Supreme Court Rules Guantanamo Detainees Have Constitutional Rights To

[Rex Kickass]

I agree with the fact that they need to be charged or let go, but I also have problems with non-citizens being covered by the constitution, even with Soxbadger's post.

 

So you think that a Canadian citizen arrested in the United States for crimes in the United States that he may or may not have committed should be held to a different standard of guilt?

[Balta1701]

So you think that a Canadian citizen arrested in the United States for crimes in the United States that he may or may not have committed should be held to a different standard of guilt?

Well, one potential difference with canada is that there are likely (I assume) treaties that have the force of law that cover that area also, whereas with the Taliban and Al Qaeda there certainly aren't. However, naturally I'll agree that without those treaties, the constitution should still stand in force.

 

(Of course, one would then make the argument that the geneva conventions are also a treaty and therefore also have the rule of law...)

[BearSox]

i think the court made the right decision. we can't just lock people up in some base in Cuba without a trial

they aren't just people, they are Islamic fascists that pose a threat to national security. I'm sorry, but anyone in favor of this ruling, including those 5 nutjob judges, is a goofball.

Edited June 13, 2008 by BearSox

[FlaSoxxJim]

they aren't just people, they are Islamic fascists that pose a threat to national security.

 

Except a whole bunch of them aren't. The poor innocent saps who got turned in by their neighbors 6+ years ago for a quick buck are hardly the Islamofascists you've been scared into believing they are.

 

I'm sorry, but anyone in favor of this ruling, including those 5 nutjob judges, is a goofball.

 

The goofball Framers would have been in favor of this ruling.

 

[kapkomet]

Well, one potential difference with canada is that there are likely (I assume) treaties that have the force of law that cover that area also, whereas with the Taliban and Al Qaeda there certainly aren't. However, naturally I'll agree that without those treaties, the constitution should still stand in force.

 

(Of course, one would then make the argument that the geneva conventions are also a treaty and therefore also have the rule of law...)

Which goes back to my point of they need to be brought up on charges, as called for by INTERNATIONAL LAW that governs this, not the U.S. Constitution. That's the distinction to me.

[lostfan]

they aren't just people, they are Islamic fascists that pose a threat to national security. I'm sorry, but anyone in favor of this ruling, including those 5 nutjob judges, is a goofball.

If that was the only issue, this wouldn't be a question. Nobody here really gives a s*** about the actual terrorists, for all I care you could put them all in a room and gas them to death but it's really not that simple. Plus it's not like we're giving rights to terrorists. What it means is that we can't hold onto people indefinitely for no reason in a virtual black hole and just cite "national security" as the reason. What if an American was in the same situation somewhere else? Wouldn't we be kinda pissed off?

 

Let me tell you - believe it or not - not everyone in detention is a terrorist. I know that's kinda hard to believe for a lot of people but it's true. And I'm telling you this first-hand.

Edited June 13, 2008 by lostfan

[lostfan]

I think we all would. But that's the problem with the system we've set up. The people running this country decided that the laws didn't need to be followed in certain circumstances and tried to set up a system where they could do those things. But when the courts decided they didn't agree with the memos written by the guys in the DOJ, suddenly all the work by the people who wanted detainees tortured in the name of America wound up not only serving to humiliate the country and inflame the world against us, it also served to make trying them fairly nearly impossible, so we keep going through this sideshow dance with the military tribunals trying desperately to set up a system that isn't directly in contravention of the U.S. constitution but also doesn't force us to let go of the genuinely bad people that we tortured.

 

It wasn't just because of morality that torturing these detainees was a bad idea. There were quite a few practical reasons why it was a terrible idea, and these court losses for the administration are a direct result of them.

This is where it gets kind of tricky IMO. When you detain a terror suspect and question them, in the beginning, you're looking for information of intelligence value. Operational details etc. You're not looking for a confession or information to be used in a trial or whatever, maybe indirectly but that's not really your priority. That's the questioning style you're gearing towards.

 

Didn't KSM openly admit to being the mastermind of the 9-11 attacks by the way?

[Balta1701]

This is where it gets kind of tricky IMO. When you detain a terror suspect and question them, in the beginning, you're looking for information of intelligence value. Operational details etc. You're not looking for a confession or information to be used in a trial or whatever, maybe indirectly but that's not really your priority. That's the questioning style you're gearing towards.

