Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Guantanamo Detainee's

[absinthe]

That is such a scary question. I would never, ever want the policies of my country compared to the policies of Al Qaeda.

 

[southcitymom]

......You need to review your law and history and understand our forefathers never intended for these type of people to be treated as citizens , with the same rights as citizens have , during a time of war, and under our law. .........And the next question I would ask you..if the tables were reversed, would these same jihadist, in charge of our POW's treat them in this same way?

Hi DD:

I will say that reviewing my law and history may not help. Based on my knowledge (by no means encyclopedic, but I do okay) of these things (though admittedly not on the full facts of the case that was heard), I arrive at the same conclusion as the Supreme Court.

As for the second question, I do not think jihadists would treat POW's in a similar way, but I don't know how this matters. I'm not a "treat others as you think they would treat you" kind of person. I want the US to uphold principals that savages would not. I'm proud to be guided by different concepts than they are.

 

[believe09]

The court ruled on two issues; that the detainees were due writ of habeus corpus and that American Citizens who violate the laws of other countries can be held accountable according to the law of the other country...as in "When in Rome..."

What I find interesting about the second ruling is that the US refuses to allow our military to be prosecuted for war crimes up until now-wonder how that stance can play out? There are two Americans being held in Iraq for committing crimes in Iraq. They do not want to be tried in Iraq because they do not want to be subjected to torture, but the Supreme court basically said tough nuts.

My perspective is that affording enemy combatants writ of habeus corpus is the equivilent of taking the high road, and I am in huge favor of it. Holding someone for six years in Cuba, regardless of how cushy the jail cell may be, without charges or access to attornies is ridiculous. How does this make us different from the terroristic societies that these individuals have allegedly been taken from? What is the cost in dollars vs the possibility that innocent people would be persecuted? I agree with the majority of the court; the risk is too high.

Come on guys-this is no different then the current justice system being heavily weighted to the rights of the defendant-a system that also makes mistakes and loses lives. What does it gain us, imo? A society that does not play to the lowest common denominator, a country that doesn't indiscriminately close it's doors to the immigrants that made us strong, a country that cherishes high ideals and laws that are high minded and fair. A country that walks softly and carries a big stick, to quote a late president.

 

[DeltaDawn]

I would not want our counrty to treat them the way our service people and citizens of other countrys are treated by them..there is really no comparison to how say Daniel Pearl was treated and how we treat them in GITMO. Infact that was my point exactly..we offer them far more priviledges and freedoms...which they do not respect in their own country. So, if we lower our standards to say we will try you in our criminal or civil court system, as opposed to our military tribunals, then we are saying they are not the war criminals we see them as. They have violated standards set during a war environment..they are there because they have either made threats, provided funding, or been insturmental in plans to do our nation's people harm. They are not there because they they stole something, shot a sales clerk or robbed the poor or rich. They are there because their purpose was more expansive..they wanted to do this country and our people harm.

 

[absinthe]

I don't understand why so many disagree with the need for 1) evidence and 2) charges? I really, honestly don't!

Can someone please explain why they believe that people should be imprisoned without these 2 things?

 

[southcitymom]

The court ruled on two issues; that the detainees were due writ of habeus corpus and that American Citizens who violate the laws of other countries can be held accountable according to the law of the other country...as in "When in Rome..."

What I find interesting about the second ruling is that the US refuses to allow our military to be prosecuted for war crimes up until now-wonder how that stance can play out? There are two Americans being held in Iraq for committing crimes in Iraq. They do not want to be tried in Iraq because they do not want to be subjected to torture, but the Supreme court basically said tough nuts.

My perspective is that affording enemy combatants writ of habeus corpus is the equivilent of taking the high road, and I am in huge favor of it. Holding someone for six years in Cuba, regardless of how cushy the jail cell may be, without charges or access to attornies is ridiculous. How does this make us different from the terroristic societies that these individuals have allegedly been taken from? What is the cost in dollars vs the possibility that innocent people would be persecuted? I agree with the majority of the court; the risk is too high.

Come on guys-this is no different then the current justice system being heavily weighted to the rights of the defendant-a system that also makes mistakes and loses lives. What does it gain us, imo? A society that does not play to the lowest common denominator, a country that doesn't indiscriminately close it's doors to the immigrants that made us strong, a country that cherishes high ideals and laws that are high minded and fair. A country that walks softly and carries a big stick, to quote a late president.

Outstanding post, believe!:clap::clap::clap:

 

[southcitymom]

I don't understand why so many disagree with the need for 1) evidence and 2) charges? I really, honestly don't!

