Supreme Court Backs Gitmo Detainees

[Minor Axis]

So its not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing.

I'm afraid I'll never understand anything until I come into alignment with you. Actually I do remember agreeing to something you said in one of the posts at OTz.

 

[dt3]

Well--to put it in a nutshell and use a practical example--this is what the decision means. Let's go back to WWII to put it in perspective. The US was holding hundreds of thousands of POWs, both German and Japanese. What this decision means is EACH ONE OF THEM would have had a right to file a writ of Habeas Corpus in a US federal court, which must be heard or they must be released. Obviously, the sheer numbers would have meant that most of the POWs would have been released and most would have gone right back into the battle fields. Would that have changed the course of WWII? Who knows--it certainly would have meant a lot more Allied troops would have died and ironically, it also would have meant many of the POWs released would have died as well when they ended up surviving because they were POWs.

So its not anywhere near how its been portrayed in this thread because people really don't understand the issues involved.

Actually I got all that too, but it's the fact that it goes against hundreds of years of precedent that really irks me. Anyone who voted in favor of this, like Scalia said, is only hurting us in the long run.

 

[Minor Axis]

So its not anywhere near how its been portrayed in this thread because people really don't understand the issues involved.

This is not war against a specific country. Your analogy does not work when anyone can be seen as an enemy, grabbed anywhere in the world, and detained for an indefinite period of time. Yes it is wonderful for security. Anyone who appears to be a threat, lock them up and don't worry about prosecuting them, just call them enemy combatants, wonderful. Very good for order, and very bad for civil liberties- the principle stinks. Again, I'll say my argument is the principle as I don't think we are holding a bunch of angels in Gitmo.

Btw, what about all the Japanese Americans that were detained in this country in WWII? Good huh?

 

[Minor Axis]

Read the Scalia Dissent.

I could not find it but I found The Swamp.

""The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times," Kennedy wrote.

 

[Minor Axis]

Thanks!

 

[All Else Failed]

there you go throwing the word liberal around again.

 

[All Else Failed]

Its not my word--every article written about it talks about the liberal judges on one side and the conservatives on the other--with Kennedy being the swing. Educate yourself.

1) Don't talk down to me.

2) I was being cynical.

 

[Minor Axis]

Its not my word--every article written about it talks about the liberal judges on one side and the conservatives on the other--with Kennedy being the swing. Educate yourself.

Fox, I feel I must advise you that your slipping back into your old sarcastic ways. Phrases that indicate other people are uneducated on a topic always pop out when *anyone* disagrees with you. BTW, I've been doing chores and have not enough time yet to read and analyze the dissenting opinion you posted.

I find it revealing that the vote was 5-4, but you feel one of the conservatives on the court was the brilliant one. The other 5 must be dummies. No wait, they're secular, soft in the head, dummy :eek L-I-B-E-R-A-L-s :eek.

BTW this is a really good time to emphasize that hopefully with a Democrat as President, the court has as opportunity to turn back towards the left, a good thing if you like the concept of civil liberties. BTW, I don't want the court completely left as long as it's not completely right. Another Republican in office might ensure the Court's move to the right which the really smart poeple don't want.

 

[Peter Parka]

I think most of us get tired of being pigeon holed with a label, liberal, conservative, whatever. Personally I find it funny when I get labeled as a liberal here, seeing that I have for the last 5 years been voting Conservative.

 

[Minor Axis]

Not the position, the brilliance of his legal reasoning abilities. Even where there are opinions I do not agree with him, the brilliances is there. Even liberal legal scholars begrudgling concede Scalia's genius. Unfortunately, he will be one of the last genius legal scholars to be appointed because the process has become so polarized that judges are being appointed now based on political correctness and meeting litmus tests.

Ok, I read the dissent you posted and I read Friday's USA Today article (6/13) "Ruling maintains high court's streak on Gitmo cases."

My impression is that Scalia is brilliant mostly because you agree with his conclusions. From USA Today:

Scalia asserted that the decision will have dire consequences. He warned that some detainees will be freed and return to war against America.

No doubt that will happen, but this is what I see- a judge who values security over individual civil liberties to the extent that his intent would be to keep all detainees locked up indefinitely, even the possibly innocent ones to keep the possibly guilty ones secure in jail. And that's even if the military does not have adequate evidence to charge these prisoners, some who have been detained for up to 5 years without charges.

What is the basis of being detained? What is the standard? Now factor in 5 senior prosecutors who have resigned their positions because someone in the position of authority is playing fast and loose with legal standards. With some detainees, the only hard evidence against them is a forced confession possibly under coercion or torture.

Really Fox, this is how you want your legal system to operate? Again I emphasis the problem I have with this situation is the principle. You either have a standard of law or you have kangaroo courts.

