RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights.

RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Vendaval -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 11:43:03 PM)
Thank you Archer and Dom Ken. The 4-5 years of waiting has only complicated the whole situation. If they were tried by the US military - If found innocent, where would they be released? Would there be any special conditions as part of their release? If found guilty, where would they be imprisoned? How long could they be imprisoned?

Archer -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 11:44:03 PM)
Actual Trials for small timers I'm not all that worried about being speedy, the sentances would likely end up as "Time Served" wheather it was 6 years or 60 years, but the status hearings at the very least need to be done within a reasonable time frame. For the Big timers KSM etc I would prefer the trials be speedy as the resulting sentances would be stiff and leave them impotent as anything other than a symbolic martyre. It's that Status Hearing that I say is inexcusable to have not had within a realtively short term. I get the idea that they are trying to do (at least the part about the covert field operatives needing to be protected) But there comes a time when we have to say OK time to pull guy 1 out and put a new guy in because we're going to have the hearings on important guy 125. And that needs to be worked out somehow. But I say work that out rather than working out how to keep the guys from status hearings for 5 years.

Archer -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 11:49:18 PM)
See the idea of trial hasn't even been reached yet for most of them. If they got their Status hearing then that determines all sorts of things. If they are given a POW Status then they can be held until hostilities stop. BUT they have to be afforded a specific level of treatment. If they are found to be Illegal Combatants in the status hearings then they can also be held until hostilities stop, but ther treatment standards a less. The actual trials for terrorist activities can be put off for a long time once the status has been determined by an actual hearing. It's a very grey area.

popeye1250 -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/12/2008 11:51:38 PM)
I'm not aware of any "time limit" in which a spy has to be executed. Is 10 minutes too long, 2 weeks? I think people are once again losing sight of the fact that 9/11 was an Act of War, not a "crime" for any courts to decide. What will people say when they hit us again? My father who was on the Destroyer U.S.S. Renshaw (DD-499) in the South Pacific during WW2 said that if they sunk a Jap landing or supply barge they'd automatically pull up to the area and machine gun and shoot any Japs that had survived and were in the water. What were they supposed to do, let them swim in to kill our Marines? Such is war. I knew who Admiral William "Bull" Halsey was when I was six years old.

farglebargle -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/13/2008 12:11:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer See the idea of trial hasn't even been reached yet for most of them. If they got their Status hearing then that determines all sorts of things. If they are given a POW Status then they can be held until hostilities stop. BUT they have to be afforded a specific level of treatment. If they are found to be Illegal Combatants in the status hearings then they can also be held until hostilities stop, but ther treatment standards a less. The actual trials for terrorist activities can be put off for a long time once the status has been determined by an actual hearing. It's a very grey area. Wouldn't all this legal-horseshit be predicated on an actual Congressional declaration of War? Way it is, the Constitution and Laws of the United States apply, and they're pretty clear. The Gov't CANNOT deprive ANYONE of Due Process and Equal Protection of the Law. And, since the Loyal Bushies are getting ROUTINELY bitch-slapped by the Supreme Court, it's pretty clear that everyone's just trying to get through this without arresting the entire White House staff. ( Good thing they replaced 'The Few Good Men' at the DOJ with them Loyal Bushie cocksucking religious fundamentalists, eh? If it's never brought to a Grand Jury, they can never be held legally accountable for their actions )

pinksugarsub -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/13/2008 1:07:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol WASHINGTON (AP) — 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. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iS3b8PdQ_oVlJA2eFtDvhnnTUvFwD918KL4O0 I just heard Bush's reaction on the radio: he says he's disappointed (ya think?). David Rifkin said it's 'tremendously arrogant' of the Supreme Court. Comments? It's about Gawd damned time the Court calendered this case and rendered a decision. i don't see how any other ruling could have been reached under our Constitution. pinksugarsub

