to challenge their detention in the camp and that they "have constitutional rights"

i'll get a story shortly.

6/12/2008 10:42:02 AM

THAT'S UNAMERICAN

6/12/2008 10:51:54 AM

Quote :

" WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Suspected terrorists and foreign fighters held by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have the right to challenge their detention in federal court, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday. The decision marked another legal blow to the Bush administration's war on terrorism policies. In a 5-4 ruling, the justices said the U.S. military lacks the legal autonomy to prosecute as many as 300 prisoners. At issue were the rights of the detainees to contest their imprisonment as well as the rules established to try them in military tribunals. A congressional law passed in 2006 would limit court jurisdiction to hear such challenges. It is a legal question the justices have tackled three times since 2004, including Thursday's ruling. Each time the high court ruled against the government's claim that it has the authority to hold people it labels "enemy combatants.""

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/12/scotus/index.html

6/12/2008 10:57:32 AM

This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. You don't try enemy military soldiers as if they were citizens of the U.S.

6/12/2008 11:24:46 AM

and who's to say they're enemy soldiers?

6/12/2008 11:26:10 AM

they aren't classified as enemy soldiers unfortunately... otherwise we would have to do stuff like not torture them and stuff.

6/12/2008 11:27:18 AM

^ Not to mention most of them were turned in for reward money, not picked up on the battlefield.

6/12/2008 12:08:35 PM

MAGNA CARTA

WHAT WHAT

Quote :

"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, a part of that law."

The decision was far closer than I'd like, but I'll take it.

[Edited on June 12, 2008 at 1:55 PM. Reason : ...]

6/12/2008 1:53:02 PM

pandora's box is officially opened.

6/12/2008 1:53:40 PM

WHY DOES THE SUPREME COURT HATE OUR FREEDOM?!?

6/12/2008 1:57:27 PM

Universal application of basic human rights = Pandora's Box?

6/12/2008 1:57:59 PM

You know the dissenting opinion is tenuous when they have to say that we're fighting a war against Islamic Jihadists and 'rulings like this don't help' with no mention to the constitution or any other laws.

6/12/2008 1:59:28 PM

nobody should be held in prison without just cause. the decision, however, surprises me because surely this situation is an extreme and unique one to history. we are opening ourselves to a further and unprecedented bloodletting of taxpayer money with this.

right or wrong, these people should have no civil recourse within our court systems. they should, however, be released if innocent and every measure should be taken to be sure that only guilty parties are held.

6/12/2008 2:01:12 PM

Unique to history?



How so?

6/12/2008 2:05:31 PM

^^ You're saying that every measure should be taken to be sure that only guilty parties are held, but that the parties being held should have no legal recourse to oppose their detention. This is a logically inconsistent stance.

And this situation is a "unique one to history?" Really? REALLY?

6/12/2008 2:05:59 PM

I don't know if I could call it unique to history, but it's not all that similar to Pearl Harbor.

Pearl Harbor was a military attack organized, sanctioned, and carried out by the nation of Japan.

6/12/2008 2:10:14 PM

Quote :

"^^ You're saying that every measure should be taken to be sure that only guilty parties are held, but that the parties being held should have no legal recourse to oppose their detention. This is a logically inconsistent stance. And this situation is a "unique one to history?" Really? REALLY?"

fighting terrorism on this scale is certainly unique to OUR history (what I meant).

they are not US citizens, therefore I dont believe they should have any civil recourse within our court system. that should be done between countries or in an international court of some kind. are you suggesting that we spend our own taxpayer money to prosecute ourselves on this scale? that is not logical.

6/12/2008 2:38:16 PM

Nope, we should call them enemy combatants so they don't fall under the geneva conventions and incarcerate them for 5+ years without hope of trial.

6/12/2008 3:12:39 PM

Quote :

"they are not US citizens, therefore I dont believe they should have any civil recourse within our court system."

I wasn't aware of the fact that you have to be a United States Citizen to be tried in a United States court.

6/12/2008 3:18:19 PM

^^^i figured this ruling would irritate some people on tww. i don't understand how you can say they should have no legal recourse within our court system when WE are the ones detaining them. if the situation were reversed and americans were being detained in another country i feel as though we'd want our citizens to have legal options within that countrys court system.

and perhaps we would be able to solve it in "some international court" if the U.S. EVER chose to follow any international protocol (such as geneva).

and do we not use taxpayer money to "prosecute ourselves" all the time??

