 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:33 PM EDT
          Cletus Wilbury

          #3,

          Good answer, jazz.

          • 1 vote
          #17.26 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:37 PM EDT
          Barry Rutherford

          There are aready plenty of high security prisons in the United States;More than anywhere else in the world !

          • 1 vote
          #17.27 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:41 PM EDT
          Entelechy

          I fought in a war (Gulf), and more for this country you little punkass mfker.

          You find a new home.

          So, Mars313 calls you a "terrorist" and you rebut that by pointing out that you once volunteered to kill foreigners whose politics offended you.

          If you killed Iraqis in street clothes, that would be murder -- but put on a uniform and the bloodshed is magically transformed into heroism!

          • 1 vote
          #17.28 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:47 PM EDT
          gatorhater

          Entelechy
          If you killed Iraqis in street clothes, that would be murder -- but put on a uniform and the bloodshed is magically transformed into heroism!

          Now you're starting to Pi$$ me off and I probably don't even like who you are throwing that at. War is about people dying. YOU send people off to war to kill.

          Notice the YOU. YOU don't send anyone off to war, unless YOU understand the reality of what is about to happen and YOU do NOT blame the very people YOU sent off to war, for doing what YOU sent them to do.

          Whether it is Iraq, Afghanistan or wherever, crap happens in a war zone, call it the fog of war or whatever. If you don't like it, then don't send in the troops.

          What was your stance on this war, before the war? If you were against it, then what activities did you become involved in, to stop it?

          I put up with that crap once before, and it will not happen again.

          • 2 votes
          #17.29 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 5:03 PM EDT
          Cletus Wilbury

          gatorhater- tracing this back, i think they were referring to this comment by jazz: "I only hope they are all aboard the next aircraft these maniacs hijack."

          which is pretty harsh, don't you think?

          Especially since the 5 were following the law.
          As jazz has admitted on this thread.
          And jazz, why do you think they will free? If they any evidence other than 'confessions' or heresay (sp), the should be able to get a conviction.

          • 2 votes
          #17.30 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 5:13 PM EDT
          gatorhater

          Cletus Wilbury

          ....comment by jazz: "I only hope they are all aboard the next aircraft these maniacs hijack."

          which is pretty harsh, don't you think?

          Extremely uncalled for, and so was the statement that I was responding to.

          • 3 votes
          #17.31 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 5:24 PM EDT
          Entelechy

          YOU send people off to war to kill . . . Notice the YOU. YOU don't send anyone off to war, unless YOU understand the reality of what is about to happen and YOU do NOT blame the very people YOU sent off to war, for doing what YOU sent them to do.

          I did not send anyone off to war. It wasn't my decision. Unless you happen to occupy a position of high influence, you didn't do so either. I did not, and still do not, consent to this war.

          If you were against it, then what activities did you become involved in, to stop it?

          The largest protests in the history of the world were held to oppose the Iraq War. You know what resulted from that? Absolutely nothing. Despite all the banners and chants and marching -- the war still happened.

          YOU are part of the problem of war because YOU accept the idea that war is some sort of collective decision that all citizens of a country share responsibility for. That, quite simply, is bull@!$%#. There are specific people who decide upon war and specific people who support war. They are all somewhat responsible for the evils committed. But anyone who did not support it, bears no responsibility for it and retains the moral right to condemn and criticize those who did support it.

          So when some jerk asserts that he's a great American hero just because he volunteered to kill people for his masters it is important to point out that, no, that doesn't make him a hero -- it makes him a tool.

          • 2 votes
          #17.32 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 5:32 PM EDT
          Cletus Wilbury

          After that, carry on gatorhater.

          • 3 votes
          #17.33 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 5:36 PM EDT
          jazzman646

          So, Mars313 calls you a "terrorist" and you rebut that by pointing out that you once volunteered to kill foreigners whose politics offended you.

          If you killed Iraqis in street clothes, that would be murder -- but put on a uniform and the bloodshed is magically transformed into heroism!

          Entelechy,

          My response to you is exactly the same response I gave to him, except for you I'll add the word stupid to the punkass mfker section.

          • 2 votes
          #17.34 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 5:59 PM EDT
          jazzman646

          So when some jerk asserts that he's a great American hero just because he volunteered to kill people for his masters it is important to point out that, no, that doesn't make him a hero -- it makes him a tool.

          KMBA!!!

          • 1 vote
          #17.35 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 6:04 PM EDT
          gatorhater

          Entelechy

          I did not send anyone off to war. It wasn't my decision.