As Justice Kennedy said (paraphrased): " Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law. The political branches may not switch the constitution on or off at will."

Its a good thing if you like the concept of judge made law and violations of the Constiutution. The biggest civil liberty anyone has is freedom from murder and terrorism--that civil liberty has been dealt a blow by this most recent example of liberal judicial activism.

BS!

I know plenty of civil liberterians who would love to do away with the search procedures at airports. I wonder how you'd feel about letting people on your plane without being searched!

Who? I know of know one who wants to do away with security at airports.

Never said anyone was uneducated--I said that if you think I came up with the word "liberal" to describe judges on the bench then you need to educate yourself because that's how these judges are described all the time.

You imply it frequently in your rebuttals.

What I don't understand is why people don't like being called liberal--did you ever think about that? No one cares about being called a conservative or a moderate.

You mean like "liberal activist secular judges"? You may have not used this exact phrase in this post, but just admit those are negative code words used by conservatives to describe judges left of their position.

 

[dt3]

No doubt that will happen, but this is what I see- a judge who values security over individual civil liberties to the extent that his intent would be to keep all detainees locked up indefinitely, even the possibly innocent ones to keep the possibly guilty ones secure in jail. And that's even if the military does not have adequate evidence to charge these prisoners, some who have been detained for up to 5 years without charges.

These terrorists do NOT fall under our Constitution and they do NOT deserve a trial in our civilian courts. The civil liberties afforded to our citizens are precious, and I wouldn't advocate keeping an American civilian detained for years without charges. BUT this is a time of war, and these are the enemies of our country. I have absolutely no problem with keeping them off the battlefield. If these fuckers come back to harm America and kill an American citizen, I hope it's one of these 5 judges.

 

[Minor Axis]

These terrorists do NOT fall under our Constitution and they do NOT deserve a trial in our civilian courts. The civil liberties afforded to our citizens are precious, and I wouldn't advocate keeping an American civilian detained for years without charges. BUT this is a time of war, and these are the enemies of our country. I have absolutely no problem with keeping them off the battlefield. If these fuckers come back to harm America and kill an American citizen, I hope it's one of these 5 judges.

And what standard was used to label them terrorists? Do you know? Does anyone know? How were they apprehended, anyone know? Are you saying everyone in Gitmo is guilty and tough shit if your not? Or do you feel confident there is no possibility of any innocent detainees in Gitmo? And what's your take on why have so many Gitmo prosecutors have quit? (if you care to divulge).

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. What if an American student was being held in Iran or N. Korea on suspicion of terrorism, but was being held indefinitely and with out being charged? Would that be ok or should they get their day in court?

 

[dt3]

So your saying everyone in Gitmo is guilty and tough shit if your not? Or do you feel confident there is no possibility of any innocent detainees in Gitmo? Everything is so black and white isn't it?

You know what? I'd damn near bet money on it. Not everyone we capture goes to Gitmo, there's dozens of prisons in Iraq where they keep the "low-level" guys and people they supposedly indiscriminately roundup. In fact, if they are found to be innocent and released they receive $6 per day of their imprisonment, which causes some people to try to get detained and released. Only the top level guys get to Gitmo.

 

[Minor Axis]

You completely miss the point--there are innocent people arrested in the US as well--those things are inevitable as long as people are human. You seem to believe these people at Gitmo are rounded up Nazi style with no case or evidence ever presented against them. The only thing this decision changes is which judge is going to be looking at the evidence.

You still haven't answered the question as to why after 200 plus years we now need to have enemy combatants go through our civil system. Could you imagine if liberal judges did this during WWII--every Japanes and German POW would have had the right to seek a hearing in a civil court back in the US--ridiculous!

Damn, I've missed no points. POWs in WWII was a simple issue. They were captured on the battlefield and held as POWs until the end of hostilities. They were handled by military authorities as they should have been.

Unfortunately the War on Terror is not the same kind of neat and tidy affair. It's not against a country and it has no end date. People in civilian clothes are being scooped out of neighborhoods, and not just in Iraq. And you must believe there is no chance of error, which boggles my mind. If someone is in Gitmo and held there for 20 years without being charged, that's just fine with you I take it?

Bottom line is that the majority of the Supreme Court justices slapped down the Bush Administration because they took issues with the lack of legal standards being exercised with Gitmo detainees. It's that simple.

 

[Minor Axis]

Only the top level guys get to Gitmo.

I believe the last Gitmo prosecutor to quit, flat out said that was not true. Donald Rumsfeld said only the worst of the worst was in Gitmo. But the prosecutor as mentioned in a Newsweek article said there were many low level operatives being held and in some cases the only concrete evidence against them was a confession that had been forced out of them.

You must realize the Supreme Court argument is not ment to protect terrorists from prosecution, but to protect you and me and all foreigners who are subject to detention within the U.S?

