Supreme Court Rules Guantanamo Detainees Have Constitutional Rights To

[Reddy]

I know that that isn't their primary goal, but there is no doubt all islamofascists hate America. I recall you made a post earlier about islamofascists including Hamas, Al-Qaida, Hezbollah, etc., and that they get their funding from different places and they all have different goals and such. That's all fine and dandy, but they all hate america, they are all terrorist organizations, and they are all a threat to national security.

I think I was born into the wrong era. I think I would have fit in much better during the 40's.

 

except that, like previously stated, the nazi's got fair trials. you probably wouldn't have liked that much either.

Edited June 23, 2008 by Reddy

[Soxbadger]

Its GOING to happen, I would bet you money. If terrorists are going to get the same rights as everyone else, they are going to get the same kind of odds at getting off in court. That's a part of our system, just ask OJ how well the justice system works.

 

Are the terrorists going to have the best lawyers that money can buy?

 

Are the terrorists going to have their trials located in areas that are extremely sympathetic to them?

 

Most (90%) defendants were convicted.

 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/fed.htm#Adjudication

 

If they convict 90% of the terrorists in GITMO its unlikely that many guilty terrorists were let free.

 

The OJ Simpson case is the exception, just like Claus Von Buleau and all the other super rich defendants who can put on the best case money can buy.

[southsider2k5]

Are the terrorists going to have the best lawyers that money can buy?

 

Are the terrorists going to have their trials located in areas that are extremely sympathetic to them?

 

 

 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/fed.htm#Adjudication

 

If they convict 90% of the terrorists in GITMO its unlikely that many guilty terrorists were let free.

 

The OJ Simpson case is the exception, just like Claus Von Buleau and all the other super rich defendants who can put on the best case money can buy.

 

Its not a big leap to think that these guys are going to have plenty of moeny behind them, when you stop and think that the people bankrolling these people have tons of money. It would make us look impotent if they got off in our courts of law, and then went and struck at us anyway.

[Soxbadger]

I think its a drastic leap to believe that terrorist organizations are going to bankroll these defense cases. The last thing they want is their money getting to US soil and then all of their bank accounts/ assets frozen.

 

It would make us look impotent if they got off in our courts of law, and then went and struck at us anyway.

 

No it would make us look like a country that actually believed in our own principles. Maybe our system isnt perfect, maybe its not right 100% of the time, but its the AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM. If we cant believe in our own system, then what is the point of any of this?

 

Maybe Saddam was better than the United States if we truly want a system where suspect criminals have no chance of beating the system.

 

But thats not me, thats not what I believe America stands for.

 

Everyone gets their best shot to put on a case and declare their innocence.

 

Some times innocent people are going to lose, and some times guilty people are going to win. I dont know of a better or fairer system, so Ill stick by the one we have.

 

If that means a few people are going to be found not guilty, then so be it.

 

So far I have yet to see any evidence of an impending wave of not guilty verdicts coming from the federal courts. Now who knows, but as of now theyve done a pretty stellar job at convicting everyone and everything, so Im really not that concerned that a bunch of foreigners who 50% of Americans hate and would convict with no evidence are going to be found not guilty.

 

What I do think is that the cases where the prosecutors have little to no evidence will be dropped, as they no longer can hold detainees indefinitely.

[southsider2k5]

I think its a drastic leap to believe that terrorist organizations are going to bankroll these defense cases. The last thing they want is their money getting to US soil and then all of their bank accounts/ assets frozen.

 

 

 

No it would make us look like a country that actually believed in our own principles. Maybe our system isnt perfect, maybe its not right 100% of the time, but its the AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM. If we cant believe in our own system, then what is the point of any of this?

 

Maybe Saddam was better than the United States if we truly want a system where suspect criminals have no chance of beating the system.

 

But thats not me, thats not what I believe America stands for.

 

Everyone gets their best shot to put on a case and declare their innocence.

 

Some times innocent people are going to lose, and some times guilty people are going to win. I dont know of a better or fairer system, so Ill stick by the one we have.

 

If that means a few people are going to be found not guilty, then so be it.

 

So far I have yet to see any evidence of an impending wave of not guilty verdicts coming from the federal courts. Now who knows, but as of now theyve done a pretty stellar job at convicting everyone and everything, so Im really not that concerned that a bunch of foreigners who 50% of Americans hate and would convict with no evidence are going to be found not guilty.

 

What I do think is that the cases where the prosecutors have little to no evidence will be dropped, as they no longer can hold detainees indefinitely.

 

I'm not sure why you are arguing with me about this, because I think we are both sayinig the samething. There are going to be terrorists are going to go free. To the world who is trying to kill us, it will make us look weak. To American's it will make us look noble, until blood is spilled.