Can someone please explain why they believe that people should be imprisoned without these 2 things?

I am all ears, too!

 

[absinthe]

The court ruled on two issues; that the detainees were due writ of habeus corpus and that American Citizens who violate the laws of other countries can be held accountable according to the law of the other country...as in "When in Rome..."

What I find interesting about the second ruling is that the US refuses to allow our military to be prosecuted for war crimes up until now-wonder how that stance can play out? There are two Americans being held in Iraq for committing crimes in Iraq. They do not want to be tried in Iraq because they do not want to be subjected to torture, but the Supreme court basically said tough nuts.

My perspective is that affording enemy combatants writ of habeus corpus is the equivilent of taking the high road, and I am in huge favor of it. Holding someone for six years in Cuba, regardless of how cushy the jail cell may be, without charges or access to attornies is ridiculous. How does this make us different from the terroristic societies that these individuals have allegedly been taken from? What is the cost in dollars vs the possibility that innocent people would be persecuted? I agree with the majority of the court; the risk is too high.

Come on guys-this is no different then the current justice system being heavily weighted to the rights of the defendant-a system that also makes mistakes and loses lives. What does it gain us, imo? A society that does not play to the lowest common denominator, a country that doesn't indiscriminately close it's doors to the immigrants that made us strong, a country that cherishes high ideals and laws that are high minded and fair. A country that walks softly and carries a big stick, to quote a late president.

Beautifully expressed. Thank you.

 

[Anita Richman]

The court ruled on two issues; that the detainees were due writ of habeus corpus and that American Citizens who violate the laws of other countries can be held accountable according to the law of the other country...as in "When in Rome..."

What I find interesting about the second ruling is that the US refuses to allow our military to be prosecuted for war crimes up until now-wonder how that stance can play out? There are two Americans being held in Iraq for committing crimes in Iraq. They do not want to be tried in Iraq because they do not want to be subjected to torture, but the Supreme court basically said tough nuts.

My perspective is that affording enemy combatants writ of habeus corpus is the equivilent of taking the high road, and I am in huge favor of it. Holding someone for six years in Cuba, regardless of how cushy the jail cell may be, without charges or access to attornies is ridiculous. How does this make us different from the terroristic societies that these individuals have allegedly been taken from? What is the cost in dollars vs the possibility that innocent people would be persecuted? I agree with the majority of the court; the risk is too high.

Come on guys-this is no different then the current justice system being heavily weighted to the rights of the defendant-a system that also makes mistakes and loses lives. What does it gain us, imo? A society that does not play to the lowest common denominator, a country that doesn't indiscriminately close it's doors to the immigrants that made us strong, a country that cherishes high ideals and laws that are high minded and fair. A country that walks softly and carries a big stick, to quote a late president.

That's EXACTLY what I meant to say!

(Or rather, wish I had said.) :clap:

 

[IdahoMom]

And the next question I would ask you..if the tables were reversed, would these same jihadist, in charge of our POW's treat them in this same way?

I'll bet Daniel Pearl's wife would say NO.

 

[Karole28]

Well this is just dandy.

We can now expect a couple of different scenarios:

1) Combatants will be shot and executed instead of being taken into custody (to avoid going to court)

2) Combatants will be taken into custody and the soldiers who were involved can work out how they're going to testify in court to this and to what they're going to testify.

3) Our soldiers will start a catch and release program to allow these combatants to go out and keep shooting at them, civilians, etc. (putting our soldiers and the civilians in even greater danger.)

4) Combatants will be caught and held in prisons not nearly as nice as Guatanamo, in another country.

 

[Karole28]

Bin Laden said among other things, he or 'they,' would use 'our laws' against us.

From this ruling, he was right. Way to go supreme court and 'left-wing bar.' You're now the new bff of none other than,....... Bin Laden himself.

God have mercy on us all.

JMHO
fran

Precisely. CAIR is jubilent over this ruling, that alone should let you know how damaging it will be.

 

[Karole28]

And, this is what I've been wondering about since yesterday (answered in the Wall Street Journal article on the decision):

Justice Kennedy declines even to consider what those standards should be, or how they would protect national security over classified information or the sources and methods that led to the detentions. Eventually, as the lower courts work their will amid endless litigation, perhaps President Kennedy will vouchsafe more details in some future case. In the meantime, the likelihood grows that our soldiers will prematurely release combatants who will kill more Americans.

ed: This will allow these combatants access to our evidence gathering and National security will indeed be at risk.

I hope these liberal justices are proud of what they've done to this nation, to get back at a President they hate.

