Supreme Court rules Gitmo "detainees" have rights in US civilian courts

[Little-Acorn]

Well, looks like the tactic of calling them "enemy combatants" rather than what they really were, "prisoners of war", was a bad idea. The Supremes have now ruled that they get rights in our civilian courts. Perhaps because they are technically "civilians" who were not part of any country's army and have never worn a uniform?

Oddly enough, I'm not sure the liberal majority in the USSC didn't get this one right. I'm torn between what I'd like to see happen, and what our law says. Law must hold sway, of course, I'm not arguing against that. I'll have to read the Opinons and Dissents to get more info.

But as for the captured terrorists themselves....

I believe there is a part of our law, and even of international law and Geneva conventions, that does deal with their case. I'll have to look this one up, too, but I'm reciting from rather distant memory here. Feel free to chip in.

Persons engaging in combat operations in a field of armed conflict between one country and another, who are dressed in civilian clothing rather than a military uniform, are to be regarded as SPIES by the armed forces they are fighting against. And the traditional (and legal) response to a spy, is summary field execution.

You find a confirmed bad guy (meaning, he was shooting at you or sabotaging your equipment or otherwise actively aiding the bad guys) who is dressed in civilian clothing, your commanding officer has the right (and even the duty) to stand him up against a wall and shoot him through the head. No trial, no court-martial, nothing. That's what "summary execution" means.

"Detaining" them to keep them out of our hair while we fought it out with their buds, and maybe pump them for info, apparently is a no-go, with this USSC ruling. OK, so we'll have to use that "other" response. You can figure on seeing a lot fewer "detainees", and a lot more "captured spies", correctly defined. And a lot more summary executions, which is what spies can legally look forward to.

The terrorists who thought they could sue their way out of captivity, have actually achieved that now, in a way. Present detainees probably can't be reclassified as spies, but future ones MUST be classified as what they are.

They should have been more careful what they wished for.

War is hell.

----------------------------------------------

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080612/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guantanamo

High Court ruling may delay war crimes trials

by MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
29 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

In its third rebuke of the Bush administration's treatment of prisoners, the court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The court's liberal justices were in the majority.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

Kennedy said federal judges could ultimately order some detainees to be released, but that such orders would depend on security concerns and other circumstances.

The White House had no immediate comment on the ruling. White House press secretary Dana Perino, traveling with President Bush in Rome, said the administration was reviewing the opinion.

It was not immediately clear whether this ruling, unlike the first two, would lead to prompt hearings for the detainees, some of whom have been held more than 6 years. Roughly 270 men remain at the island prison, classified as enemy combatants and held on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaida and the Taliban.

The ruling could resurrect many detainee lawsuits that federal judges in Washington put on hold pending the outcome of the high court case. The decision sent judges, law clerks and court administrators scrambling to read Kennedy's 70-page opinion and figure out how to proceed. Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth said he would call a special meeting of federal judges to address how to handle the cases.

The decision also cast doubt on the future of the military war crimes trials that 19 detainees are facing so far. The Pentagon has said it plans to try as many as 80 men held at Guantanamo.

The lawyer for Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's one-time driver, said he will seek dismissal of the charges against Hamdan based on Thursday's ruling. A military judge had already delayed the trial's start to await the high court ruling.

[gabosaurus]

Looks like a compendium of Bush administration lies and deceit will soon be coming to light.
It's about time.

[April15]

Little-acorn,
You are right about how they were classified being the downfall.

[Silver]

Gotta admit, everything is going the Democrat's way...the libs are winning the political battles one after the other....

Either the military or Admin. will probably be getting orders to release those "poor terrorists" in Gitmo and send them home to wherever they want to go....
And no doubt these "poor terrorists" will be plotting the death of more US soldiers or citizens or the destruction of some US interests throughout the world....

So you Dims can celebrate now or later....rejoice in the exposing of Bush administration "lies and deceit"....the inhumane treatment of those "poor terrorists"....

If you get really lucky, maybe a few of them will find a clever way to kill a few hundred or thousand in the States before Bush leaves office...(or at lease not too long after he leaves office ) so it makes sense to put the blame on him....enjoy your good fortune while it lasts....:fu:

[5stringJeff]

Bush screwed it up, and the Supreme Court is doing the right thing. What the Bush admin ought to do is declare them all POWs.

[Silver]

Bush screwed it up, and the Supreme Court is doing the right thing. What the Bush admin ought to do is declare them all POWs.

What war....who did we declare war on....?
How will you figure out when its over...?
What country will surrender to us ...?

[namvet]

I heard many of them don't want to leave. they have a better life there than on the battlefields. and lets face it. they have better living conditions than many Americans !!!!.........................

[namvet]

Bush screwed it up, and the Supreme Court is doing the right thing. What the Bush admin ought to do is declare them all POWs.

he should declare them deceased !!!!

[5stringJeff]

What war....who did we declare war on....?
How will you figure out when its over...?
What country will surrender to us ...?

What else are you going to classify them as? Civilians?

