1213 users online (205 members and 1008 guests)  



Websleuths News


Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 73
  1. #1
    gaia227's Avatar
    gaia227 is offline I have never taken any exercise except sleeping and resting - M. Twain
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,725

    Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Guantanamo Detainee's

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25117953

    It is about time the US High Court acknowledges the country is violating people's human rights, civil liberties and constitutional rights. Good for them.
    'The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated'
    --Ghandi


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,397
    Quote Originally Posted by gaia227 View Post
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25117953

    It is about time the US High Court acknowledges the country is violating people's human rights, civil liberties and constitutional rights. Good for them.
    Didn't one of the Guantanomo prisoners go kill a bunch of people after he was released? My friend told me something to this effect a week or two ago.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...guantanamo.usa

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,537
    Are We Serious?
    They're at war, we're catching crooks. Link

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    san diego
    Posts
    1,736
    Quote Originally Posted by gaia227 View Post
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25117953

    It is about time the US High Court acknowledges the country is violating people's human rights, civil liberties and constitutional rights. Good for them.



    Thank you Supreme Court!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,139
    Yeah, let's turn the poor guys loose and see what happens then.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    san diego
    Posts
    1,736
    Ntegrity, they are being held indefinitely and without charges. Do you think that is fair to human beings?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,397
    Quote Originally Posted by absinthe View Post
    Ntegrity, they are being held indefinitely and without charges. Do you think that is fair to human beings?
    My concern is, if they weren't jihadists before, they'll probably become one once they're let out since they'll be pissed off enough.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    san diego
    Posts
    1,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
    My concern is, if they weren't jihadists before, they'll probably become one once they're let out since they'll be pissed off enough.
    Exactly!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,139
    Quote Originally Posted by absinthe View Post
    Ntegrity, they are being held indefinitely and without charges. Do you think that is fair to human beings?
    Not for most human beings. But for them, it's fine with me.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    san diego
    Posts
    1,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Ntegrity View Post
    Not for most human beings. But for them, it's fine with me.
    They are being held without charges and without the burden of proof, or even evidence. And it's still fine with you? What if one, just one of those people is innocent?


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,537
    Quote Originally Posted by Ntegrity View Post
    Not for most human beings. But for them, it's fine with me.
    I'm with you. They are enemy combatants.

    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."

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,530
    Justice Scalia’s dissent says it all:

    Both the Chief Justice and Justice Antonin Scalia issued dissenting opinions, and all four dissenters joined in both dissents. In his dissent, Justice Scalia writes, “The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.” Justice Scalia’s 25-page dissenting opinion concludes, “The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent.”

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,530
    Mark Levin:

    While I am still reviewing the 5-4 decision written by Anthony Kennedy, apparently giving GITMO detainees access to our civilian courts, at the outset I am left to wonder whether all POWs will now have access to our civilian courts? After all, you would think lawful enemy combatants have a better claim in this regard than unlawful enemy combatants. And if POWs have access to our civilian courts, how do our courts plan to handle the thousands, if not tens of thousands of cases, that will be brought to them in future conflicts?

    It has been the objective of the left-wing bar to fight aspects of this war in our courtrooms, where it knew it would have a decent chance at victory. So complete is the Court’s disregard for the Constitution and even its own precedent now that anything is possible. And what was once considered inconceivable is now compelled by the Constitution, or so five justices have ruled. I fear for my country. I really do. And AP, among others, reports this story as a defeat for “the Bush administration.” Really? I see it as a defeat for the nation

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,530
    Here’s the conclusion of Chief Justice John Robert’s dissent, pp. 27-28.

    So who has won? Not the detainees. The Court’s analysis leaves them with only the prospect of further litigation to determine the content of their new habeas right, followed by further litigation to resolve their particular cases,followed by further litigation before the D. C. Circuit— where they could have started had they invoked the DTA procedure. Not Congress, whose attempt to “determine— through democratic means—how best” to balance the security of the American people with the detainees’ liberty
    interests, see Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U. S. 557, 636 (2006) (BREYER, J., concurring), has been unceremoniously brushed aside.
    Not the Great Writ, whose majesty is hardly enhanced by its extension to a jurisdictionally quirky outpost, with no tangible benefit to anyone. Not the rule of law, unless by that is meant the rule of lawyers, who will now arguably have a greater role than military and intelligence officials in shaping policy for alien enemy combatants. And certainly not the American people, who today lose a bit more control over the conduct of this Nation’s foreign policy to unelected, politically unaccountable judges.

    I respectfully dissent.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Karole28 View Post
    =Not the rule of law, unless by that is meant the rule of lawyers, who will now arguably have a greater role than military and intelligence officials in shaping policy for alien enemy combatants. And certainly not the American people, who today lose a bit more control over the conduct of this Nation’s foreign policy to unelected, politically unaccountable judges.

    I respectfully dissent.
    I hate to quote myself. But that part really is terrifying.

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. CT Supreme Court Rules Gays Can Marry
    By southcitymom in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-14-2008, 04:25 AM
  2. Texas Supreme Court Rules Children go back
    By Details in forum FLDS Raids and Related Items
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 06-02-2008, 09:23 PM
  3. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11-23-2006, 03:20 PM