Again let's put the shoe on the other foot. What if an American student was being held in Iran or N. Korea on suspicion of terrorism, but was being held indefinitely and with out being charged? Would that be ok or should they get their day in court?

 

[Tim]

If only the top level guys are shipped to Gitmo and they are most likely guilty, then why have hundreds been released with no charge?

 

[Minor Axis]

And again you keep missing the fact that chances of error occur in the civilian courts as well. You also keep missing the fact that there are procedures in place exactly the same as the civilian courts for a combatant to make his/her case for innocence. Jesus, you really have to understand the facts. For some reason you have it your mind that the US government can pluck anyone off the street and hold them with no hearing and that simply is not true.

I guess you telling me that I'm missing points at least is better than you calling me stupid. The primary difference between civilian court and secret military tribunal is that the civilian process is open. If Gitmo detainees are traditional POWs why did the Bush Administration takes pains to detain them outside of the U.S? Plus they were being denied basic geneva convention protections. I think you've missed the point that this is a TERRIBLE precedence for future U.S military POWs.

Overplaying Its Hand

Historically, prisoners of war have no rights in U.S. courts. But even so, they are released when the war ends. The War on Terror has no foreseeable end. What's more, since the terrorists don't wear uniforms, it can be hard to discern who the real enemies are. Under the four 1949 Geneva Conventions, prisoners of war have some rights. But after 9/11, hard-liners in the administration decided that terror suspects brought to Guantánamo and various secret prisons around the world lacked any of the protections of the Geneva accords because they were "unlawful combatants."

Under pressure from the courts, the Republican Congress passed laws in 2005 and 2006 giving terror suspects minimal opportunities to challenge their detention in federal court. Detainees were not allowed to have defense lawyers in initial military hearings to determine their status as enemy combatants, or to see or rebut evidence deemed secret by the government.

The potential for unfairness was so great that last week the Supreme Court stepped in and struck down the federal laws, ruling that terror detainees must be given full access to federal courts, under the ancient principle of habeas corpus, which roughly means that government cannot hold you without proving to the courts a legal basis for the detention.

BTW I looked this up after I posted my responses. Detainees were not allowed to have defense lawyers in the initial military hearing to determine their status as enemy combatants. That's the basis for a kangaroo court no matter how you want to spin it.

Do you think that everyone on death row has been justly convicted despite a large percentage of prisoners being released based on DNA evidence? My point is the legal system is far from perfect under what we consider normal circumstances. In regards to Gitmo, you want a legal system that errs on the side of the innocent not on the side of authority. The hard liners will tell you that everyone who has been detained is guilty with no due process what so ever just like President Bush will tell you he has ultimate confidence that every death warrant he signed as Governor of Texas was justice at work (paraphrased). If there was a possibility of error, he did not loose any sleep over it. That's not the kind of legal system I want.

 

[Peter Parka]

Where in the world are you getting this infomation from? First of all there were people in WWII in civilian clothes being scooped out of neighborhoods all over Europe. Do you honestly think WWII was a simple as you are painting it--that every soldier was in uniform? Really--you are extremely uninformed as to the facts in WWII.

And again you keep missing the fact that chances of error occur in the civilian courts as well. You also keep missing the fact that there are procedures in place exactly the same as the civilian courts for a combatant to make his/her case for innocence. Jesus, you really have to understand the facts. For some reason you have it your mind that the US government can pluck anyone off the street and hold them with no hearing and that simply is not true.

Erm, do you think things were better for some reason in the mass hysteria aspect in WW2? Things were much worse then and I'm not talking about Germany and the Jews. Here in Britain, mobs were attacking people with German names, as British as they were, my family changed the German spelling of their name in the first world war because of that shit. I'd actually be shocked if the amount of people who our governments considered the other side and worth punishing but were innocent, was less than in Iraq!

 

[dt3]

If only the top level guys are shipped to Gitmo and they are most likely guilty, then why have hundreds been released with no charge?

:unsure: If hundreds have been released, how can anyone say there's a bias in the military tribunals?

 

[Tim]

:unsure: If hundreds have been released, how can anyone say there's a bias in the military tribunals?

I never said that there was a bias...

I guess my whole point to this is that these prisoners are not POW's, they are classified as enemy combatants, which isn't even a legal term. This allows the military/government to pick up anyone from anywhere on the globe (even in the US) and hold them indefinitely.

I DO NOT want POW's to have access to our court system. That would not be good for the country. In a time of war, POW's must be dealt with by our military according to the Geneva conventions.

But these prisoners ARE NOT POW's, so the military does not need to follow the Geneva conventions, yet we are saying they aren't allowed a day in court... you can have one or the other, you can't have it both ways.