[avatar4321]

This was a bad court decision. If they have access to the court system who are the witnesses going to be? Soldiers who captured them on the battlefield. Well it's going to be kind of difficult to get the soldiers back to the states to testify in the middle of a freaking war, which would be the only reason for them to take these unlawful enemy combatants to Gitmo.

So now our soldiers are going to have to spend more of their time in courtrooms than on the battlefield protecting us. That's not a good thing. Not to mention its going to provide more incentive for death. The terrorists are going to start killing our soldiers more so they can't testify against them in the courts and the soldiers will be killing more of them instead of capturing them. After all whats the point of capturing them if you cant get any information from them and they are just going to end up released to head back to the battle field because the soldiers who captured them are halfway around the world defending our freedom.

The Court has absolutely no practical understanding of what happens in a combat zone, or really anything outside a book. This is exactly why the Constitution gives the President executive power to execute the war effort as commander in chief.

[stephanie]

we used to be a GREAT COUNTRTY,that i grew up in..

too bad for you all, who wont fight for it anymore.....enjoy your life being told how to live.............yeee.....ick..

see ya..give up your freedom willing without a fight salute::clap:

[bullypulpit]

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 has been relegated to the ash heap where it belongs. It's but a first step towards a return to the rule of law in this country.

In case you've forgotten the Military Commissions Act, stripped the right of <i>habeas corpus</i> from anyone the president, or his designated dogs-body, deems to be an "unlawful enemy combatant". A designation which is so broad in its definition and scope that almost anyone could be caught up in its net. It effectively strips such individuals of due process, permitting them to be held without charge indefinitely. It permitted evidence obtained through coercion...also known as torture...It barred the defense from reviewing evidence against the defendant. In short it undermines the very legal foundations and values this country was built upon.

This decision by the court effectively renders the the reasons for the existence of the internment facilities at GITMO null and void. They were established in order to set up an extralegal court system which could ignore constitutional law and established jurisprudence.

It should escape no one's attention that the Justices dissenting from the majority, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito, are the most right leaning justices in recent memory and the most committed to the concept of a "unitary executive", also known as a dictatorship.

Justice Anthony Kennedy said if best...

<blockquote>"The laws and constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law."</blockquote>

[bullypulpit]

we used to be a GREAT COUNTRTY,that i grew up in..

too bad for you all, who wont fight for it anymore.....enjoy your life being told how to live.............yeee.....ick..

see ya..give up your freedom willing without a fight salute::clap:

It still is. As for freedom, you and your fellow travelers are more than willing to give up those freedoms in the face of some amorphous, shadowy threat on the say so of an administration which has built its power exploiting the fear of that threat. Liberty is not for the faint of heart.

[Classact]

If I were President Bush I would do one of the following:

I would sign an Executive Order stating the Supreme Court would be the court that would review all war detainees cases.

I would be the judge and find each one guilty and order death.

I would pardon them all and provide a C-17 to haul them back to their country of origin and then have the crew jump out after takeoff...

I would make an advanced press release that I would pardon them all and transport them to the site of the Twin Towers and personally give each $10,000 cash and ask politely that no police be dispatched to the area.

[Classact]

If I were President Bush I would do one of the following:

I would sign an Executive Order stating the Supreme Court would be the court that would review all war detainees cases.

I would be the judge and find each one guilty and order death.

I would pardon them all and provide a C-17 to haul them back to their country of origin and then have the crew jump out after takeoff...

I would make an advanced press release that I would pardon them all and transport them to the site of the Twin Towers and personally give each $10,000 cash and ask politely that no police be dispatched to the area.Oh, and I would have the Secretary of defence order a new "rule of engagement" world wide "Take no prisoners".

[Classact]

Bush screwed it up, and the Supreme Court is doing the right thing. What the Bush admin ought to do is declare them all POWs.They are all POW's and some are Unlawful Combatants... Unlawful Combatants are defined by Laws of War of those combatants not wearing a uniform or insignia.


The court was wrong!

[diuretic]

Acorn, in your original post you wrote:



But as for the captured terrorists themselves....

Who? They were? They were terrorists? Yeah? And....they were tried where?

Maybe it would have been best for the Bush regime to treat them as POWs.

But if they were POWs I suppose that would have meant the Geneva Conventions kicking in.....

Oh no, can't have that.....no torture....

Sometimes it pays just to do the right thing first up.

[bullypulpit]

If I were President Bush I would do one of the following:

I would sign an Executive Order stating the Supreme Court would be the court that would review all war detainees cases.

I would be the judge and find each one guilty and order death.

I would pardon them all and provide a C-17 to haul them back to their country of origin and then have the crew jump out after takeoff...

I would make an advanced press release that I would pardon them all and transport them to the site of the Twin Towers and personally give each $10,000 cash and ask politely that no police be dispatched to the area.

What if they are innocent? Or doesn't that matter anymore?

[Classact]

Acorn, in your original post you wrote:



Who? They were? They were terrorists? Yeah? And....they were tried where?

Maybe it would have been best for the Bush regime to treat them as POWs.

But if they were POWs I suppose that would have meant the Geneva Conventions kicking in.....

Oh no, can't have that.....no torture....