Click

ed: I'm also wondering how hard the lawyers associations have lobbied to get this passed. This is a boon for their industry. Never mind the ACLU.

/going to law school
//who needs personal conviction? I'm getting paid!

 

[IdahoMom]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pearl

snip

...Years later, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed confessed to cutting off Pearl's head, but didn't state whether he had cut his throat: it is likely that one person did both....

...
On March 10, 2007, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, an alleged Al Qaeda operative reported to be third in command under Osama Bin Laden, claimed responsibility, before his Combatant Status Review Tribunal, for the murder of Daniel Pearl. He claimed to have beheaded him, but did not specify whether he had cut his throat before cutting off his head (Zarqawi-fashion) or cut off his head from the back with a sword or axe, as decapitations were done for millennia and are still done in Saudi Arabia.[13] In a confession read during his Tribunal hearing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is on record repeating:
“I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew Daniel Pearl, in the City of Karachi, Pakistan.[14]”
This confession repeated, word for word, the phrasing leaked, in 2002, from his controversial interrogation in a clandestine CIA interrogation center.[15]

 

[Karole28]

I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew Daniel Pearl, in the City of Karachi, Pakistan

Let's hope the OJ jurors have retired.

/pass the ammo

 

[bracken123]

No it really doesn't..it says they do not need to come before a military tribunal at the time of war. It says that they are to be treated as citizens instead of the aliens that they are. It says that they can be tried in a normal court of law vs a court set up to try war and military crimes.

You need to review your law and history and understand our forefathers never intended for these type of people to be treated as citizens , with the same rights as citizens have , during a time of war, and under our law.

I need to know how would you treat an alien who has been Id as a war criminal, who's sole intent is the demise of our country. These are not American citizens, they are uninvited guests of our country who would do you and your children harm given half a chance. They would be willing to do whatever it takes to push their agenda forward. This is not coming from a right wing republican..I am a democrat who believes in rights...but I don't believe in dealing our freedom and country away, in order to give some jihadist, who are free to live where they want, who have chosen only to be here to perpetrate their violence on our nation.

And the next question I would ask you..if the tables were reversed, would these same jihadist, in charge of our POW's treat them in this same way?

Well said Deltadawn!

Why should these terror suspects be granted the priviledge of hiding under our constitution? The constitution of the very country that they seek to destroy.
We are at war folks, and if you think for one minute that they will no longer be a threat to us because we have granted them rights that they are not deserving of, you are sadly mistaken.

Bravo Justice Scalia.

War criminals should be tried by a military tribunal.

Do you think that the liberal justices will feel that they have made a bad decision if a released enemy of the USA pulls of a full scale assalt on our country? The potential ramifications of this puts every citizen of our country in danger - innocents - these GITMO detainees are A THREAT. And should be treated as such.

 

[southcitymom]

Well said Deltadawn!

Why should these terror suspects be granted the priviledge of hiding under our constitution? The constitution of the very country that they seek to destroy.
We are at war folks, and if you think for one minute that they will no longer be a threat to us because we have granted them rights that they are not deserving of, you are sadly mistaken.

Bravo Justice Scalia.

War criminals should be tried by a military tribunal.

Do you think that the liberal justices will feel that they have made a bad decision if a released enemy of the USA pulls of a full scale assalt on our country? The potential ramifications of this puts every citizen of our country in danger - innocents - these GITMO detainees are A THREAT. And should be treated as such.

If they have committed crimes, why can we not bring charges, present evidence, accomplish a verdict and assign consequences?

 

[Karole28]

If they have committed crimes, why can we not bring charges, present evidence, accomplish a verdict and assign consequences?

Have you thought this through logistically?

Have you thought about the burdens on our already overburdened courts? Have you weighed what this will mean to our soldiers on the ground over there? (Shoot now or answer to a judicial system later? or shoot now and answer to the judicial system later? Men and women will DIE for this ruling)

Have you considered what it will be like for our Military to issue subpoenas to soldiers taking them away from combat? Were these combatants given their Miranda rights?

What it will be like to give these cretins access to our National security intell?

 

[DeltaDawn]

Military law simply has never ever been the same as civil law. So for the supreme court to intervene in that is wrong to begin with. In the military, if you decide one day to not go to work, you don't like it any longer..it's AWOL. In the civil sector, it is nothing more then you quit. There has always been a difference between a military tribunal and civil law..and hopefully there always will be. That being said, the supreme court should have never become involved in what our military does with alien prisoner combatants at a time of war.

 

[Ntegrity]

This will most definitely change the face of war as we've known it. Every prisoner taken captive will now be allowed due process in our court system. Unfreakinbelievable.