6/12/2008 3:23:38 PM

Look, I understand your points and I hate the idea of any person detained without cause. Our government needs to show cause or release the prisoner. Period. However, those prisoners are not US citizens and therefore do not deserve civil recourse within our court system. That is my opinion. If their country takes their case on their behalf and brings it to the court system based on international standards, so be it, but as individuals and perceived combatants, their rights do not exist here as far as I am concerned. Obviously, the Supreme Court disagrees with me, but that is my opinion.

6/12/2008 4:00:51 PM

Quote :

"if the situation were reversed and americans were being detained in another country i feel as though we'd want our citizens to have legal options within that countrys court system. "

of course we would want that. we want other other countries to do things all the time...doesnt mean they would happen. our government would pressure the other country politically. that is their job...if the prisoner's governments dont care enough about them to do that, that is the prisoner's problem.

6/12/2008 4:03:57 PM

so all trials of non-citizens should only be held to the standard of political viability?

6/12/2008 4:17:05 PM

Quote :

"if the prisoner's governments dont care enough about them to do that, that is the prisoner's problem."

that position is a slippery slope

6/12/2008 4:28:56 PM

non-citizens within our country legally is a completely different stories.

enemy combatents and illegals have no rights to our courts IMO.

6/12/2008 5:01:35 PM

so what do we do with them, then? let them rot in prison until they die without ever having been proven guilty or innocent all the while torturing them for information?

6/12/2008 5:06:08 PM

That's a laughable position. You're saying that, by being alleged to have committed a crime, people who are not US citizens lose any right to a fair trial. What need for a trial would they have were they not already accused of a crime? (I say "accused of a crime" here in the loosest sense of the word, since most of the people in Gitmo have not and will never be actually charged with a crime.)

6/12/2008 5:06:48 PM

So it's okay to spend money to feed, clothes, and house them, but it's not okay to spend money to see if we can let them go or execute them, so that we no longer have to feed, clothes, and house them?

And as someone else just pointed out, if someone is here illegally, what do we do? Now, we process them in OUR court system, and deport or detain them (if they're a criminal) as necessary. There is TONS of precedence for handling illegal non-citizens in our court system. It's a completely idiotic position to say because they're not legal citizens or here legally, or whatever it is you're saying that we can't handle them in our courts. Our laws are designed to handle this situation, there's no reason we can't handle them. It's not like giving them a trial instantly will set them free. Our court system has loopholes, but it can't be that bad.

6/12/2008 5:27:44 PM

Have we even convicted anybody on terrorism charges?

6/12/2008 6:14:17 PM

Only citizens of the USA should be tried in a citizen's courtroom. They should be tried in a military court.

6/12/2008 6:46:37 PM

So a Japanese tourist on vacation in America who gets picked up for drunk and disorderly should go to a military court?

6/12/2008 6:53:05 PM

I actually approve of the scotus decision. I do not like the idea of teh gov't being able to imprison someone throwing away the lock and key, simply by attaching the "terror suspect" label. If these guys really are guilty then it should not be a big deal about proving their guilt. "We arrested Samir Al-cameljockey after we intercepted a conversation talking to other terrorist leaders about blowing up xyz building; we then searched his house and found the explosives; blah blah blah".

We like to pat ourselves on the back claiming to be the vanguard of spreading freedom and democracy; yet is willing to deny the basic rights of trial to criminal "suspects".

Quote :

"Only citizens of the USA should be tried in a citizen's courtroom. They should be tried in a military court."

So when Kumar who is foreign student studying in engineering gets caught smoking pot behind EBII; he should be shuttled to Fort Bragg to await military tribunal??

[Edited on June 12, 2008 at 6:56 PM. Reason : ll]

6/12/2008 6:54:12 PM

DaBird is an NCSU alum majored in PolySci, yet he still can't formulate a basic coherent political argument that has any basis in reality.

how sad.

6/12/2008 6:56:18 PM

You don't try people arrested in other countries, whom are accused of terrorism against us, in the civilian courts.

^ You might want to read it again. I saw his point just from reading the last thing he posted.

