Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Guantanamo Detainee's

Yeah, let's turn the poor guys loose and see what happens then.
 
Ntegrity, they are being held indefinitely and without charges. Do you think that is fair to human beings?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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."
 
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.”
 
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
 
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.
 
=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.
 
Lolz, not a comeback, I just didn't understand the fright over "unelected, politically unaccountable judges".
 
Because the law means nothing to these judges. They have now gone against what the lawmakers elected to make laws have established.
 
Everyone deserves due process of law. We have very little information as to who these folks are and what they, individually, have done. I will wait to make my decision until I know more.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
159
Guests online
2,367
Total visitors
2,526

Forum statistics

Threads
590,025
Messages
17,929,153
Members
228,041
Latest member
Rainydaze17
Back
Top