Court gives Gitmo Detainees more rights

[Baron1710]

The Court got it wrong in the opinion they released today.

I am looking forward to reading Justice Roberts dissent.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080612/...tus_guantanamo

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.

[DividedThigh]

what a bunch of bunk, the constitution is for us, not them, david suitor i am sure is happy since he thinks we should be bound by laws from other places, what a nut, dt

[SOUNWORTHY]

Originally Posted by DividedThigh

what a bunch of bunk, the constitution is for us, not them, david suitor i am sure is happy since he thinks we should be bound by laws from other places, what a nut, dt

I agree 100%!

[Baron1710]

The following statement says it all.

"One cannot help but think, after surveying the modest practical results of the majority’s ambitious opinion, that this decision is not really about the detainees at all, but about control of federal policy regarding enemy combatants." ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

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.

The way I see it, something had to be done, for the sake of being humane.

Some of these "enemy combatants" are truly our enemies, keeping them in a cage does not serve the interests of justice. They should be tried, found guilty and executed QUICKLY. If our govt was more proactive in hadling these people then this would never have been an issue in the first place.

Some of these detainees are not "enemy combatants" at all. If your neighbor who wants your land decides to give a Soldier a "tip", branding you as an insurgent, then there is a pretty good chance that "reason" will be found for you to be scooped up and carted away-- by us or most likely by the host nation's fledgling military who does not have the controls of justice and fairness that is present in our system. These humans deserve justice too.

The ruling may be an attempt to bring some closure for this debacle.

If it was up to this military guy, all pows would be killed. Less trouble and hassle. I don't mean this in a cruel way, just business.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by 1399

The way I see it, something had to be done, for the sake of being humane.

Some of these "enemy combatants" are truly our enemies, keeping them in a cage does not serve the interests of justice. They should be tried, found guilty and executed QUICKLY. If our govt was more proactive in hadling these people then this would never have been an issue in the first place.

Some of these detainees are not "enemy combatants" at all. If your neighbor who wants your land decides to give a Soldier a "tip", branding you as an insurgent, then there is a pretty good chance that "reason" will be found for you to be scooped up and carted away-- by us or most likely by the host nation's fledgling military who does not have the controls of justice and fairness that is present in our system. These humans deserve justice too.

The ruling may be an attempt to bring some closure for this debacle.

If it was up to this military guy, all pows would be killed. Less trouble and hassle. I don't mean this in a cruel way, just business.

So you think they are entitled to more than a military tribunal? Are you entitled to more than that?

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

So you think they are entitled to more than a military tribunal? Are you entitled to more than that?

First I need to correct myself. Uniformed "POW's" and "Enemy Comabatants" are not the same. I knew that, but was rushing.

I think "Enemy Combatants" are entitled to a bullet to the head. That is what they are entitled, if indeed they are the enemy.

Military tribunals done in a timely fashion may have actually released many or most of the "EC's" due to lack of evidence.

To properly "try" these cases would require IMO an infrastructure of justice that just does not exist. If they had been ALL summarilly executed, as casualties of war, in a timely fashion, America would be blameless.

[Aquila]

The error here is that too many "Christians" have fallen into the lie that supposes that the Constitution gives us our rights. The Constitution only protects our rights. Our actual rights are given by God and are human rights. We, being human beings, have a right to justice. Charge them and try them or let them go. You cannot round up human beings and hold them indefinitely. We are America...we used to oppose this kind of thing in the name of human rights. Now we're doing it.

The fascists have taken over our political system and our minds. They have brow beaten us into accepting whatever they do because they call themselves "conservatives". Rubbish.

Charge these prisoners, try them, and sentence them. We can't just go around incarcerating people indefinitely.

[DividedThigh]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The error here is that too many "Christians" have fallen into the lie that supposes that the Constitution gives us our rights. The Constitution only protects our rights. Our actual rights are given by God and are human rights. We, being human beings, have a right to justice. Charge them and try them or let them go. You cannot round up human beings and hold them indefinitely. We are America...we used to oppose this kind of thing in the name of human rights. Now we're doing it.

The fascists have taken over our political system and our minds. They have brow beaten us into accepting whatever they do because they call themselves "conservatives". Rubbish.

Charge these prisoners, try them, and sentence them. We can't just go around incarcerating people indefinitely.

can we arrange to have them put you in gitmo, might be a nice vacation for you, dt just kidding

[chosenbyone]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The error here is that too many "Christians" have fallen into the lie that supposes that the Constitution gives us our rights. The Constitution only protects our rights. Our actual rights are given by God and are human rights. We, being human beings, have a right to justice. Charge them and try them or let them go. You cannot round up human beings and hold them indefinitely. We are America...we used to oppose this kind of thing in the name of human rights. Now we're doing it.

The fascists have taken over our political system and our minds. They have brow beaten us into accepting whatever they do because they call themselves "conservatives". Rubbish.

Charge these prisoners, try them, and sentence them. We can't just go around incarcerating people indefinitely.

I totally agree with what you wrote above. It has been rather easy for folks to regurgetate the "party line" when it came to holding these people for years w/o a fair trial, but the question remains, what if it was them or their family member who was innocent behind the bars @ Gitmo?

There have been numerous examples of men who were held, tortured and treated less than human that were totally innocent, but just happen to be turned in for money by tribal leaders or at the wrong place when captured.

I have continued to be amazed at folks who have demonstrated no compassion for the innocent that have languished for years waiting for their chance at freedom!

Here's an intersting article I read this afternnon:


Who's at Gitmo?
Jeralyn at TalkLeft points to a fascinating study led by Mark Denbeaux of Seton Hall Law School. Denbeaux and his colleagues analyzed the summaries of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT) for over 500 detainees at Guantanamo Naval Base.* (Original report available in .pdf)

CSRT documents summarize the evidence that the government said it used to designate the as an enemy combatant. Denbaux's study confirms that the threshold for EC status is incredibly low:

55% did not commit any hostile act against the United States or its coalition allies
Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban
The majority of detainees are not alleged to have committed hostile acts. These prisoners are being held because of alleged associations with terrorist organizations
Some are being detained for being "associated" with groups that don't even appear on the DHS watchlist of terrorist organizations
"Association" covers a wide range of alleged involvements: “fighters for" (8%), “members of" (30%), by far the most common designation was "associated with" which could mean as little as having spoken to a member of Al Qaeda (60%), Two percent of the detainees who were designated EC for a nexus of involvement with a terrorist organization didn't even make the "associated with" standard.**
By and large, the Gitmo detainees aren't even alleged to have been high-level Taliban leaders or al Qaeda operatives. Far from being uniformly the worst of the worst, most of the detainees at Gitmo haven't even been shown to be enemies, let alone combatants.
Majikthise
By Lindsay Beyerstein