Sometimes it pays just to do the right thing first up.The Geneva Convention says POW's may be held until the end of conflict. The portion of the Geneva Convention the US ratified says Unlawful Combatants may be given a hearing and shot. Laws of war, Geneva Convention states warriors lawful and unlawful may be held until the end of conflict... unlawful combatants may be tried and shot. In WWII Battalion Commanders would hold hearings for enemy Unlawful Combatants and issue death penalty... fighting without uniform is Unlawful combat.

[bullypulpit]

The Geneva Convention says POW's may be held until the end of conflict. The portion of the Geneva Convention the US ratified says Unlawful Combatants may be given a hearing and shot. Laws of war, Geneva Convention states warriors lawful and unlawful may be held until the end of conflict... unlawful combatants may be tried and shot. In WWII Battalion Commanders would hold hearings for enemy Unlawful Combatants and issue death penalty... fighting without uniform is Unlawful combat.

<blockquote>An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial". - <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant#cite_note-icrc_dorman-2>Wikipedia</a></blockquote>

Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, the GITMO detainees have the right to a "fair and regular trial". The commissions established by the Bush administration and later overturned in <i>Hamdan v. Rumsfeld</i> were neither fair nor regular. The commissions established under the Military Commissions act of 2006 were just as unfair and just as irregular. They were little more than kangaroo courts established for political purposes rather than redressing crimes. This is why the SCOTUS ruled as it did. The only ones on the court who failed to recognize that wrote the minority opinion...which shows just how unfit they are to serve on that court.

[My Winter Storm]

Good ruling. These people are merely suspects in a crime. They have not been charged, and I have to wonder why. After years being locked up, they have not been charged with a crime - I believe this is because there is no evidence to prove a crime was commited.
These people should all be charged with a crime within the year, or else they should be released. Eithor charge them or set them free, IMO.

[Psychoblues]

They've got to regain credibility with the American citizens somehow, some way.

This decision helps in that regard.

[diuretic]

x

[Psychoblues]

Is that an affirmation or just to let us know you're here, doc?



x

x is a strange response, at least to me it is!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bullypulpit]

Good ruling. These people are merely suspects in a crime. They have not been charged, and I have to wonder why. After years being locked up, they have not been charged with a crime - I believe this is because there is no evidence to prove a crime was commited.
These people should all be charged with a crime within the year, or else they should be released. Eithor charge them or set them free, IMO.

It's quite simple, actually. The Bush administration can't afford to have the circumstances of their capture and detention open to scrutiny. But dodging oversight has been the Administration's stock in trade since it first too office.

[midcan5]

The rounding up of men, many of whom were only in the wrong place at the wrong time is equivalent to any lawless government's attempt at control and intimidation. Bush/Cheney's action were the same as history's worst dictators and is a stain on a nation that is supposed to be governed by law.

The supreme court aside from that fascist Scalia did the right thing for a change. How America can pretend to be the beacon on the hill when its actions are illegal is why Bush is so unpopular. There will always be those who think might is right as some above say, but thankfully our country was not founded by these people, but by men and women who respected and recognized the rule of law. And Iraq wasn't a war it was an illegal invasion.

[diuretic]

Is that an affirmation or just to let us know you're here, doc?




x is a strange response, at least to me it is!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sometimes PB, I'm a man of few words....and sometimes I just won't shut the hell up! :laugh2:

[avatar4321]

They've got to regain credibility with the American citizens somehow, some way.

This decision helps in that regard.

as an american citizen i can assure you that making a decision that basically tells the troops they are better off killing the people rather than capturing them for interogation is not really going to help with credibility to me and alot of other people.

[Classact]

<blockquote>An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial". - <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant#cite_note-icrc_dorman-2>Wikipedia</a></blockquote>

Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, the GITMO detainees have the right to a "fair and regular trial". The commissions established by the Bush administration and later overturned in <i>Hamdan v. Rumsfeld</i> were neither fair nor regular. The commissions established under the Military Commissions act of 2006 were just as unfair and just as irregular. They were little more than kangaroo courts established for political purposes rather than redressing crimes. This is why the SCOTUS ruled as it did. The only ones on the court who failed to recognize that wrote the minority opinion...which shows just how unfit they are to serve on that court.I'll bite on that one... It is against the Laws of War and the Geneva Convention to use high frequency sound that will permanently deafen civilians or combatants. If a Unlawful Combatant is captured that had such a device and had in fact damaged persons hearing the trial would be: Subject had in his possession a device, item in evidence bag #1 and did activate such device causing hearing loss of ten thousand peoples hearing. Defence your rebuttal: no contest. Judge guilty of war crimes sentenced to death by firing squad.

Unlawful Combatant type, Not Wearing Uniform or Insignia. Subject was not wearing uniform or insignia and performed combat with a rifle against lawful combatants and civilians. Did you have a uniform or insignia and were you a combatant? Yes. Or, if battlefield report so stated and couldn't be refuted... Guilty of war crime, sentenced to death. Period.

