SCOTUS: Gitmo detainees can go to civil courts

[crwtom 0]

CNN Story

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[chuck.reilly 0]

I am AMAZED that this court is actually protecting our rights!! Will wonders never cease! It's about time this administration got slapped back towards reality and the constitution.

-----------------------------------
"There are two kinds of skydivers in this world, the kind that skydive to enrich their lives and the kind that skydive to define their lives. Don't be the latter."

[Deisel 37]

Quote

I am AMAZED that this court is actually protecting rights!! Will wonders never cease! It's about time this administration got slapped back towards reality and the constitution.

Not sure who you're rooting for here but it was Al Queda that has just been protected by the court.

The brave may not live forever, but the timid never live at all.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Not sure who you're rooting for here but it was Al Queda that has just been protected by the court.

Yep. The terrorists have already won.

An old dead guy once said, "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

Some other old dead guy said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."

and, "It is more dangerous that even a guilty person should be punished without the forms of law than that he should escape."

It is sad that their wisdom is being forgotton.

- Dan G

[AWL71 0]

I can't believe this decision. There is a reason those detainees are in Gitmo. Now they are going to be allowed to be heard in civil court? Decisions like these only toughen the resolve of the extremists because we make it so easy for them by giving them "rights." You don't give your enemies rights. Why don't we just airlift the occupants of Gitmo to a shopping center in the states and give them some C4 and a AK-47 each so they can exercise their "rights."

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

I can't believe this decision. There is a reason those detainees are in Gitmo. Now they are going to be allowed to be heard in civil court? Decisions like these only toughen the resolve of the extremists because we make it so easy for them by giving them "rights." You don't give your enemies rights. Why don't we just airlift the occupants of Gitmo to a shopping center in the states and give them some C4 and a AK-47 each so they can exercise their "rights."

Sure - rights only apply to people you like. Once King George declares someone a terrorist, they lose all rights to a fair trial.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

You're absolutely right; you don't just give these people rights. They have rights. The SCOTUS didn't give them rights; the US constitution did.

[crwtom 0]

Quote

There is a reason those detainees are in Gitmo.

with that statement you already missed the point. How can you be sure? Who decides that? Innocent people have been detained as "terrorists" before.

Cheers, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[sfc 0]

Quote

I am AMAZED that this court is actually protecting our rights!! Will wonders never cease! It's about time this administration got slapped back towards reality and the constitution.

thank god for this ruling, it a step backwards from the precipice of a police state we are getting very close to with this administration.

[AWL71 0]

The constitution gives them rights? Enemy combatants caught on foreign soil have a right to be heard in civil court? I'm sure thats what the writers of the constitution had in mind. Leave it to the courts to pervert the constitution as usual. Im glad all you bleeding hearts were not around during WWII. If you were we would be speaking German now.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

The constitution gives them rights? ALLEGED enemy combatants caught on foreign soil have a right to be heard in civil court? I'm sure thats what the writers of the constitution had in mind. Leave it to the courts to pervert the constitution as usual.

Fixed it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Leave it to the courts to pervert the constitution as usual.

Leave it to the courts to interpret the law, as the framers of the Constitution intended.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

The constitution gives them rights? Enemy combatants caught on foreign soil have a right to be heard in civil court? I'm sure thats what the writers of the constitution had in mind. Leave it to the courts to pervert the constitution as usual. Im glad all you bleeding hearts were not around during WWII. If you were we would be speaking German now.

During WWII German prisoners of war had rights. "Illegal enemy combatants" is a legal non sequitur invented by your war criminal in chief.

[sfc 0]

Quote

The constitution gives them rights? Enemy combatants caught on foreign soil have a right to be heard in civil court? I'm sure thats what the writers of the constitution had in mind. Leave it to the courts to pervert the constitution as usual. Im glad all you bleeding hearts were not around during WWII. If you were we would be speaking German now.

If you let the administration deny one group their rights, they will start to define other groups and deny them rights citing the first and before you know it they will define a group that includes citizens, maybe even you, it was the thin end of the wedge and had to be stopped.

[AWL71 0]

Quote

Quote

The constitution gives them rights? Enemy combatants caught on foreign soil have a right to be heard in civil court? I'm sure thats what the writers of the constitution had in mind. Leave it to the courts to pervert the constitution as usual. Im glad all you bleeding hearts were not around during WWII. If you were we would be speaking German now.

During WWII German prisoners of war had rights. "Illegal enemy combatants" is a legal non sequitur invented by your war criminal in chief.

German prisoners during WWII had "rights" administered by Military tribunals. Those in Gitmo should get the same.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

If the gov had treated them like POWs under the Geneva convention six years ago we wouldn't be here today.

