Just Curious if anyone else is angry over this?

FourIsCompany

The people at Guantanamo are suspects, not terrorists.

suspected terrorists

FourIsCompany

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

until you start blowing up buildings with planes, chopping off heads,etc etc

FourIsCompany

The right to a fair trial is an essential right in all countries respecting the rule of law

and a military tribunal is fair and right and is the correct means for prosecuting these individuals

dgriego

FourIsCompany

The people at Guantanamo are suspects, not terrorists.

suspected terrorists

That's the whole point that some people have been trying to make.  Suspects.  It doesn't matter what someone is suspected of doing - it still has to be proven. Good Lord, if everyone that was ever suspected of something was rounded up, tortured and shot there's a good chance that most of us on this forum wouldn't be here.

Joyce

dgriego

until you start blowing up buildings with planes, chopping off heads,etc etc

Good point, let's stoop to their level... Eye for an eye and all that.

Half of Australia fought for years to bring our one Guatanomo Bay detainee home. He was held for a loooong time with no charge. In the end he pleaded guilty. We'll never know if he was or not because he was clearly at breaking point and he said he would do anything to get out. He's back home and released now, but I think still under a gag order meaning he can't speak to the media. I understand he was a mental mess when he finally got out.

I have seen documentaries in which American soldiers deprived detainees of sleep, set dogs on them to frighten them, hosed them with freezing water every few hours, and had females making sexual advances on them, which they believed was a sin of their own. It sounds like a lot of minor things when compared to what they have done, but torture is torture, and psychological torture can be worse than physical torture. It's wrong. There are no circumstances in which it is right. Sorry. That's a fact as far as I'm concerned. Basic human rights apply to everyone. That's why they are called basic human rights.

I can't even believe there are people out there that don't agree with that. You have to uphold those basic human rights. Otherwise what do you become? Where do you draw the line? What about the people that weren't guilty? I can imagine what it would be like if someone thought I was a terrorist and put me in Guatanamo. I'd die. Or I'd be so broken I may as well be dead. What if that happened to me and I was innocent??

I believe in the right to a fair trial. And I believe in sending a terrorist to his reward as soon as possible. I dearly love our freedoms and many friends and family have paid the price for us to have those freedoms. And the patriot act and Guantanamo Bay seem like erosions of those freedoms. We do not, however, partipate in some world government. Within our rules, a fair trial is due for a citizen of the United States, but not for a foreign national with plans to hurt us.

To me, it's not stooping to their level. It's more like getting rid of pests and vermin that could harm us.

OTOH, we have a long history of detaining enemies in wartime. My FIL was in the 9th USAF 410 Light Bomber Group in WWII in France. And he took care of german POWs. Food, clothing, work assignments. But then, it was a different time and a different notion of war.

In my view, we should let the people go. If they are truly bad, do something about that. If not, let them go.

I don't think we can change the legal status of aliens in detention without changing the US Constitution in a major way. I don't think the found fathers would have done it this way. They would have done it my way. Either kill them or let them go and follow them. Gather intelligence and determine what must be done. Then do it, quickly, quietly, without grandeur. And for those who think that hasn't happened before, I can only say that one has a learning curve ahead.

The irony is that freedom isn't free and it's going to cost, one way or another.

I don't have a problem with this.  I'm with Carla, a suspect is a suspect, and the right to a fair trial is what I consider one of the foundations of this country.  Yes, they may use my tax dollars to ensure that everyone is granted due process.

My brother in law is Malaysian, and he is stopped, held, and questioned for hours almost any time he travels.  Heaven forbid he ever get stopped as a "suspected terrorist" where he can just be lynched because he looks evil and is mistaken for someone else....

The issue of the severity of interrogation techniques used at Guantanamo is for another thread.  THIS thread is about the Supreme Court's decision on allowing the detainees housed there to argue against their detention in a US civilian court, so I hope we can stay on topic here.

No one can overturn a decision of the Supreme Court except the Supreme Court themselves.  You can't appeal a Supreme Court decision.  It's the end of the line.  Congress could try and revise the laws, but that's it.  The Bush Administration, or the next administration, can do nothing about the decision yesterday.  If everyone actually read the article, there is a quote in there from the President stating he will abide by the ruling, no matter how he feels about it, so I don't understand all the comments to the contrary.

If you go to the Wikipedia entry on Guantanamo Bay Detainment Camp, there is a lot of very interesting information about how many people have been brought there and released.  The problem stated in the Wiki article, as well as in other articles I have read, is that the US has a difficult time finding countries to take the prisoners upon release.  The President has also said that he would like to see the prison closed, but states the aforementioned as a reason why it is difficult to do so right now.  We can't just set them free on the streets of Cuba!  They have to go somewhere, and foreign governments have to agree to let us send them to their countries.

I'm sorry, I do not believe most of these people are "innocents."  Khalid Sheik Muhammad is not an innocent.  Sure, some of them may be, as is the case in every prison throughout the world.  I just don't see why a military trial is not sufficient for these people.  We try our own soldiers in military trials, so why should these folks be afforded civil trials?  I don't understand, though, how people can be held there without being charged, so if someone can explain that, I'd appreciate it.