6/12/2008 7:03:19 PM

Freed Guantanamo inmates take up arms

Quote :

"AT LEAST 30 former Guantanamo Bay detainees have been killed or recaptured after taking up arms against allied forces following their release. They have been discovered mostly in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but not in Iraq, a US Defence Department spokesman told The Age yesterday. Commander Jeffrey Gordon said the detainees had, while in custody, falsely claimed to be farmers, truck drivers, cooks, small-arms merchants, low-level combatants or had offered other false explanations for being in Afghanistan. 'We are aware of dozens of cases where they have returned to militant activities, participated in anti-US propaganda or engaged in other activities,' said Commander Gordon. His comments follow the death this week of Taliban commander and former detainee Abdullah Mehsud, who reportedly blew himself up rather than surrender to Pakistani forces. In December 2001, Mehsud was captured in Afghanistan and held at Guantanamo Bay until his release in March 2004. He later became the Taliban chief for South Waziristan. Commander Gordon said the US did not make it a practice to track detainees after their release, but it had become aware through intelligence gathering and media reports of many cases of released detainees returning to combat. 'These former detainees successfully lied to US officials, sometimes for over three years,' he said. 'Common cover stories include going to Afghanistan to buy medicines, to teach the Koran or to find a wife. Many of these stories appear so often, and are subsequently proven false, that we can only conclude that they are part of their terrorist training.' An analysis of 516 Guantanamo detainees found that while there was no evidence linking six of them to terrorist activities, 95 per cent were a potential threat to US interests. This was based on their affiliations with groups such as al-Qaeda, their enthusiasm for violent jihad, their having undertaken small-arms training or having been willing to perform a support role for terrorism. But only one in three could be definitely identified as a fighter for the Taliban, al-Qaeda or associated groups, according to the analysis by the Combating Terrorism Centre based at the West Point Military Academy. Most were considered a greater than potential risk due to support they had shown the Islamist cause by fighting for Islamist forces or by undertaking advanced military training, including bomb-making. The review does not include the so-called 'Australian Taliban', David Hicks, who has pleaded guilty to terrorist offences. It was undertaken after an analysis by Seton Hall University, a private university in New Jersey, of the detainee system found only 8 per cent of detainees were al-Qaeda fighters."

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/freed-guantanamo-inmates-take-up-arms/2007/07/27/1185339258055.html

Well, U.S. officials or their surrogates must not be waterboarding and using other enhanced interrogation techniques as much as some of you bleeding-heart liberals think they are. In any event, keep letting those enemy combatants go free--maybe one of the assholes will harm you or someone close to you and you'll begin to understand what we're dealing with.

6/12/2008 7:07:50 PM

^ what's your point.

Do i need to throw up statistics x out of y inmates released from city jails are re-incarcerated within z months.

n% of inmates arrested on drug charges caught again dealing after released.
So using your logic we just need to keep all convicted inmates in jail since they will likely go back out to assault/rob/deal drugs/etc again.

As far as waterboarding I never had much problem with "enhanced" interrogation techniques aka torture; given their was a legitimate reason/threat to which the individual likely possessed useful information. My problem was the political doublespeak of the the Bush admin trying to pretend that waterboarding was torture. Serbia was not committing genocide in the 90's; they were undertaking "ethnic cleansing" of certain groups of people

[Edited on June 12, 2008 at 7:16 PM. Reason : ll]

6/12/2008 7:12:57 PM

we just need to listen to the prisoners...understand their feelings...be nice to them...they will change!

6/12/2008 7:14:24 PM

Because this is worth giving up centuries of tradition and the things our country is founded on?

Even if it's a military tribunal, these people deserve a trial or some sort of recourse. Leaving aside that this is one of our basic national principles, you don't think there's a chance we're angering anyone by locking them or their relatives up for months or years on end and interrogating the hell out of them?

6/12/2008 7:18:17 PM

you literally cant do anything without angering some people...our national security is more important than being well liked by 6 billion people

besides if these pussies didnt have their little loophole of not claiming a country and not wearing a military uniform (while they carry out violent attacks) their rights would be a lot more clearly defined

6/12/2008 7:19:15 PM

^^ My point is quite clear. Try to grasp the actual numbers here:

Quote :

"AT LEAST 30 former Guantanamo Bay detainees have been killed or recaptured after taking up arms against allied forces following their release."

Quote :

"Commander Jeffrey Gordon said the detainees had, while in custody, falsely claimed to be farmers, truck drivers, cooks, small-arms merchants, low-level combatants or had offered other false explanations for being in Afghanistan."

You can lobby for a terrorist bill of rights if you like; I prefer that our armed forces not have to fight the same people twice. Can you comprehend that or would you like to have some more fun with math?

[Edited on June 12, 2008 at 7:20 PM. Reason : .]