Politesub53 -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/13/2008 1:54:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval If the detainees were tried in a military court would they then be either returned to their home countries or held in US military prisons? I will assume you meant if found guilty...Unlike the small town sherrif who assures his prisoner of a fair trial and then we'll hang you I seem to recall Counsel for GWB ( The guy who resigned recently ) as saying something like " We have to find them guilty after holding them all this time " Lets hope they get a fair trial, im thinking of the guys arrested on the word of another, especially if the info was obtained either under torture or bribery.

meatcleaver -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/13/2008 2:51:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer If they are found to be Illegal Combatants in the status hearings then they can also be held until hostilities stop, but ther treatment standards a less. The actual trials for terrorist activities can be put off for a long time once the status has been determined by an actual hearing. It's a very grey area. The status of 'illegal combatant' doesn't exist in international law and there is the rub. The US has unilaterally declared the status of 'illegal combatant' exists to deny rights to the people they hold. No other country in the world recognizes the status of 'illegal combatant'. Under international law the people being held should be afforded POW status or be held under US criminal code and be afforded the same rights as any US citizen charged with a crime. Its this denial of rights that makes the US's allies feel queasy and while certain members of individual governments might have some sympathy for the Bush administration, they don't dare to say so in public for fear of retribution by their country's voters come the next election. No one likes to think they have a potential dictator governming them and it is potential dictators that deny people their rights, just like the Bush administration is doing. The military tribrunals are also fake justice and seen as such around the world which makes the US government lose credibility when it spouts platitudes about civilised values and the rule of law. I've got every sympathy with those Americans that are concerned that this wilful denial of rights to people the US holds, is the thin end of the wedge and puts their rights in danger too.

kittinSol -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/13/2008 5:21:53 AM)
I like how respectful Bush is of the decision: quote: "We'll abide by the court's decision," Bush said. "That doesn't mean I have to agree with it. It was a deeply divided court and I strongly agree with those who dissented. And their dissent was based upon their serious concerns about U.S. national security." Bush added: "We'll study this opinion and we'll do so with this in mind: to determine whether or not additional legislation might be appropriate so that we can truly say to the American people, 'We're doing everything we can to protect you.'" But there is hope they won't do anything to go against the Supreme Court's decision: quote: [James Ross, the legal and policy director for Human Rights Watch (HRW)], told RFE/RL that he doubts the Bush administration will try again to have Congress pass another law that might answer the Supreme Court's objections. First, he says, both houses of Congress are now controlled by Democrats; and second, this is a general-election year in which most members are concerned with reelection campaigns. Also, Ross said the administration may conclude that a further effort to do away with "habeas corpus" would be futile because the court ruled that the right of challenging detention goes deeper than statute law. "This decision, I think, is particularly positive because it really does get to the root of the issue, finally," Ross said. "In earlier decisions, for example, the court said that under the federal law there were these protections. So [Bush and Congress] changed the federal law. But here they're saying, 'Look, it's deeper than that.' It is a decision that talks about the fundamental concept of habeas corpus under the Constitution, not as a matter of simply federal law." http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2008/06/0bd4be7e-da31-4937-9509-a6c56bdf4937.html

gina0055 -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/13/2008 6:09:30 AM)
It is scary that it passed by only a 5-4 vote but it is a step in the right direction. McCain has vowed to place more justices of the same ilk on the bench if he is elected. If so, there goes the Constitution.

kittinSol -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/13/2008 6:31:48 AM)
Nod - even more the reason why people have to vote carefully come the election. The Supreme Court judge appointment system gives the United States' president a very crucial role indeed...

