Supreme Court Ruling

[kevbone]

Not sure if this has been posted yet. Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the foreign prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have the right to challenge in U.S. civilian courts the government's right to hold them.

 

Bout fucking time.

 

 

This is a great day for America. :tup:

 

 

"By a 5-to-3 vote, the court said that the procedures set up by the president violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the laws of war set out in the Geneva Conventions."

 

 

Link!

[E-rock]

Holy F! Who stole Kevbone's password?

[minx]

most likely his young son

[STP]

This won't affect the proceeding of the military tribunals. Congress is just as complicit as the Administration in creating the present legal situation. Furthermore, the Kucinich effort to impeach Bush kicked into limbo.

 

Seems that the Administration has only to invoke a war (War on Drugs, War on Terrorism, etc) to command special rights--

Administration Asserts No Fourth Amendment for Domestic Military Operations

 

 

Here's one view of the ruling:Justice rises from the ashes.

 

In dissent, Scalia comments that a number of former detainees have gone on to commit acts of terrorism once freed from Gitmo. Go figure...

 

 

[ashw_justin]

Scalia comments that a number of former detainees have gone on to commit acts of terrorism once freed from Gitmo.

The House of Reagan-Bush (of which the Honorable Scalia is a member) knows exactly what I am about to say but may pretend not to for the sake of politics: at this point these guys will be far more 'useful' if they are let 'free.' Surely a plan has always existed to release the detainees into the wild and see what happens. Intelligence will have them under a microscope, will know where they go, who they meet with, how many shits they take every day. I would expect nothing less. Either that, or the real criminals among the detainees do something stupid and the hawks have more excuses to continue the 'war' on 'terror.' It's 'win-win.'

[tvashtarkatena]

A) Scalia's assertion that freed detainees have gone on to commit acts of terrorism is an oft repeated urban myth completely unsupported by any evidence.

 

B) It supports that argument that detainees should be tried to determine innocent or guilt. Had these mythical released terrorists been tried, they might likely have been found guilty and sentenced accordingly...i.e., no release.

 

C) It's irrelevant. Occasionally, the accused goes free in our justice system and commits a crime. Does that mean that we should not conduct any criminal trials at all? Ummm, no.

[STP]

(A) "Scalia, citing a report by Senate Republicans, said at least 30 prisoners have returned to the battlefield following their release from Guantanamo."-- source

 

Splitting hairs?

[ashw_justin]

returned to the battlefield

Is there no limit to how far the hawks are willing to stretch field warfare terminology in order to hold onto their 'war' powers? Supporting the declaration of the entire world as a battlefield in order to suspend widely accepted human rights principles is begging for it to happen domestically. They would just as soon declare this country a 'battlefield' under any circumstance that suited their purposes. That is, unless somebody starts calling their bullshit.

[chucK]

What is scary is that 4 dissented! That's one person away from police state! This highlights my biggest reason for voting against McCain.

 

From NY Times editorial today:

 

It is sobering to think that habeas hangs by a single vote in the Supreme Court of the United States — a reminder that the composition of the court could depend on the outcome of this year’s presidential election. The ruling is a major victory for civil liberties — but a timely reminder of how fragile they are.

[STP]

FWIW, McCain did say that he would choose a justice who makes decisions based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

 

What outcome? Can't predict the future. Reagan choose Sandra Day O'Connor and she turned out to be not as lockstep as he thought she'd be.

[scott_harpell]

A) Scalia's assertion that freed detainees have gone on to commit acts of terrorism is an oft repeated urban myth completely unsupported by any evidence.

 

That is because the ones that are currently being freed are freed for a reason.

[ivan]

A) Scalia's assertion that freed detainees have gone on to commit acts of terrorism is an oft repeated urban myth completely unsupported by any evidence.

 

That is because the ones that are currently being freed are freed for a reason.

i don't care how pretty your flag is or how hot your bitches are on tv, if you detain me for 5 years w/ no trial and torture the shit out of me, i'm going to try to kill you and everyone who looks like you if'n i ever get out.

[scott_harpell]

A) Scalia's assertion that freed detainees have gone on to commit acts of terrorism is an oft repeated urban myth completely unsupported by any evidence.

 

That is because the ones that are currently being freed are freed for a reason.

i don't care how pretty your flag is or how hot your bitches are on tv, if you detain me for 5 years w/ no trial and torture the shit out of me, i'm going to try to kill you and everyone who looks like you if'n i ever get out.

 

Then you will spend the rest of your life in Gitmo. See how it works?

[scott_harpell]

I think you severely overestimate the abuse in Gitmo. I assure you it is similar treatment to some US soldiers in training; and they volunteer for it.

[Bug]

Yeah. Who wouldn't want to hang out in club Gitmo?

[prole]

I think you severely overestimate the abuse in Gitmo. I assure you it is similar treatment to some US soldiers in training; and they volunteer for it.

 

[scott_harpell]

What the fuck is that?

[prole]

I assure you it is similar treatment to some US soldiers in training; and they volunteer for it.

 

6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.

 

7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.

[kevbone]

i don't care how pretty your flag is or how hot your bitches are on tv, if you detain me for 5 years w/ no trial and torture the shit out of me, i'm going to try to kill you and everyone who looks like you if'n i ever get out.