 

Didn't KSM openly admit to being the mastermind of the 9-11 attacks by the way?

I'm pretty sure he did, yes, and he's asked to receive the death penalty.

 

Here's the other side of the token on the first part...as the FBI proved in the interrogation of Saddam Hussein...there does not and absolutely should not be a distinction between getting operational information out of a detainee and getting information that could be used in trial. The only way that there is a difference is if you choose to torture a prisoner to get information out of them. But make no mistake...torture is a choice in that case, and it is for virtually every reason the worst possible choice.

[lostfan]

I'm pretty sure he did, yes, and he's asked to receive the death penalty.

 

Here's the other side of the token on the first part...as the FBI proved in the interrogation of Saddam Hussein...there does not and absolutely should not be a distinction between getting operational information out of a detainee and getting information that could be used in trial. The only way that there is a difference is if you choose to torture a prisoner to get information out of them. But make no mistake...torture is a choice in that case, and it is for virtually every reason the worst possible choice.

Well they also had evidence, witnesses etc. to use against Saddam that we won't otherwise have against a terrorist operative.

 

Summary executions ftw (thought about putting that in green, but nah)

[BearSox]

If that was the only issue, this wouldn't be a question. Nobody here really gives a s*** about the actual terrorists, for all I care you could put them all in a room and gas them to death but it's really not that simple. Plus it's not like we're giving rights to terrorists. What it means is that we can't hold onto people indefinitely for no reason in a virtual black hole and just cite "national security" as the reason. What if an American was in the same situation somewhere else? Wouldn't we be kinda pissed off?

 

Let me tell you - believe it or not - not everyone in detention is a terrorist. I know that's kinda hard to believe for a lot of people but it's true. And I'm telling you this first-hand.

Hey, we're not decapitating these guys on the internet for everyone to see. These prisoners should consider themselves lucky.

[Balta1701]

Hey, we're not decapitating these guys on the internet for everyone to see. These prisoners should consider themselves lucky.

LOL, the old "We're better than them so that makes everything we do ok" defense.

[jackie hayes]

I think the appropriate response to this is that the U.S. government must follow the constitution, whether or not it is acting against citizens. If the constitution specifies that some power granted to the government only is allowed for citizens, then it is limited to that group. The constitution says that it is applicable to the government, and that judicial power/judicial review is applicable to the cases of anyone, including citizens of other countries. The Habeas Corpus clause says;

 

 

 

There is nothing in the constitution that limits this clause specifically to citizens, and I'd say the constitution, by applying judicial power to citizens of other countries, probably does imply that HC implies to anyone who is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government, unless the writ is officially suspended.

This is key, and I think it keeps getting missed. The citizenship thing is not an issue, at all. The Constitution does not merely declare that citizens have rights X, Y, and Z. It also says Congress/Prez/Courts can do X, but not Y. The habeas corpus clause is not at all limited to citizens, nor has it ever been. An illegal immigrant in the court system has full hc rights.

 

The main issue here is about what particular branches of the government can or cannot do. The administration's basic claim is that the US does not have sovereignty over Guantanamo Bay (they argue Cuba does), and so the Constitution's hc guarantee does not apply there. It is, of course, Cuban territory. But the argument that the Legislative and Executive Branches can therefore do whatever they feel like there, where the US is completely in control, is pretty feeble. As in the judgment: "The Constitution grants Congress and the President the power to acquire, dispose of, and govern territory, not the power to decide when and where its terms apply." The Constitution says, Congress can't suspend habeas corpus. Not, can't for certain people. Not, can't in the states and Puerto Rico. Just can't. The possibilities opened up by any other ruling seem to me absolutely brutal -- Congress would be allowed to advocate just about any monstrous behavior, as long as it happens someplace the US rents.

[BearSox]

LOL, the old "We're better than them so that makes everything we do ok" defense.

Okay, so should we stoop down to being barbaric savages and chop of the heads of threats against us for the whole world to see? Yeah, we're no better than them so we shouldn't even allow them to live! Off with their heads!

Edited June 13, 2008 by BearSox

[Heads22]

they aren't just people, they are Islamic fascists that pose a threat to national security. I'm sorry, but anyone in favor of this ruling, including those 5 nutjob judges, is a goofball.