[5stringJeff]

I'll bite on that one... It is against the Laws of War and the Geneva Convention to use high frequency sound that will permanently deafen civilians or combatants. If a Unlawful Combatant is captured that had such a device and had in fact damaged persons hearing the trial would be: Subject had in his possession a device, item in evidence bag #1 and did activate such device causing hearing loss of ten thousand peoples hearing. Defence your rebuttal: no contest. Judge guilty of war crimes sentenced to death by firing squad.

Unlawful Combatant type, Not Wearing Uniform or Insignia. Subject was not wearing uniform or insignia and performed combat with a rifle against lawful combatants and civilians. Did you have a uniform or insignia and were you a combatant? Yes. Or, if battlefield report so stated and couldn't be refuted... Guilty of war crime, sentenced to death. Period.

The point Bully is making - and rightfully so - is that the US has not given them any trials. In fact, US policy has been that Gitmo is outside the scope of judicial review, which SCOTUS has rightfully reversed.

[Classact]

The point Bully is making - and rightfully so - is that the US has not given them any trials. In fact, US policy has been that Gitmo is outside the scope of judicial review, which SCOTUS has rightfully reversed.My point was that according to Laws of War combatants are treated in accordance with the treaties by combating nations. The US Federal Government has authority to go to war and war is managed by the Executive Branch. Rules for the military are made by the Congress, these rules are outside of the civil court... if a soldier violates "congresses rules", regulations then the service member is dealt with under those rules and not civil law. Soldiers going to war in Iraq or Afghanistan do not travel on US Passport but on orders under the authority of congress... all actions of those soldiers in combat remain with the executor and within the rules of Congress and not civil court. The federal government in this manner has a gold rimed flag that allows it to function outside of the constitution under rules verses constitution. Therefore, the captives of these warriors by US forces has absolutely nothing to do with civil law.

[manu1959]

as an american citizen i can assure you that making a decision that basically tells the troops they are better off killing the people rather than capturing them for interogation is not really going to help with credibility to me and alot of other people.

as i have been saying ...kill them faster.....

[Sitarro]

I say, give them their American lawyers, take them to the country they were caught in, either Afghanistan or Iraq and let them have their trial there, in their courts. Be sure that the confident American lawyers accompany their client and turn Gitmo into a first class resort for our service men and wmen.:salute:

[5stringJeff]

My point was that according to Laws of War combatants are treated in accordance with the treaties by combating nations. The US Federal Government has authority to go to war and war is managed by the Executive Branch. Rules for the military are made by the Congress, these rules are outside of the civil court... if a soldier violates "congresses rules", regulations then the service member is dealt with under those rules and not civil law. Soldiers going to war in Iraq or Afghanistan do not travel on US Passport but on orders under the authority of congress... all actions of those soldiers in combat remain with the executor and within the rules of Congress and not civil court. The federal government in this manner has a gold rimed flag that allows it to function outside of the constitution under rules verses constitution. Therefore, the captives of these warriors by US forces has absolutely nothing to do with civil law.

What you said in post 29 was correct: under the Geneva Conventions, there are POWs, who fight as soldiers for their governments, and there are illegal combatants, who do not fight for any government. Each already has a legal standing under Geneva conventions, and illegal combatants can be tried and executed under the laws of war. Where Bush screwed up was trying to create this new classification of "unlawful combatant," outside the purview of Geneva.

I think I said earlier in the thread that we should classify everyone at Gitmo as a POW. Let me correct myself: we should classify them as either POWs (if they were fighting as Taliban soldiers, under the authority of the then-Afghan government) or otherwise, illegal combatants. But all should be treated according to the Geneva convention.

[manu1959]

What you said in post 29 was correct: under the Geneva Conventions, there are POWs, who fight as soldiers for their governments, and there are illegal combatants, who do not fight for any government. Each already has a legal standing under Geneva conventions, and illegal combatants can be tried and executed under the laws of war. Where Bush screwed up was trying to create this new classification of "unlawful combatant," outside the purview of Geneva.

I think I said earlier in the thread that we should classify everyone at Gitmo as a POW. Let me correct myself: we should classify them as either POWs (if they were fighting as Taliban soldiers, under the authority of the then-Afghan government) or otherwise, illegal combatants. But all should be treated according to the Geneva convention.

and if fighting as a terorist or as a combatant out of uniform....then shot....correct....

[avatar4321]

What you said in post 29 was correct: under the Geneva Conventions, there are POWs, who fight as soldiers for their governments, and there are illegal combatants, who do not fight for any government. Each already has a legal standing under Geneva conventions, and illegal combatants can be tried and executed under the laws of war. Where Bush screwed up was trying to create this new classification of "unlawful combatant," outside the purview of Geneva.

I think I said earlier in the thread that we should classify everyone at Gitmo as a POW. Let me correct myself: we should classify them as either POWs (if they were fighting as Taliban soldiers, under the authority of the then-Afghan government) or otherwise, illegal combatants. But all should be treated according to the Geneva convention.

And my argument is that as Al Queda has not signed the Geneva Convention, we are not bound by any sort of agreement on how to treat their prisoners.

