lawrocket 3 #26 June 12, 2008 QuoteI 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." These guys have been in Gitmo for six years now. And no trial? No charges? No ability to say, "How can I get outta here?" No requirement for the government to make an actual finding? No right to say, "I didn't do it?" Nothing to make the government prove their case to a neutral arbiter? I WHOLEHEARTEDLY support the outcome from a political standpoint. I have not had the opportunity to read the opinion and dissent, though. I will have to determine whether I thought they reached the right conclusion the right way. For in my opinion, achieving the right result the wrong way is worse than reaching the wrong result the right way. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #27 June 12, 2008 Quote For in my opinion, achieving the right result the wrong way is worse than reaching the wrong result the right way. Spoken like a true legal conservative. I agree. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 1 #28 June 12, 2008 QuoteQuoteI 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. A completely ignorant statement. Did you get all F's in social studies? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #29 June 12, 2008 QuoteDecisions 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. Oddly enough, I thought it was "their Creator" who endowed them with certain inalienable rights. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
okalb 96 #30 June 12, 2008 The "nation will live to regret what the court has done today," Scalia said. He was supported by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. What a surprise that these are the 4 that dissented.Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #31 June 12, 2008 They may be right in their statements, time will tell. They are extremely smart and put great thought into their decisions, I will watch with great interest and certainly hope their reservations are not realized. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #32 June 12, 2008 Quote 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. It, however, was close to - 5:4. And, as usual, Justice Scalia came with some usual crap.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #33 June 12, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe 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. The idea they're trying to get across with such a distinction is this. We have one way of dealing with criminals. We have another way of dealing with prisoners of war. We want to treat these people in a totally different way without the protections either of the above classifications afford and we want the President to have sole authority to decide which persons he will detain indefinitely in this manner, without any judicial oversight. Personally, I think balanced power is best for America and our recent Presidents have been grabbing far more than their share. It's time for the Legislative and Judicial branches to do their jobs and take some of it back. This ruling does at least step in the right direction. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #34 June 12, 2008 I agree. Damn...can anyone in the Pacific NorthWet go check on Jeanne? She's gonna faint when she reads this.... Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #35 June 12, 2008 Okay. I just started reading it, and this quote sticks out as a beautiful statement of principle: Quotesecurity subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom’s first principles, chief among them being freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to the separation of powers. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,827 #36 June 12, 2008 Quote 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. Did you sleep through civics classes? Didn't anyone ever tell you about the difference between Federal and State courts? PS how about showing some class and apologizing for calling me a liar, when it was you that was mistaken? Current Gitmo score: US Constitution 3, Bush 0... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grimmie 179 #37 June 12, 2008 What determines who goes to Gitmo? The Unabomber, McVeigh, they got trials and were terrorists. If that kid that shot up Virginia Tech lived, would he get sent to Gitmo? Ramzi Yousef and his gang got a trial in the US for bombing the WTC in '93. I think only one of them got away to Jordan and escaped conviction if i remember correctly. Khaled Shaikh Mohammed is his Uncle and helped mastermind that attack also. So give him a trial. We have tried international terrorists before, what is the hold up now? And why did they have to be detained on "Intl combatant' type charges? This entire Gitmo, hold 'em for years without charging and holding a trial for them stinks like bad fish. Oh, yeah, they might become a Martyr for the cause. Innocent until proven guilty... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #38 June 13, 2008 What has annoyed me for a long time ius the believe that the prisoners at Gitmo were "caught on the battlefield". It has been proven that most were either arrested by local warlords or pointed out / accused bu locals. All for a bounty of course. Do you guys really believe that being denounced by the local warlord for money is proove you are a terrorist? You should read about the Afghan taxi driver who was accused (for money) and totally innocent. He was tortured to death in American custody. I saw a documentary with ex-MP's who described what happened at US detention facilities in the midle east..... BTW several hundred dteainees have already been released from Gitmo (only anbout 200 left now) after being detained without a hearing for years..... that should tell you something....--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #39 June 13, 2008 Quote The "nation will live to regret what the court has done today," Scalia said. Hey, if we LIVE to regret it, how bad could it be? -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwtom 0 #40 June 13, 2008 Quote It, however, was close to - 5:4. And, as usual, Justice Scalia came with some usual crap. For anyone considering to vote Republican in November - this decision will go the other way if McCain gets his hands on new SCOTUS appointments. (Along with many other social politics issues) He's weaseling his way out of a clear stand on the ruling right now, but has vowed many time to put more conservatives into the SCOTUS. What ever his stand may be, once the new judges are appointed decisions on this will go their own way (meaning reversal). Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,739 #41 June 13, 2008 >and apologizing for calling me a liar . . . If you have an issue with another poster, please take it to PM's. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #42 June 13, 2008 Ah come on Bill where is the fun in that... I think we all could use a nice little CAGE MATCH once in a while in here Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #43 June 13, 2008 Quote REPUBICANS..... Just can't put that L in there, can ya? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #44 June 13, 2008 Nope.. not until it becomes the moderate party of old instead of the holier than thou buch that has suborned the Grand Old Party. The current crop have turned it into the Party of Morality that has been shown to have failed so miserably at it over and over and over and over....... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piper17 1 #45 June 13, 2008 Time to invoke "Rule 303". If they aren't wearing uniforms and are participating in combat actions against coalition forces, don't take them as prisoners....and certainly don't bring them to any US territory. We'll probably lose some intelligence potential but they won't be able to cause us any problems in the future."A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,827 #46 June 13, 2008 QuoteTime to invoke "Rule 303". If they aren't wearing uniforms and are participating in combat actions against coalition forces, don't take them as prisoners....and certainly don't bring them to any US territory. We'll probably lose some intelligence potential but they won't be able to cause us any problems in the future. Apparently most of the Gitmo detainees were NOT taken in combat actions but were turned in by locals in exchange for a bounty.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,827 #47 June 13, 2008 Apparently Senator McCain doesn't trust Federal judges, and thinks people whove been imprisoned without trial for years who want a hearing are "frivolous". From FOX: John McCain said Friday that the Supreme Court ruling on Guantanamo Bay detainees is “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.” The presumptive GOP nominee said the decision, a 5-4 ruling Thursday that determined Guantanamo detainees have the right to seek release in civilian courts, would lead to a wave of frivolous challenges. “We are now going to have the courts flooded with so-called … habeas corpus suits against the government, whether it be about the diet, whether it be about the reading material. And we are going to be bollixed up in a way that is terribly unfortunate because we need to go ahead and adjudicate these cases,” he said at a town hall meeting in New Jersey. McCain said he has worked hard to ensure the U.S. military does not torture prisoners but that the detainees at Guantanamo are still “enemy combatants.”.... I guess he forgot how he voted (on February 13th) AGAINST a bill that would make it illegal for US intelligence agencies to use interrogation techniques that are forbidden by the military's guidelines.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #48 June 13, 2008 QuotePersonally, I think balanced power is best for America and our recent Presidents have been grabbing far more than their share. It's time for the Legislative and Judicial branches to do their jobs and take some of it back. This ruling does at least step in the right direction. Blues, Dave Exactly, very well said. I think the SCOTUS made the right move here._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #49 June 13, 2008 I guess they will all walk then seeing as confessions were gained by torture and I seriously doubt there's any chain of evidence that will stand up to legal requirements.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piper17 1 #50 June 16, 2008 Evidence of this?"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