 

:tup:

[dougd]

This isn't the first time in our history habeas corpus has been suspended.

 

Abraham Lincoln did it in 1862. I'm thinking we should know better by now but...

 

d

 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A PROCLAMATION

 

Whereas, it has become necessary to call into service not only volunteers but also portions of the militia of the States by draft in order to suppress the insurrection existing in the United States, and disloyal persons are not adequately restrained by the ordinary processes of law from hindering this measure and from giving aid and comfort in various ways to the insurrection;

 

Now, therefore, be it ordered, first, that during the existing insurrection and as a necessary measure for suppressing the same, all Rebels and Insurgents, their aiders and abettors within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice, affording aid and comfort to Rebels against the authority of United States, shall be subject to martial law and liable to trial and punishment by Courts Martial or Military Commission:

 

Second. That the Writ of Habeas Corpus is suspended in respect to all persons arrested, or who are now, or hereafter during the rebellion shall be, imprisoned in any fort, camp, arsenal, military prison, or other place of confinement by any military authority of by the sentence of any Court Martial or Military Commission.

 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

 

Done at the City of Washington this twenty fourth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, and of the Independence of the United States the 87th.

 

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

 

By the President:

 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State

 

[kevbone]

This isn't the first time in our history habeas corpus has been suspended.

 

Does not make it right.

[tvashtarkatena]

I think you severely overestimate the abuse in Gitmo. I assure you it is similar treatment to some US soldiers in training; and they volunteer for it.

 

Pure fiction, but consider the source.

 

Torture at Quantanamo has been well documented; many of the released innocents from the place have gone on to give detailed accounts of their mistreatment, and their stories are all similar.

 

There is an excellent documentary out about three british tourists who 'accidentally' spent several years being tortured at Quantanamo before their eventual release. See "The Road to Quantanamo" for an explicit account of how our fine men and women in uniform have been keeping America safe. And remember; support the troops.

 

In addition, the International Red Cross came out with a report in 2004 concerning misuse of detainees in US custody around the world. Such abuse included death, breaking a prisoner's shoulders, rape, sodomy with a bottle, and electrocution. You know, the kind of stuff 'some of our soldiers in training' go through on a regular basis. No big deal.

 

Edited June 14, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[ivan]

A) Scalia's assertion that freed detainees have gone on to commit acts of terrorism is an oft repeated urban myth completely unsupported by any evidence.

 

That is because the ones that are currently being freed are freed for a reason.

i don't care how pretty your flag is or how hot your bitches are on tv, if you detain me for 5 years w/ no trial and torture the shit out of me, i'm going to try to kill you and everyone who looks like you if'n i ever get out.

 

Then you will spend the rest of your life in Gitmo. See how it works?

fine - and in this hypothetical situation, where i'm innocent yet imprisoned and abused for life, i'm certain that all my relations and friends will be similiarily motivated to do harm to you and yours - are you going to lock up the whole innocent world?

 

hey, i have no problem w/ locking up bad guys forever if they are in fact bad dudes - trials are the way civilized societies go about determing folks are bad right? and not after the damage has been done, 5 years after the fact. seems to me if you take guy on the battlefield who's been shooting at you, and you're choice is between imprisoning him w/o trail and just shooting him then and there, assuming you caught him guilty as hell, you oughta just shoot the motherfucker as that is the least hypocritical of the two options.

[scott_harpell]

I think you severely overestimate the abuse in Gitmo. I assure you it is similar treatment to some US soldiers in training; and they volunteer for it.

 

Pure fiction, but consider the source.

 

Torture at Quantanamo has been well documented; many of the released innocents from the place have gone on to give detailed accounts of their mistreatment, and their stories are all similar.

 

There is an excellent documentary out about three british tourists who 'accidentally' spent several years being tortured at Quantanamo before their eventual release. See "The Road to Quantanamo" for an explicit account of how our fine men and women in uniform have been keeping America safe. And remember; support the troops.

 

In addition, the International Red Cross came out with a report in 2004 concerning misuse of detainees in US custody around the world. Such abuse included death, breaking a prisoner's shoulders, rape, sodomy with a bottle, and electrocution. You know, the kind of stuff 'some of our soldiers in training' go through on a regular basis. No big deal.

 

So you are getting your information from an anti-war movie that describes itself as a "drama?"

 

I am sorry. I don't require peer reviewed sources, but this is a pretty big stretch for unbiased reporting.

[scott_harpell]

Under Article 47 of Protocol I ( Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts) it is stated in the first sentence that:

 

"A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war."

 

Since AlQueda and other terrorist groups pay these terrorists and they are not classifiable as soldiers are thus not really even subject to the Geneva conventions.

 

I do think that they should be given a trial if they are to be held indefinitely, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

There are also provisions under the Hague conventions that stipulate the consequences for "parole violations."

 

Given a fair trial? Sure. I think that a "speedy trial" at the ocnvenience of the illegal coombatant and the cost of the victim seems innapropriate. There are consequences to breaking the law.

 

I really don't see anything illegal in the activities based upon the status of the illegal combatants. Morally, I think it is impossible to know what is exactly going on there and to speculate is unfruitfull at best.