[bullypulpit]

I'll bite on that one... It is against the Laws of War and the Geneva Convention to use high frequency sound that will permanently deafen civilians or combatants. If a Unlawful Combatant is captured that had such a device and had in fact damaged persons hearing the trial would be: Subject had in his possession a device, item in evidence bag #1 and did activate such device causing hearing loss of ten thousand peoples hearing. Defence your rebuttal: no contest. Judge guilty of war crimes sentenced to death by firing squad.

Unlawful Combatant type, Not Wearing Uniform or Insignia. Subject was not wearing uniform or insignia and performed combat with a rifle against lawful combatants and civilians. Did you have a uniform or insignia and were you a combatant? Yes. Or, if battlefield report so stated and couldn't be refuted... Guilty of war crime, sentenced to death. Period.

Your example is a straw man which in no way applies to the situation of the GITMO detainees.

And what part of a "fair and regular trial" do you not understand?

[bullypulpit]

And my argument is that as Al Queda has not signed the Geneva Convention, we are not bound by any sort of agreement on how to treat their prisoners.

The Supreme Court ruled otherwise in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions DOES apply to GITMO detainees. And if you read Article I of the Conventions, it states the following:

<blockquote> The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention <i><b>in all circumstances</b></i>. - (<i>emphasis mine</i>)</blockquote>

There was never any wiggle room for the Bush administration to declare enemy combatants outside the purview of the conventions.

[Yurt]

The Supreme Court ruled otherwise in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions DOES apply to GITMO detainees. And if you read Article I of the Conventions, it states the following:

<blockquote> The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention <i><b>in all circumstances</b></i>. - (<i>emphasis mine</i>)</blockquote>

There was never any wiggle room for the Bush administration to declare enemy combatants outside the purview of the conventions.

i looked this up before and i am fairly sure that there is different treatment called for depending on whether or not the combatant is uniformed. the convention is online, you can research it, i'm just too lazy to do it again, can't remember if i posted it here or the old site

[5stringJeff]

and if fighting as a terorist or as a combatant out of uniform....then shot....correct....

Absolutely.

[Classact]

What you said in post 29 was correct: under the Geneva Conventions, there are POWs, who fight as soldiers for their governments, and there are illegal combatants, who do not fight for any government. Each already has a legal standing under Geneva conventions, and illegal combatants can be tried and executed under the laws of war. Where Bush screwed up was trying to create this new classification of "unlawful combatant," outside the purview of Geneva.

I think I said earlier in the thread that we should classify everyone at Gitmo as a POW. Let me correct myself: we should classify them as either POWs (if they were fighting as Taliban soldiers, under the authority of the then-Afghan government) or otherwise, illegal combatants. But all should be treated according to the Geneva convention.I think all are considered POW's and given the rights of POW's. The Unlawful Combatant is the term that applies to a POW that violated the GC and the Laws of War. There is no time-line to give POW's in UC standing a trial... no speedy trial rights... in WWII those tried for war crimes were tried after the war. Those captured on the battlefield out of uniform had a hearing and were put to death.

I think the Supreme Court views the terrorists in a view of the GC that the US did not ratify. In the 1970's the GC was changed to add freedom fighters as "Lawful Combatants" but the US did not ratify those protocols.

Terrorists captured on US soil are the question regardless of their citizenship because the constitution views them differently than those captured on the battlefield. During WWII many German US citizens and non citizens were tried in civil courts for war crimes in NY state.

[DragonStryk72]

If I were President Bush I would do one of the following:

I would sign an Executive Order stating the Supreme Court would be the court that would review all war detainees cases.

I would be the judge and find each one guilty and order death.

I would pardon them all and provide a C-17 to haul them back to their country of origin and then have the crew jump out after takeoff...

I would make an advanced press release that I would pardon them all and transport them to the site of the Twin Towers and personally give each $10,000 cash and ask politely that no police be dispatched to the area.

And what about all of the ones who weren't terrorists? You're are speaking here from an inane amount of ignorance. Understand, they were not presented with evidence of having done anything wrong, a number were more than likely pointing fingers just to have some sliver of hope of getting out, and they have been denied any form of legal council, up to and including being able to even plead not guilty. There is no oversight, there is no "innocent", there is only "we said so".

If this sounds familiar, it's how we developed the term "witchhunt". What we are doing in this case has been disgraceful. We will not defeat terror by employing it in our own actions, and of those innocents that get released, just what do you think they would think of us for what we've done? Would you accept some bullshit excuse of, "Oh, well, we can't let the terrorists win" as reason? We might as well have made the place a recruitment center for AQ, because I assure you, it's being used as such even now.

[Psychoblues]

So, Americans should just cold bloodedly murder, as the nut job little acorn suggests, anyone they perceive an enemy whether they are or not? I don't think that will work even in Mississippi in 2008 or in 2001 for that matter.

But, the fools will continue to apply for the job. Thanks, la, for the clarification of the laws!!!!!!!!!!

[avatar4321]

The Supreme Court ruled otherwise in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions DOES apply to GITMO detainees. And if you read Article I of the Conventions, it states the following:

<blockquote> The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention <i><b>in all circumstances</b></i>. - (<i>emphasis mine</i>)</blockquote>

There was never any wiggle room for the Bush administration to declare enemy combatants outside the purview of the conventions.