Mercnbeth -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/13/2008 6:55:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Ok Merc, I tried to be nice but so be it. You have now repeatedly tried to conflate people being held by the US government having the privilege of Habeas Corpus to somehow be meaning a world wide enforcement of the US Constitution on uninvolved parties. The question then becomes who does have the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus under the US Constitution. Who, where, when and Constitutional references please. Note that you've already repeatedly stated that simply being in the custody of the US government is insufficient. Sure DK, as soon as you indicate how people engaged in warfare in Afghanistan and taken prisoner qualify for Miranda and other rights under the laws of the US. You've yet to respond to any point made along those lines. Start at the top, Hussein in his rat hole. You'd have a better case. US forces occupied his country. In Afghanistan we were there at that government behest. Local law should have applied; you know flogging, a ear removed, hand chopped off, etc. Instead they get this (From the BBC) *quote:* Each prisoner has been given: US army standard-issue 2cm-thick foam sleeping mat, one blanket, two buckets, a one quart canteen Two orange boiler suits, one pair flip-flops Two bath towels, one for washing, one for use as a prayer mat A washcloth, toothpaste, soap, shampoo A copy of the Koran Prisoners are served three meals a day - all "culturally appropriate": Breakfast - typically bread, cream cheese, an orange, a pastry, a roll, a bottle of water Lunch - typically a box of cereal, two cereal bars, a packet of peanuts, one packet crisps, one packet raisins, a bottle of water Evening meal - typically white rice, red beans, a banana, bread, a bottle of water. The detainees' daily routine: Breakfast followed by shower opportunity and personal time Doctor visits to address any medical issues Lunch followed by shower opportunity and personal time Exercise period Mail call - pens and paper are provided for limited time, letters may be written under supervision, all pens are collected afterwards Dinner followed by shower opportunity Typical weather: Sunny with temperatures ranging from 22C at night to around 28C maximum during the day Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1766037.stm As opposed to the local judicial system: http://www.bigducky.com/videos/beheading_videos/armstrong_beheading.htm Anyone speak the language of the video? Can you tell if Mr. Armstrong was Mirandized and processed according to US Constitutional law? After all, he was a US Citizen, in pretty much the same area where these soldiers/enemy combatants/criminals/patriots/freedom fighters (pick one) originated.

kittinSol -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/13/2008 6:58:16 AM)
I don't see how providing lunch or a shower excuses the violation of constitutional rights. It's not about what you think of the people that are being held: your personal opinion of them is irrelevant. It's strange that you're not even seeing this.

slvemike4u -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/13/2008 7:11:02 AM)
Published: June 13, 2008 For years, with the help of compliant Republicans and frightened Democrats in Congress, President Bush has denied the protections of justice, democracy and plain human decency to the hundreds of men that he decided to label “unlawful enemy combatants” and throw into never-ending detenion Twice the Supreme Court swatted back his imperial overreaching, and twice Congress helped Mr. Bush try to open a gaping loophole in the Constitution. On Thursday, the court turned back the most recent effort to subvert justice with a stirring defense of habeas corpus, the right of anyone being held by the government to challenge his confinement before a judge. The court ruled that the detainees being held in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have that cherished right, and that the process for them to challenge their confinement is inadequate. It was a very good day for people who value freedom and abhor Mr. Bush’s attempts to turn Guantánamo Bay into a constitutional-rights-free zone. The right of habeas corpus is so central to the American legal system that it has its own clause in the Constitution: it cannot be suspended except “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Despite this, the Bush administration repeatedly tried to strip away habeas rights. First, it herded prisoners who were seized in Afghanistan, and in other foreign countries, into the United States Navy base at Guantánamo Bay and claimed that since the base is on foreign territory, the detainees’ habeas cases could not be heard in the federal courts. In 2004, the court rejected that argument, ruling that Guantánamo, which is under American control, is effectively part of the United States. In 2006, the court handed the administration another defeat, ruling that it had relied improperly on the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 to hold the detainees on Guantánamo without giving them habeas rights. Since then, Congress passed another law, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that tried — and failed horribly — to fix the problems with the Detainee Treatment Act. Now, by a 5-to-4 vote, the court has affirmed the detainees’ habeas rights. The majority, in an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, ruled that the Military Commissions Act violates the Suspension Clause, by eliminating habeas corpus although the requirements of the Constitution — invasion or rebellion — do not exist. The court ruled that the military tribunals that are hearing the detainees’ cases — the administration’s weak alternative to habeas proceedings in a federal court — are not an adequate substitute. The hearings cut back on basic due process protections, like the right to counsel and the right to present evidence of innocence. It was disturbing that four justices dissented from this eminently reasonable decision. The lead dissent, by Chief Justice John Roberts, dismisses habeas as “most fundamentally a procedural right.” Chief Justice Roberts thinks the detainees receive such “generous” protections at their hearings that the majority should not have worried about whether they had habeas rights. There is an enormous gulf between the substance and tone of the majority opinion, with its rich appreciation of the liberties that the founders wrote into the Constitution, and the what-is-all-the-fuss-about dissent. 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 That was an editorial printed in this mornings N.Y. Times and pretty much sums it up IMO My apologies for the lousy cut and paste job