          The largest protests in the history of the world were held to oppose the Iraq War.

          But anyone who did not support it, bears no responsibility for it and retains the moral right to condemn and criticize those who did support it.

          I noticed that you did not state that you attended any of these protests, but merely mentioned that they took place. I guess you did not object enough to the war to actually take time from your busy schedule to do anything.

          Of course now, you feel that you have some right to be on the moral high ground, based on your meekly limited opposition. "I wasn't for the war, therefore I was against it" and "It ain't my fault".

          Don't bother with a reply, your credibility is worthless.

            #17.36 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:04 PM EDT
            Cletus Wilbury

            I didn't go to the protests either. I just posted my objections on a couple forums i was already involved with, and talked to friends. What's the point of protesting when you're outvoted 75% to 25%? I woulda just discredit the movement anyway.

            • 1 vote
            #17.37 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:05 PM EDT
            greenguy

            David Hicks was an aberration - the way he wound up in prison was also deeply odd. And the way his release was planned - it appeared that Cheney granted the PM of Australia at the time this "favor" in an Australian election year - was strange, too. Obviously, it didn't work.

            It's been pointed out, but Jazz is wrong about designation - the inmates at Gitmo are not POW's, nor terrorists. They have been granted a new title - "enemy combatants." This is a unique title because it allows us to hold these prisoners, err inmates, effectively in perpetuity without charge. There are obvious problems with this scenario - its unclear what national security goal is attained by holding Australian hippies in prison, or why I have to pay for this with my tax money.

            And, of course, when the authorities do release a prisoner after years of captivity, they insist their charges - still secret - are accurate, and they didn't make a mistake, but that they are releasing the person anyway.

            • 2 votes
            #17.38 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:41 AM EDT
            Entelechy

            Of course now, you feel that you have some right to be on the moral high ground

            I do not have to attend a march to earn the right to criticize the war -- just like jazzman doesn't get to shut people up by pointing to his military service as if that constitutes an argument.

            A real defender of liberty wouldn't demand that people "qualify" to exercise their free speech. A person with an actual sense of morality wouldn't brand all of America with collective guilt for the Iraq war.

            • 2 votes
            #17.39 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:35 AM EDT
            Barry Rutherford

            They were about to be charged and tried by military tribunals, until the US courts decided to intervene in that.

            Wrong they were to be charged by Military Commissions not ordinary Military Tribunals as you suggest to date neither has happened and they have been detained in limbo; Sine die

            • 3 votes
            #17.40 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:39 PM EDT
            Reply
            Partisan Hack

            the 5 ultra liberal justices of the US Supreme Court

            Care to name them?

            Might they include the Republican Appointee Anthony Kennedy, who said:

            "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

            So I assume from what you're saying that anyone who support laws and the Constitution is an ultra-liberal.

            I guess that would make anyone who is against these "ultra-liberals" against the rule of law and the Constitution. Which means, ultimately, that you're anti-American.

            Just sayin'.

            How many more out there like you? Perhaps we could send you down to that resort at Gitmo to give you a taste of what it feels like to be without the rule of law.

            • 2 votes
            Reply#18 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:43 AM EDT
            Behind My Screen

            Deductive reasoning does not work on people like that. Probably got a C in Government class and does not remember a dang thing.

            • 3 votes
            #18.1 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:55 AM EDT
            Reply
            ryandsmith

            John Roberts is linked to the Bush white house so he does not have much creditability.

            • 1 vote
            Reply#19 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:49 AM EDT
            greenguy

            But the point is - to those who think a Dem Congress will prevent a McCain president from choosing whomever he wants for the Supreme Court, I'd point to Roberts. Roberts is an enormously talented, telegenic, intelligent legal scholar. And he can pretty much deflect all questions from the senate. How does he feel about abortion? He can decline to comment; it's irrelevant to his judicial beliefs. How does he feel about a certain decision related to executive power? He can decline to answer - maybe it's not "appropriate" for him to comment on the decision. And on it goes.

            • 1 vote
            #19.1 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:11 PM EDT
            Behind My Screen

            yeah, so because the senate has not actualy turned down a judicial nomanee because of failure to answer pertinant questions, in... a long time... he got away with it.

            Democratic congress that was just gaining political steam against a president who was still in the 40's for approval and a lot of Republican spin. Hard to make a real stand.

            • 2 votes
            #19.2 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:46 PM EDT
            Reply
            The Good American

            It's about time!