Yes, the contracting parties. Al Queda isnt a contracting party.

[Classact]

So, Americans should just cold bloodedly murder, as the nut job little acorn suggests, anyone they perceive an enemy whether they are or not? I don't think that will work even in Mississippi in 2008 or in 2001 for that matter.

But, the fools will continue to apply for the job. Thanks, la, for the clarification of the laws!!!!!!!!!!Let me ask you this... on the battlefield does a soldier have to prove probable cause before he/she engages an enemy? Prisoners come from battlefields and prisoners that come from battlefields are POW's. Unlawful warriors, terrorists must be given a hearing and then put to death... other warriors remain in custody until the war is complete so they may not rejoin the battle against you.

Now, for the USSC decision... they are saying all persons in US custody regardless of their origin or their present location have the basic rights of a US citizen. That means all the POW's in Iraq, Afghanistan may now ask for a US federal hearing... I say let the USSC do the hearings since they want to run the federal government.

[bullypulpit]

Yes, the contracting parties. Al Queda isnt a contracting party.

The US, however, IS a high contracting party and must, under the terms of the Conventions, adhere to them under ALL circumstances.

[Classact]

The US, however, IS a high contracting party and must, under the terms of the Conventions, adhere to them under ALL circumstances.Do all POW's being held in Iraq with US guards qualify for us hearings as judged by the Supreme Court? They are under our control just like the POW's in Cuba are under our control.

[trobinett]

The US, however, IS a high contracting party and must, under the terms of the Conventions, adhere to them under ALL circumstances.A\

Are you for real?

A "high contracting party", what the fuck is that?

You just kill me bully.

We, just as ANYOTHER country, DON'T have to "adhere" to shit, are you with me so far?

The "conventions" of international "think tanks", and that is what we are talking about here, are OPTIONAL, we don't live or die on weather we adhere to them on ANY circumstances.

Welcome to the REAL world.:poke:

[trobinett]

The US, however, IS a high contracting party and must, under the terms of the Conventions, adhere to them under ALL circumstances.

Shouldn't YOU be down in New Orleans helping the disadvantaged set their tents up on some overpass on the Interstate?

[avatar4321]

The US, however, IS a high contracting party and must, under the terms of the Conventions, adhere to them under ALL circumstances.

Yes, all circumstances involving other contracting parties.

[Kathianne]

Yes, all circumstances involving other contracting parties.

What are you agreeing with here? What if the other side is not 'agreeing with'?

[Psychoblues]

What a sickening statement of perception, trobby.


A\

Are you for real?

A "high contracting party", what the fuck is that?

You just kill me bully.

We, just as ANYOTHER country, DON'T have to "adhere" to shit, are you with me so far?

The "conventions" of international "think tanks", and that is what we are talking about here, are OPTIONAL, we don't live or die on weather we adhere to them on ANY circumstances.

Welcome to the REAL world.:poke:

American values are what justifies our worldwide preeminence and abiding by our agreements is evidence of our intentions to maintain high values and standards.

Sheesh, some of these jerks need to spend more time in the padded rooms!!!!!!!!

[Kathianne]

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/boumediene-a-supremely-problematic-court-decision/


...In Boumediene v Bush, besides, for the first time in history conferring habeas corpus rights on alien enemies detained abroad by our military during a war, the Court struck down as inadequate what Chief Justice John Roberts called “the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded enemy combatants.” Consider the rights that our country provided to the enemy prisoners in question before Boumediene:

* The right to hear the bases of the charges against them including a summary of any classified evidence
* The ability to challenge the bases of their detention before military tribunals modeled after Geneva Convention procedures. As Robert’s pointed out, some 38 detainees have been released as result of this process.
* The right, before the tribunal, to testify, introduce evidence, including exculpatory evidence, call witnesses, cross examine the government witnesses and secure release if and when appropriate.
* The right to the aid of a personal representative in arranging and presenting their cases before the tribunal.
* The right to have the government search for and disclose to the detainee any evidence reasonably available to it tending to show that the detainee is not an enemy combatant.
* The right to appeal an adverse decision from the tribunal to the Federal DC Circuit Court along with the right to employ counsel and secure release if entitled to it.
* The right to petition the DC Circuit to remand a detainee’s case for new tribunal consideration if the petitioner comes up with newly discovered evidence
* The right to require the Department of Defense (DOD) to conduct a yearly review of the status of each prisoner including the right to have the Secretary of Defense review any new evidence that may become available relating to the enemy combatant status of a detainee.
* As a part of that yearly review, the opportunity for the detainee to explain why he is no longer a threat to the United States, which could lead to his release.
* The DC Circuit can order release of the prisoner, and the head of the DOD Administrative Review Boards can, at the recommendation of those panels, order release upon an appropriate showing.

Again, these are the rights terrorists and battlefield combatants had before Boumediene was decided. These provisions provide more process than any that has ever been afforded prisoners of war in history. They go substantially past the rights afforded by the Geneva Convention. These are the rights that the majority decided were insufficient, and the result?