[AWL71 0]

Point taken. But you have to admit the circumstances are different.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[billvon 2,416]

>There is a reason those detainees are in Gitmo.

Right. And there was a reason the Duke lacrosse players were indicted on rape charges. Fortunately, in both cases, our constitution provides for a means to see if the reason is valid or not.

>Decisions like these only toughen the resolve of the extremists
>because we make it so easy for them by giving them "rights."

That's one of the drawbacks of living in the US - even people we dislike have rights. Our Constitution can be annoying to live with, but I prefer it to the alternative, even when we are frightened. As Justice Kennedy put it, "the laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

I have faith that our justice system will do a better job determining guilt or innocence than either a military board or the court of public opinion. It may not be perfect, but it's pretty good.

One of the primary goals of Al Qaeda has been to destroy the rights guaranteed under our Constitution. That goal was shot to pieces today by a Supreme Court who put a higher priority on protecting our rights than on fear. Good for them.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Point taken. But you have to admit the circumstances are different.

Yes they are, but the strength of the constitution is that it allows for extraordinary cases.
I believe that the damage done to the US by GWB via Gitmo will be one of his most durable legacies.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

The constitution gives them rights? Enemy combatants caught on foreign soil have a right to be heard in civil court? I'm sure thats what the writers of the constitution had in mind. Leave it to the courts to pervert the constitution as usual. Im glad all you bleeding hearts were not around during WWII. If you were we would be speaking German now.

ZZZZZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

The most CONSERVATIVE court in the history of our country.. APPOINTED in overwhelming numbers by REPUBICANS.....

DUDE.. get a grip already.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

The constitution gives them rights? Enemy combatants caught on foreign soil have a right to be heard in civil court? I'm sure thats what the writers of the constitution had in mind. Leave it to the courts to pervert the constitution as usual. Im glad all you bleeding hearts were not around during WWII. If you were we would be speaking German now.

During WWII German prisoners of war had rights. "Illegal enemy combatants" is a legal non sequitur invented by your war criminal in chief.

And here I always thought that the Geneva Convention was written BEFORE 43 was elected... my bad.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The constitution gives them rights? Enemy combatants caught on foreign soil have a right to be heard in civil court? I'm sure thats what the writers of the constitution had in mind. Leave it to the courts to pervert the constitution as usual. Im glad all you bleeding hearts were not around during WWII. If you were we would be speaking German now.

During WWII German prisoners of war had rights. "Illegal enemy combatants" is a legal non sequitur invented by your war criminal in chief.

And here I always thought that the Geneva Convention was written BEFORE 43 was elected... my bad.

No mention of "Illegal Enemy Combatants" at Geneva.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The constitution gives them rights? Enemy combatants caught on foreign soil have a right to be heard in civil court? I'm sure thats what the writers of the constitution had in mind. Leave it to the courts to pervert the constitution as usual. Im glad all you bleeding hearts were not around during WWII. If you were we would be speaking German now.

During WWII German prisoners of war had rights. "Illegal enemy combatants" is a legal non sequitur invented by your war criminal in chief.

And here I always thought that the Geneva Convention was written BEFORE 43 was elected... my bad.

No mention of "Illegal Enemy Combatants" at Geneva.

Sounds a lot like "unlawful combatants" to me - seems like a reasonable way to get the idea across to the public, seeing as how many of the great intellects posting about it here in SC *STILL* can't tell the difference between the US troops and unlawful combatants.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[warpedskydiver 0]

I guess the people who are in favor of using the Geneva Conventions in prosecuting the unlawful combatants, have no problem with the sentences that could be carried out as a result of conviction on the applied charges.

Now I bet they will ask for a change of venue to places like Illinois, where the sentences will be somewhat lessened due to the moratorium on the death penalty.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The constitution gives them rights? Enemy combatants caught on foreign soil have a right to be heard in civil court? I'm sure thats what the writers of the constitution had in mind. Leave it to the courts to pervert the constitution as usual. Im glad all you bleeding hearts were not around during WWII. If you were we would be speaking German now.

During WWII German prisoners of war had rights. "Illegal enemy combatants" is a legal non sequitur invented by your war criminal in chief.

And here I always thought that the Geneva Convention was written BEFORE 43 was elected... my bad.

No mention of "Illegal Enemy Combatants" at Geneva.

Sounds a lot like "unlawful combatants" to me - seems like a reasonable way to get the idea across to the public, seeing as how many of the great intellects posting about it here in SC *STILL* can't tell the difference between the US troops and unlawful combatants.

Unlawful combatants are required to either be accorded the rights of regular prisoners of war, or to be treated under civilian law. That has always been the position if international jurists, and that is the position of the SCOTUS.