 

I don't see why religion had to be brought up. Not just Muslims are threats to national security.

 

[BearSox]

I don't see why religion had to be brought up. Not just Muslims are threats to national security.

I'm sorry, I should have said Islamofascists.

[lostfan]

Okay, so should we stoop down to being barbaric savages and chop of the heads of threats against us for the whole world to see? Yeah, we're no better than them so we shouldn't even allow them to live! Off with their heads!

What the hell are you talking about? This post didn't come out of left field, it actually came from the south goalpost.

[Balta1701]

Okay, so should we stoop down to being barbaric savages and chop of the heads of threats against us for the whole world to see? Yeah, we're no better than them so we shouldn't even allow them to live! Off with their heads!

Yea, because that's entirely what I was saying. I wasn't making a point that the argument you were using was simply absurd and could be used to justify virtually anything because it's really, really hard to come up with things that are worse than chopping off a person's head on camera...I was clearly saying we're the same as them.

[lostfan]

I'm sorry, I should have said Islamofascists.

You know that even "Islamofascists" aren't even all the same either, right? That there are pretty major differences between, say, Hezbollah, Al-Qaida, and Hamas? That they get all their support from different places, for different reasons?

 

Just saying.

[StrangeSox]

they aren't just people, they are Islamic fascists that pose a threat to national security. I'm sorry, but anyone in favor of this ruling, including those 5 nutjob judges, is a goofball.

 

You're arguing from the conclusion that they ARE "Islamic fascists." That hasn't been proven because, get this, THEY HAVEN'T HAD A FAIR TRIAL!

 

Do you have any legal basis for saying that anyone that anyone in favor of this ruling is a "goofball", or are you just arguing from your belief that a) they're terrorists and b ) we should be able to hold terrorists indefinitely without trial?

[lostfan]

If we had a crystal ball that let us know who was a terrorist and who wasn't, I really could care less about what happens to them. For all I care we could lock them in a building and set it on fire. But in the real world it just doesn't work like that.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Oh what the hell...

US asks to rewrite detainee evidence

 

The Bush administration wants to rewrite the official evidence against Guantanamo Bay detainees, allowing it to shore up its cases before they come under scrutiny by civilian judges for the first time.

 

The government has stood behind the evidence for years. Military review boards relied on it to justify holding hundreds of prisoners indefinitely without charge. Justice Department attorneys said it was thoroughly and fairly reviewed.

 

Now that federal judges are about to review the evidence, however, the government says it needs to make changes.

 

umm... OH! you want to actually SEE the evidence against these people??? hmm... can you give us some time? We need to make it up!!

[BearSox]

It sickens me to see Americans actually wanting to give these terrorists all of these rights. These aren't some illegal immigrants picked up on drug charges, these are people who DESPISE America and are islamofascists. THESE PEOPLE ARE A THREAT TO OUR COUNTRY! We are not picking up random people and falsely accusing them of being terrorists. My gosh, they are in Guantanamo for a reason.

 

I'm a reasonable guy, and these people should have their trials and such, but give me a break? Instead of treating them like the terrorists they are, we are going to treat them like some guy picked up drug charges or something? I could care less if Guantanamo is U.S. Territory, these people should not receive constitutional rights.

 

I'm sorry, but as Michael Savage said, Liberalism is a mental disorder. Liberals are ruining the country I love, and it has to be stopped. I know we have some here, but I'm sorry. This is a sore subject for me.

 

So far the liberals have gotten Terrorists constitutional rights, they got gay marriage passed in California, they make it legal for women to kill innocent babies, etc. And once Obama takes office, we are going to become a socialist country.

Edited June 20, 2008 by BearSox

[lostfan]

I'm a reasonable guy, and these people should have their trials and such, but give me a break?

lol you BASICALLY JUST SAID YOU AGREED WITH THE COURT'S DECISION, congratulations

 

Also, I guess Anthony Kennedy is a bat-s*** liberal too since this Reagan appointee wrote the majority opinion.

Edited June 20, 2008 by lostfan

[BearSox]

lol you BASICALLY JUST SAID YOU AGREED WITH THE COURT'S DECISION, congratulations

No, I mean trial before they should be hung or not.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Weren't the Nazis given fair trials where they could present a defense? (please correct me if I am wrong)

Hell, Saddam was given a "fairer" trial then these people are.