...

[namvet]

open the gates and let em run. then kill em all. prisoners shot while trying to escape. case closed.

[DragonStryk72]

open the gates and let em run. then kill em all. prisoners shot while trying to escape. case closed.

Ah good, the "let's recruit for Al-Qaeda" approach

[namvet]

Ah good, the "let's recruit for Al-Qaeda" approach

I forgot. string em up by the ankles take photograhs and send em to Al Jazeera TV.
did you say "recruit for Al-Qaeda" ???? there are no recruits. their drafting by force women, children and the elderly. send the photos...

[Hagbard Celine]

A\

Are you for real?

A "high contracting party", what the fuck is that?

You just kill me bully.

We, just as ANYOTHER country, DON'T have to "adhere" to shit, are you with me so far?

The "conventions" of international "think tanks", and that is what we are talking about here, are OPTIONAL, we don't live or die on weather we adhere to them on ANY circumstances.

Welcome to the REAL world.:poke:

The real world runs on rules Trobb. Otherwise it disintegrates into sh*t. How smart would it be for us to expect other countries to treat our soldiers by the geneva conventions if we did'nt adhere to them ourselves?

[red states rule]

The real world runs on rules Trobb. Otherwise it disintegrates into sh*t. How smart would it be for us to expect other countries to treat our soldiers by the geneva conventions if we did'nt adhere to them ourselves?

What rules do the terrorists follow Hag?

In war, there are no rules except kill or capture the enemy

[namvet]

What rules do the terrorists follow Hag?

In war, there are no rules except kill or capture the enemy

ah pleeeease RS don't say 'kill' in front of a lib. he'll have an unexpected bowl movement or puke. ohhhh. can i say 'puke' on here???? sorry. an involuntary protein spill. :laugh2:

[red states rule]

ah pleeeease RS don't say 'kill' in front of a lib. he'll have an unexpected bowl movement or puke. ohhhh. can i say 'puke' on here???? sorry. an involuntary protein spill. :laugh2:

Speaking of not mentioning the word "kill" in fropnt of a liberal :laugh2:


Vermont Teacher Tells 4th-Grade Hunter She Won't Abide 'Killing' Talk
By Tim Graham | June 21, 2008 - 14:25 ET

Cam Edwards at NRANews.com shared this story with me about how one Bennington, Vermont teacher demonstrated the state's clash between gun culture and "peace" culture in a fourth-grade classroom. From Dennis Jensen in the Rutland Herald:

[Mother Wendy] Bordwell said that, during snack time, [her son] Jared was discussing the recent spring turkey hunting season with a classmate when [teacher Kathleen] Backus interrupted the conversation, insisting that there be no talk of "killing" in her classroom.

Reached through a relative, Backus declined to comment.

At Monday's board meeting, Bordwell read from a prepared statement.

"I believe that Ms. Backus' perception of hunting and hunters have led her to treat Jared in an inappropriate manner, singling him out unfairly," she told the board. "The breaking point for us, his parents, came when Jared was sharing a conversation during his free period snack time at school. He was talking with a friend about the recent spring 2008 turkey season. Both boys had been out hunting with their dads and Jared was asking his friend where he had gotten his first turkey.

"Jared's teacher covered her ears, trying to block the conversation, and singing 'la la la la.' When asked by another school employee about her odd behavior, the teacher claimed she did not want to hear about the boys and their 'killing.' The boys were left feeling that they were not legitimate hunters, but 'killers' in the eyes of an important authority figure in their lives," Bordwell said.

Then the mother relayed how when the boy's father, Martin Harrington, who owns a sporting-goods story, confronted the teacher, she lost it (to me, it starts sounding like an ad by MoveOn.org):

Bordwell said that after the incident at school, Jared's father approached Backus, questioning the teacher about her "reprimand" of his son.

"The confrontation ended with Ms. Backus demanding that Marty leave the classroom, screeching, 'I went hiking this weekend and saw a moose and a bear, and I will never tell you where they are because you might kill them," Bordwell said.

The school principal said it would be settled, and students will be able to freely discuss their hobbies within "the parameters of good taste." But in Vermont, those tastes might vary widely.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/06/21/vermont-teacher-tells-4th-grade-hunter-she-wont-abide-killing-talk

[namvet]

Speaking of not mentioning the word "kill" in fropnt of a liberal :laugh2:


Vermont Teacher Tells 4th-Grade Hunter She Won't Abide 'Killing' Talk
By Tim Graham | June 21, 2008 - 14:25 ET

Cam Edwards at NRANews.com shared this story with me about how one Bennington, Vermont teacher demonstrated the state's clash between gun culture and "peace" culture in a fourth-grade classroom. From Dennis Jensen in the Rutland Herald:

[Mother Wendy] Bordwell said that, during snack time, [her son] Jared was discussing the recent spring turkey hunting season with a classmate when [teacher Kathleen] Backus interrupted the conversation, insisting that there be no talk of "killing" in her classroom.

Reached through a relative, Backus declined to comment.