6/12/2008 7:19:53 PM

^ well fucking shoot the mother fucker on the battlefield and you will not have to worry about it.

For all I know Muhammed Soliman was osama's cook. If he's a terrorist then it shouldn't be hard proving his association to justify his continued incarceration. Otherwise it just makes us look like hypocrits to go around indefinitely imprisoning random people from other countries by listing them as "suspected terrorists"

[Edited on June 12, 2008 at 7:30 PM. Reason : ll]

6/12/2008 7:26:10 PM

^ DEY TUK UR TERRORIST RIGHTS!!!1

6/12/2008 7:29:26 PM

^ DRILL SGT. BILL ANAL RAPED ME IN BOOT CAMP AND NOW I AM A MINDLESS JARHEAD INDOCTRINATED WITH MILITARY DOCTRINE AND HAVE LIMITED PERCEPTION OF REALITY BEYOND LETS GO BLOW SHIT UP AND CALL PEOPLE IDIOTS WHO DONT AGREE WITH US


Why do you hate freedom hooksaw? You still have failed to make a credible argument as to why it is a big deal that if they are guilty then it shouldn't be hard to prove it in court to justify their continued imprisonment.

[Edited on June 12, 2008 at 7:34 PM. Reason : l]

6/12/2008 7:32:45 PM

can't we just be nice to them? won't our kindness offset their mentality that they must kill us for their mythical god and false promises of virgins in heaven? can't being nice to them become more important than their lifelong commitment to jihad?

6/12/2008 7:35:39 PM

^ i hope that is not directed to me. Ensuring that everyone locked up there is being incarcerated for a legitimate reason and actually linked to terrorist activity is a lot different then stating i want us to shower the prisioners of gitmo with hugs and flowers in order to turn them from their violent ways.

If they are linked to 9/11, other plot on US soil, or is an accessory to the many terrorists attacks going on in Iraq/Afghanistan; for all i care they could be executed via firing squad tomorrow.

6/12/2008 7:39:11 PM

^^ LOL. Exactly.

[Edited on June 12, 2008 at 7:39 PM. Reason : .]

6/12/2008 7:39:40 PM

its directed at everyone basically

my point is, EVERY SINGLE PRISON / JAIL / PENAL SYSTEM IN THE WORLD has some people locked up there that are innocent...THAT IS NOT ANYTHING UNIQUE TO GITMO...so if someone's argument is about people being wrongfully locked up, that is nothing new and something that inevitably occurs everywhere

people quickly lose sight though that many of these people would be happy to murder your children...and i'm not exaggerating here

Quote :

"shoot the mother fucker on the battlefield and you will not have to worry about it."

yeah but then you shoot 100 people on the battlefield, 99 of whom are enemy combatants, and then you get blasted in the news for the next 6 months about the 1 person you killed who wasnt a combatant, and the media encourages you to detain enemy soldiers instead of killing them


[Edited on June 12, 2008 at 7:44 PM. Reason : .]

6/12/2008 7:40:44 PM

Quote :

"so if someone's argument is about people being wrongfully locked up, that is nothing new and something that inevitably occurs everywhere"

well, not even having the opportunity to challenge your detention SHOULD NOT happen in this country

6/12/2008 8:59:58 PM

Well technically its not in this country.

6/12/2008 9:10:25 PM

^^^ first you say

Quote :

"you literally cant do anything without angering some people...our national security is more important than being well liked by 6 billion people "

okay so we don't give a shit what the rest of the world things. got it.

then you say:

Quote :

"my point is, EVERY SINGLE PRISON / JAIL / PENAL SYSTEM IN THE WORLD has some people locked up there that are innocent...THAT IS NOT ANYTHING UNIQUE TO GITMO"

so now we care about what the rest of the world is doing??

i think a lot of the argument behind the proponents of the trial is attempting to strike a balance between the principles that our country was founded on AND to protect the interest of national security. a lot also probably stems from international pressure. and i'm still a little confused about your thoughts re: other countries. i guess we don't care about other countries if we want to keep detaining indefinitely. but we do care when other countries have innocent people locked up, too??? i mean what do you propose we do with the detainees? it is bogus to insinuate that just because someone takes a stance which allows the gitmo prisoners to have a tiny tiny miniscule fraction of potential justice that they have no regard for the safety of the country or that they cannot comprehend the potentially dangerous people being detained.

[Edited on June 12, 2008 at 9:12 PM. Reason : .]

6/12/2008 9:12:08 PM