 

Past that, in the end, the government will get the blame, even if they follow of the rules to the letter of the law. We already hear all of the crap about our government failing to stop 9-11 based on antecodes and hindsight, I can only imagine what the outrage will be when we let a terrorist loose who ends up killing American's in the US. You think our rights have been trampled now, wait until that day.

 

[Cknolls]

You're naive.

 

Many people were turned in in Afghanistan for the reward money. There was never any evidence, except person X (Who was paid several thousand dollars) saying Person Y is a terrorist. Hundreds of people have already been released from Gitmo over the last 5 years because we found out that, hey, they really weren't terrorists and there was no evidence that they were.

 

Your line of logic is "If you've been arrested, you must be guilty. Why else would they arrest you?!" That is 100% opposite of our legal system. We don't "know" that these people are terrorists. We suspect it. You go to court, you present evidence, and you give a fair trial to prove your case.

 

Like the guy who blew himself up along with tens of Iraqis in Mosul after being released from Guantanamo? That was probably our fault too. We made him into a terrorist by detaining him. After all we are less safe, just ask Barry. Olbertool should count the days since our last attack along with his mission accomplished schtick.

[Cknolls]

Its not a big leap to think that these guys are going to have plenty of moeny behind them, when you stop and think that the people bankrolling these people have tons of money. It would make us look impotent if they got off in our courts of law, and then went and struck at us anyway.

 

 

ACLU anyone...

[lostfan]

I think it's also pretty intersting to note that 7 of the 9 SCOTUS justices currently serving were appointed by Republican judges. Only Ginsburg and Breyer were appointed by Clinton. So I see pissed off conservatives on TV raving about judicial activism or whatever (god I hate that term, and the abuse of it) but it just doesn't hold water.

 

This is all pretty simple to me. The job of a Supreme Court justice is to interpret the Constitution, and the current administration's policies were not in line, according to people who know quite a bit more about the law than I do. Figure out a way to make it work according to the Consitution. If you don't like it... change the Consitution, but good luck with that one.

[StrangeSox]

Like the guy who blew himself up along with tens of Iraqis in Mosul after being released from Guantanamo? That was probably our fault too. We made him into a terrorist by detaining him. After all we are less safe, just ask Barry. Olbertool should count the days since our last attack along with his mission accomplished schtick.

 

I'm sorry, what does your nonsensical rant have to do with due process and proving someone's guilt through evidence? Or is it just a complete non-sequitur that sets up an absurd strawman and then attacks Obama and Olberman for some reason?

 

Do you support BearSox's position of summary executions for anyone we think might be a terrorist?

Edited June 24, 2008 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

Oh please. I would be absolutelty shocked if any one of the hundreds of people we have contained there don't absolutely despise America and/or haven't funded terrorist organizations, if not actually be a part of one of the many terrorist groups.

 

If it was up to me, I'd probably have them lined up in a striaght line, and shot with one of those bullets that goes straight through, so we dont waste any ammo. I'd also have the lawyers defending these terrorists executed as well for aiding terrorism.

This post, and particularly the bolded part, is sickening. In fact, I find it distinctly Unamerican and downright hateful.

 

The defense lawyers assigned by the government to those who are probably guilty of apalling things, are doing one of the hardest and most admirable jobs in this country's justice system. They deserve our praise for taking on a job that few would want, and that will result in immense ridicule from the nutjobs who don't understand the purpose of certain Constitutional freedoms.

 

SCOTUS says they get a trial. That decided, some AMERICAN CITIZEN attorney will have to defend them. And you want to see them executed.

 

Truly, no exaggeration, this is one of the worst posts I've ever seen in this forum.

 

[jackie hayes]

This post, and particularly the bolded part, is sickening. In fact, I find it distinctly Unamerican and downright hateful.

 

The defense lawyers assigned by the government to those who are probably guilty of apalling things, are doing one of the hardest and most admirable jobs in this country's justice system. They deserve our praise for taking on a job that few would want, and that will result in immense ridicule from the nutjobs who don't understand the purpose of certain Constitutional freedoms.

 

SCOTUS says they get a trial. That decided, some AMERICAN CITIZEN attorney will have to defend them. And you want to see them executed.

 

Truly, no exaggeration, this is one of the worst posts I've ever seen in this forum.

Technically, all the SC said is that they can bring writs of hc before federal courts, not that they get a trial. Just saying. That may lead to a federal court ordering a trial or a release, but that's a separate matter.

[NorthSideSox72]

Technically, all the SC said is that they can bring writs of hc before federal courts, not that they get a trial. Just saying. That may lead to a federal court ordering a trial or a release, but that's a separate matter.

Sorry, I was simplifying. I should have said "SCOTUS says they get judicial access rights" or something to that effect.