kittinSol -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/13/2008 7:18:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u 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. Too true - perhaps this is where some reform could be implemented, to reinforce civil liberties: make the appointment of the judges a little less dependent on the executive. No idea how this could be done though...

slvemike4u -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/13/2008 7:30:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Too true - perhaps this is where some reform could be implemented, to reinforce civil liberties: make the appointment of the judges a little less dependent on the executive. No idea how this could be done though... The Senate could do its Due Dilligence during the confirmation hearings and stop using red herrngs and idealogical litmus test's in the procss.Qualified jurist's who believe in the sanctity of the Constitution and can apply it evenly, instead of adding to said document.Some weeks ago Scalia and Thomas actually added a word into the constitution while writing a majority opinion on a cruel and inhumane case ....The word they chose to add was intentional thereby raising the standard to proving whether or not cruel and inhumane was being intentionally administered....a patenly absurd reading of the Constitution...IMO

Mercnbeth -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/13/2008 7:32:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol I don't see how providing lunch or a shower excuses the violation of constitutional rights. As irrelevant as your point is; would beheading be a violation of Mr. Armstrong's constitutional rights? Oh, Mr. Armstong wasn't in the US? The people involved were not US citizens? My point exactly. quote: It's not about what you think of the people that are being held: your personal opinion of them is irrelevant. As is yours. Since it seems to matter to you more than addressing the specific issues raised; consider instead that my thoughts are on par with the 4 dissenting votes on the Supreme Court. There - feel better?

slvemike4u -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/13/2008 7:42:30 AM)
See Merc I knew we agreed on alot of issues,I too was distressed to see that 4 SCJOUS don't seem to be able to read and or apply the Constitution in all matters before them

MissSCD -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/13/2008 7:44:47 AM)
I agree with this ruling. I a glad to see that the Supreme Court recognizes an abuse of power. This issue has conserned me from the start because it is Bush's policial prisioners and the has been treating them as the prison chooses. This is not right. The prioners have a right to trial. They also have the rights that fall within the Geneva Convention on how to treat war prisioners. There is another thing that conserns me about our President. *He allows most everyone to take the fall for the treatment of the prioners but himself just as he does just about every thing else he has done in the past eight years.* *It is all about George.* *Regards, MissSCD* quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol WASHINGTON (AP) — 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. *http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iS3b8PdQ_oVlJA2eFtDvhnnTUvFwD918KL4O0* I just heard Bush's reaction on the radio: he says he's disappointed (ya think?). David Rifkin said it's 'tremendously arrogant' of the Supreme Court. Comments?

Mercnbeth -> RE: Foreign terrorism suspects have rights. (6/13/2008 7:55:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u See Merc I knew we agreed on alot of issues,I too was distressed to see that 4 SCJOUS don't seem to be able to read and or apply the Constitution in all matters before them Ah, but mike, my perspective is that the 4 did and the 5 prevailing belief in a worldwide US jurisdiction of power. The very thing that is being used to attack President Bush, wanting to enforce US policy and US version of law, is now being supported by the very same critics. The agenda based determination of criticism is an amazing thing to witness.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375