            • 1 vote
            Reply#20 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:54 AM EDT
            deb dellapiana

            Here is the real issue: If the U.S. can do this without repercussion, what's to stop the government from doing it to US somewhere down the road. Once the precedent has been set, the danger is very real. If you trust the way this government is being run, by either side, you are a bit naive. I'm glad that the Supreme Court got it right. The Constitution has been under constant assault from this administration.

            I do not suggest that every American has to be 'political' or a 'political junkie' like I am. However, I am suggesting that the nostalgic forties and fifties sentiment of putting absolute faith in our government to do the right thing is long gone. We need to keep informed (and we're not going to be able to rely on the mainstream media to do this; they are under corporate control) and we need to be active in government.

            The other night, Dennis Kucinich made history by reading 35 Articles of Impeachment against President Bush. It was broadcast live on C-SPAN and it took four hours to read them. He had all his ducks in a row. The mainstream media ignored it. The Congress kicked it over to the Judiciary Committee where Nancy Pelosi will put it in mothballs until Bush's term is over...UNLESS WE START FLOODING CONGRESS WITH LETTERS, CALLS AND FAXES.

            If Bush is innocent, fine. Let him face the music and beat the rap. But we all know that he has committed impeachable offenses. If only one of the 35 stick, that's enough. Republicans and Democrats alike know this. They are all cowards who refuse to uphold their duty to protect the U.S. Constitution. It's time to stop playing back and forth games with the courts; move the Bush Articles of Impeachment forward so that we can clean the slate for the next administration.

            • 3 votes
            Reply#21 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:08 PM EDT
            Wilfred of Ivanhoe

            "Here is the real issue: If the U.S. can do this without repercussion, what's to stop the government from doing it to US somewhere down the road?"

            "In Germany, they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
            --Pastor Niemoller

            • 2 votes
            #21.1 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:09 PM EDT
            Reply
            Wheel

            High Court sides with Guantanamo detainees again

            A more proper headline would be, "High Court Sides With the Constitution"

            • 5 votes
            Reply#22 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:10 PM EDT
            michaelvolpeDeleted
            CLM-256248

            Scalia said the nation is "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

            No one has proved that these detainees even are radical islamists.

            If there is an almost certainty that more Americans will be killed, it's probably because people that lost 6 years of their lives, with no charges against them, were kind of pissed off when Bush finally opened the door to let them out. "Sorry, my bad", won't cut it to these people.

            In some respects, I believe this is why Bush tried so hard to not have the regular rules apply. Once they had determined that certain individuals hadn't really done anything wrong, they didn't want to turn them loose. They were afraid, rightfully so, that the released detainees would blab to the rest of the world just what had happened to them.

            It's about time the Court addressed some of the mess that this administration has gotten us into. We owe these detainees a fair trial. They should have the right to know what they are accused of. They should have the right to an attorney - of their own choosing. They have a right to be released if there is no evidence against them. If there is no evidence against them, they have the right to an apology for the wasting of their life!

            • 4 votes
            Reply#24 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:07 PM EDT
            Kurt Harriger

            It is essential that everyone have the right to challenge their detention. Unless this right is given to everyone than anyone, including US citizens, could be labelled an enemy combatant and held indefinitely. How else would a US citizen prove he is a US citizen if not given the right to challenge his detention? This ruling is essential to protect the rights of US citizens as much if not more so.

            The right to challenge ones detention doesn't that mean innocent until proven guilty and providing there is at least some evidence then hold them as long they are considered a threat. Scalia's statement that "It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed" is nothing more than fear-mongering.

            • 7 votes
            Reply#25 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:58 PM EDT
            Cletus Wilbury

            Seconded.

            • 2 votes
            #25.1 - Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:49 PM EDT
            SepticSkeptic

            Ooh, you're wrong there. Every one of these guys has a lawyer. It would be the simplest thing in the world for a lawyer to prove the guy's American citizenship, at which point the rules governing his case would change, instantly and dramatically. You don't need a hearing on his detention to file a motion in a civilian federal court on his behalf for a hearing to prove his American citizenship. That one is so cut and dried, you wouldn't even have to go that far. Gitmo would have him turned over to the U.S. Marshals before you got back to the airport if you brought up his American citizenship.

              #25.2 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 7:38 AM EDT
              SepticSkeptic

              You're also wrong about Americans getting killed by the ruling. Don't get me wrong, see below for my opinion that these @!$%#heads need civilian trials. Giving them those trials will cause real terrorists to be acquitted on technicalities, after they've been given a good look at the inner workings of our intelligence aparatus. They'll take that education back with them and make it that much harder to prevent future attacks.

