quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) In a stinging rebuke to President Bush's anti-terror policies, a deeply divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign detainees held for years at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have the right to appeal to U.S. civilian courts to challenge their indefinite imprisonment without charges.Bush said he strongly disagreed with the decision the third time the court has repudiated him on the detainees and suggested he might seek yet another law to keep terror suspects locked up at the prison camp, even as his presidency winds down.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the 5-4 high court majority, acknowledged the terrorism threat the U.S. faces the administration's justification for the detentions but he declared, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."
In a blistering dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."
The long overdue decision rules that Gitmo detainees do have some rights under common law. I'm actually somewhat shocked it took this long, but I think everyone knew it was only a matter of time for some of the Military Commissions Act to be overturned.
quote:
Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into Noxhil who doth quote:
The long overdue decision rules that Gitmo detainees do have some rights under common law.
Wrong, the decision rules that Gitmo detainees have rights under the constitution, which is lunacy.
Suddenly our constitution applies to the whole world.
Noxhil fucked around with this message on 06-12-2008 at 10:00 PM.
here is the precedent used to hold the Gitmo folks that should have held up.
quote:
Kaglaaz How'ler had this to say about Robocop:
Not cool IMO. These criminals are given full constitutional rights? blahhere is the precedent used to hold the Gitmo folks that should have held up.
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/tribunals/wp_011302.html
You are kidding right?
Did you even read this?
The precedent was so terrible even the judges who wrote and championed it, later winced calling it a mistake. It was a railroading with the government lying and threatening to suspend judicial review unless they agreed.
Total bullshit, this is a good thing if only to toss that piece of crap ruling into the fire.
If we'd just called them POWs to begin with, we could hold them indefinitely with no right of appeal or, for that matter, right to trial unless we wanted to commence war crimes proceedings.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about (_|_):
The fundamental mistake was in not simply labeling them prisoners of war in the first place. While not wanting to legitimize terrorism by affording POW protections to terrorists and unlawful combatants is understandable, it was predictable that trying to create an entirely new legal category--neither criminal nor POW--would inevitably run into problems.
Well the problem was the Bush administration knows that if we classified them as POW's the Geneva convention would apply and they didn't want those legal protections. Then obviously if they call them criminals they have to charge them with something. I also think it's wrong to hold people indefinitely if we have no evidence against them, but that's a different kind of battle than holding people in legal limbo.
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Noxhil absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
Well the problem was the Bush administration knows that if we classified them as POW's the Geneva convention would apply and they didn't want those legal protections. Then obviously if they call them criminals they have to charge them with something. I also think it's wrong to hold people indefinitely if we have no evidence against them, but that's a different kind of battle than holding people in legal limbo.
It wasn't a matter of granting them legal protections, but rather of legitimizing the cause. POWs can already be held indefinitely without any recourse, so that wasn't a motive, but if you call them POWs, then you are sort of announcing to the world that they are soldiers instead of terrorists, which the administration didn't want to do.
You'll want to note that the Geneva Conventions specifically allow POWs to be held until the end of a conflict--which is, in practical terms, indefinitely.
These people are not criminals, with rights to a trial and evidentiary rules and all that crap. They are, technically, illegal combatants and war criminals. But the smart move is simply to classify them as captured enemy combatants and lock them up until we decide the war is over.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage attempted to be funny by writing:
It wasn't a matter of granting them legal protections, but rather of legitimizing the cause. POWs can already be held indefinitely without any recourse, so that wasn't a motive, but if you call them POWs, then you are sort of announcing to the world that they are soldiers instead of terrorists, which the administration didn't want to do.You'll want to note that the Geneva Conventions specifically allow POWs to be held until the end of a conflict--which is, in practical terms, indefinitely.
These people are not criminals, with rights to a trial and evidentiary rules and all that crap. They are, technically, illegal combatants and war criminals. But the smart move is simply to classify them as captured enemy combatants and lock them up until we decide the war is over.
Right, it's the last part I have problems with. What if we captured people in the "War on Drugs" and held them indefinitely. I know legally it's ok to hold POWs until the conflict is over, but I don't think we should be in the business of holding people forever without a chance to challenge the validity of their imprisonment. The potential for abuse is just too great.
I'm somewhat conflicted as to whether "terrorism" should be tried in Federal Court. On one hand you can see why the special military commissions were created- Military court is inappropriate, and Federal court may be a too open environment. On the other hand, transparency is key to a justice system. At what level do you compromise? Whatever the answer is, it doesn't include forbidding someone to challenge their imprisonment.
quote:
From the book of Noxhil, chapter 3, verse 16:
What if we captured people in the "War on Drugs" and held them indefinitely.
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
[QB][/QB]