At Monday's board meeting, Bordwell read from a prepared statement.

"I believe that Ms. Backus' perception of hunting and hunters have led her to treat Jared in an inappropriate manner, singling him out unfairly," she told the board. "The breaking point for us, his parents, came when Jared was sharing a conversation during his free period snack time at school. He was talking with a friend about the recent spring 2008 turkey season. Both boys had been out hunting with their dads and Jared was asking his friend where he had gotten his first turkey.

"Jared's teacher covered her ears, trying to block the conversation, and singing 'la la la la.' When asked by another school employee about her odd behavior, the teacher claimed she did not want to hear about the boys and their 'killing.' The boys were left feeling that they were not legitimate hunters, but 'killers' in the eyes of an important authority figure in their lives," Bordwell said.

Then the mother relayed how when the boy's father, Martin Harrington, who owns a sporting-goods story, confronted the teacher, she lost it (to me, it starts sounding like an ad by MoveOn.org):

Bordwell said that after the incident at school, Jared's father approached Backus, questioning the teacher about her "reprimand" of his son.

"The confrontation ended with Ms. Backus demanding that Marty leave the classroom, screeching, 'I went hiking this weekend and saw a moose and a bear, and I will never tell you where they are because you might kill them," Bordwell said.

The school principal said it would be settled, and students will be able to freely discuss their hobbies within "the parameters of good taste." But in Vermont, those tastes might vary widely.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/06/21/vermont-teacher-tells-4th-grade-hunter-she-wont-abide-killing-talk

im starting to hear dry heave's on here already

[red states rule]

im starting to hear dry heave's on here already

I wonder what her views on abortion are?

[namvet]

I wonder what her views on abortion are?

don't wanna think about. my biology teacher said his 'thingy" goes in right here btween her legs. she gets fat, 9 mons later out pop's the baby. hmmm so i tried this in the backseat of my 55 Ford. he lied !!!! I couldn't get her pants off the to get my 'thingy' in !!!!
:laugh2:

[red states rule]

don't wanna think about. my biology teacher said his 'thingy" goes in right here btween her legs. she gets fat, 9 mons later out pop's the baby. hmmm so i tried this in the backseat of my 55 Ford. he lied !!!! I couldn't get her pants off the to get my 'thingy' in !!!!
:laugh2:

We can thank the left for demanding political correctness rules in the classroom

[namvet]

We can thank the left for demanding political correctness rules in the classroom

and ill thank the back seat. it was my classroom..............

[DragonStryk72]

I forgot. string em up by the ankles take photograhs and send em to Al Jazeera TV.
did you say "recruit for Al-Qaeda" ???? there are no recruits. their drafting by force women, children and the elderly. send the photos...

Yes, because no one could ever be talked into do something out of vegeance for their family getting shot through the back, I mean, it's not like anyone would possibly feel like they wanted revenge for that. Do not become the thing you fight. Terror will not defeat terror.

Perhaps they should have been classified properly, and thus, would be facing military justice, but no, we decided that was too just, so we played the weasel ploy to keep them from facing justice.

Why those such as you are so afraid of justice is beyond me.

[red states rule]

Yes, because no one Terror will not defeat terror.


Neither will appeasement - which is what the Dems and Obama are pushing for

I want them captured or killed, and not have some ACLU lawyer questioning how the troops do their job

[namvet]

in this case I don't want justice. I want revenge.

[red states rule]

in this case I don't want justice. I want revenge.

When it comes to OBL - they are the same

[retiredman]

When it comes to OBL - they are the same


why are you afraid of trying him in America?

[gabosaurus]

in this case I don't want justice. I want revenge.

Revenge for what? Someone has to be found responsible first.

[Gaffer]

why are you afraid of trying him in America?

Because it would be a circus.

[retiredman]

Because it would be a circus.

No it wouldn't. It would be held on a tightly secured military base.... there would be no circus.

and the suggestion that trying him here would somehow invite retaliation from AQ operatives when a trial somewhere else would apparently NOT is downright silly.

[Gaffer]

No it wouldn't. It would be held on a tightly secured military base.... there would be no circus.

and the suggestion that trying him here would somehow invite retaliation from AQ operatives when a trial somewhere else would apparently NOT is downright silly.

Catching him would be a purely propaganda excersize. It won't change anything regarding the war. And aq attacks would definitely occur no matter where he is tried. He does need to be tried in a military tribunal in a secret location. And he needs to be executed as soon as possible. And buried in a pigskin in an unmarked grave.

A regular trial in a federal court would be a circus, you know that as well as I do.

[retiredman]

Catching him would be a purely propaganda excersize. It won't change anything regarding the war. And aq attacks would definitely occur no matter where he is tried. He does need to be tried in a military tribunal in a secret location. And he needs to be executed as soon as possible. And buried in a pigskin in an unmarked grave.

A regular trial in a federal court would be a circus, you know that as well as I do.

I have never advocated a "regular" trial in a federal court, and you know that as well as I do.

and I am of the belief that, not only should he be buried in a pigskin, but that he should be "embalmed" using pig's blood and he should be told that before he is executed.