              • 1 vote
              #25.3 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 7:45 AM EDT
              AdipicAcid

              Enemies of the state cannot be treated fairly, because then the state is at risk? That idea is foreign to the very idea of America, and is much closer to the governing ideals of Saudi Arabia or Iran.

              • 2 votes
              #25.4 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 7:49 AM EDT
              Barry Rutherford

              Enemies of the state cannot be treated fairly, because then the state is at risk? That idea is foreign to the very idea of America, and is much closer to the governing ideals of Saudi Arabia or Iran.

              Wrong & Wrong. All citizens should be treated' fairly' whether the government that their country was born in is despotic or not !

              • 1 vote
              #25.5 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:42 PM EDT
              AdipicAcid

              Um, I don't think you got the meaning of my post.

                #25.6 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:32 PM EDT
                Barry Rutherford

                Well to date the treatment has been barbaric rather than fair !

                • 2 votes
                #25.7 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 6:33 PM EDT
                Reply
                SepticSkeptic

                I have an idea. Give these dirtbags civilian trials. After we pass a law making it a death penalty offense to leak any of the secret @!$%# that would come out in those trials. That way, we get to execute a bunch of lawyers. Everybody wins.

                Seriously, I have two problems here. The first is with the defendant's right to confront his accuser. That gives him access not only to the evidence against him (which he definitely needs, in order to mount a credible defense), but it also gives him a look at how that evidence was gathered. I don't need them being released and taking and understanding of our intelligence-gathering techniques home with them.

                The other problem that I have is that Soldiers aren't cops. You can't realistically hold them to the same standards of evidence gathering and handling that a professional criminal investigator follows instinctually. I forsee tons of legitimate evidence being thrown out on technicalities in our court system. For example, you wouldn't need a court order to hack into someone's email if you, the suspect, and the email server were all located in Iraq...but I could see a trial judge throwing incriminating emails out for lack of a court order to hackthe account.

                So, if and only if we apply a common sense standard to evidence instead of the standard that exists in our courts (a standard that is entirely reasonable when the people collecting the evidence are trained criminal investigators, but not when they are combat infantrymen) and the defendant is not given an education in how to avoid our surveillance, I support criminal trials. Because that is what they are. They aren't "freedom fighters", they aren't "rebels", they're common criminals who fund their operations with protection rackets and kidnappings for ransom perpetrated against the very people they seek to "free" from American "occupation". Calling them combatants gives them a false dignity.

                  Reply#26 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 7:26 AM EDT
                  AdipicAcid

                  I have an idea. Give these dirtbags civilian trials. After we pass a law making it a death penalty offense to leak any of the secret @!$%# that would come out in those trials. That way, we get to execute a bunch of lawyers. Everybody wins.

                  Yeah, those lawyers never produce anything of value. Oh, by the way what do all of these people have in common?

                  John Adams
                  Patrick Henry
                  Abraham Lincoln
                  Theodore Roosevelt

                  Hint, they weren't all Presidents.

                  • 3 votes
                  #26.1 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 7:45 AM EDT
                  Behind My Screen

                  Lawyers!!!

                  • 2 votes
                  #26.2 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 8:41 AM EDT
                  Meloney

                  The problems Septic Skeptic offers are based on the slippery slope. Now that this class of people have been afforded particular rights we should expect complications related to granting those rights and demand for extension of other rights. Also I've heard comments that, as a result of this decision, the captured and detained must now be killed to avoid the messy complications that ensue from responsibilities of imposing jurisdiction.

                  Clearly there is another tact. Don't capture and detain people, don't impose jurisdiction, unless willing to afford the responsibilities that implies.

                  • 2 votes
                  #26.3 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:56 AM EDT
                  Behind My Screen

                  OK.

                  • 2 votes
                  #26.4 - Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:19 PM EDT
                  Reply
                  Jump to discussion page: 1 2
                  Leave a Comment:
                  You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                  You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                  (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                  Newsvine Privacy Statement
                  As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                  FUN STUFF:
                  • Leaderboard |
                  • E-Mail Alerts |
                  • Top of the Vine |
                  • Newsvine Live |
                  • Newsvine Archives |
                  • The Greenhouse |
                  COMPANY STUFF:
                  • Code of Honor |
                  • Company Info |
                  • Contact Us |
                  • Jobs |
                  • User Agreement |
                  • Privacy Policy |
                  • About our ads
                  LEGAL STUFF:
                  • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                  • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                  • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com