And I just do not understand why folks think that the US Constitution and Bill of Rights applies to non-citizen war combatants.  This is Amendment V of the Bill of Rights, which I find very interesting (emphasis mine):

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

I was pretty sure, but I double-checked just in case, but I saw nothing in the Constitution that overturns this.  Argue away!

fuzzy_dogs_mom

That's the whole point that some people have been trying to make.  Suspects.  It doesn't matter what someone is suspected of doing - it still has to be proven. Good Lord, if everyone that was ever suspected of something was rounded up, tortured and shot there's a good chance that most of us on this forum wouldn't be here.

Yes, we are suspects, too....we are Americans and what happens to Americans, even civilian workers in those countries? Are they rounded up and detained.....heck no......instant torture and death occurs.

Also, our own soldiers are subject to military court.....and we are just handing over civilian rights to war suspects......pffft....

Something else interesting on this topic...

In 1950, the US Supreme Court heard a similar case (Johnson v Eisentrager), and ruled the exact opposite of yesterday's ruling about the right of non-US enemy combatants' right to habeas corpus in US courts.  You can read the full opinion online, but here's Wiki's synopsis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_v._Eisentrager

From the opinion, ties into my earlier statement about the 5th Amendment: "If this [Fifth] Amendment invests enemy aliens in unlawful hostile action against us with immunity from military trial, it puts them in a more protected position than our own soldiers..."

 Habeas corpus predates this nation and is not a "special right".  As in the case of the Australian, the sentence for the crime they're supposedly accused of committing is often less than the amount of time they're "indefinitely detained" for!!!

Imagine for a minute you're on vacation outside of the US.  When you return, you're seized at the airport and "detained".  You ask why, you're told "Classified, you know what this is about."  You ask for a lawyer, you're told no.  No lawyer you exclaim!  That's unAmerican!  You're told no lawyer because you're not under arrest, just under "investigative detention" and therefore, not entitled to a lawyer.  Your family gets a lawyer on your behalf even though they've not been able to contact you, that attorney files a habeas corpus action that  requires those holding you to justify your detention by presenting reasonable evidence (not ALL the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt evidence, just something that indicates the detention is a valid action).  During the night of the Sunday prior to your hearing, you are transported to a naval brig off the coast of the US and then held there without contact to family or attorneys for YEARS.  When a hearing finally requires that the US prove that the reasons they've held you for this time, they opt not to and instead turn you over to civilian authorities and NEVER PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER OF THE ORIGINAL CHARGE OF "ENEMY COMBATANT" that they originally detained you on.

Now imagine an angry crowd chanting "Kill The Terrorist" outside your cell.

Makes an American proud, huh?  Gimme a break, read the Constitution, read the (LACK OF) evidence against most of these "combatants" and read the Supreme Court opinions (all of them, majority and dissent) in cases like Hamdan, Padilla, Rasul, and Hamdi  and news coverage of people like Maher Arar from Canada. You can't just make up your own rules and your own courts ala the Star Chamber and not expect to be called on it when you trumpet yourself as the Champion of Liberty.  Puhlease!

Responses like these remind me of Monty Python, "Burn the Witch!"  "How do you know she is a Witch?"  "She turned me into a newt!  ...  I got better."  "BURN HER ANYWAY!"

I don't want to be an American if it means killing terrorists and then deciding later if they are or not.  Or just "taking our word for it" from the government.  Same guy who said Sadam had WMD is telling us who is and isn't a terrorist?  Good grief!

www.oyez.org to read the full opinions, not just news snippits full of spin.

"a state of war is not a blank check for the President." - Sandra Day O'Connor

BCMixs

 Habeas corpus predates this nation and is not a "special right".  As in the case of the Australian, the sentence for the crime they're supposedly accused of committing is often less than the amount of time they're "indefinitely detained" for!!!

Imagine for a minute you're on vacation outside of the US.  When you return, you're seized at the airport and "detained".  You ask why, you're told "Classified, you know what this is about."  You ask for a lawyer, you're told no.  No lawyer you exclaim!  That's unAmerican!  You're told no lawyer because you're not under arrest, just under "investigative detention" and therefore, not entitled to a lawyer.  Your family gets a lawyer on your behalf even though they've not been able to contact you, that attorney files a habeas corpus action that  requires those holding you to justify your detention by presenting reasonable evidence (not ALL the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt evidence, just something that indicates the detention is a valid action).  During the night of the Sunday prior to your hearing, you are transported to a naval brig off the coast of the US and then held there without contact to family or attorneys for YEARS.  When a hearing finally requires that the US prove that the reasons they've held you for this time, they opt not to and instead turn you over to civilian authorities and NEVER PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER OF THE ORIGINAL CHARGE OF "ENEMY COMBATANT" that they originally detained you on.

Now imagine an angry crowd chanting "Kill The Terrorist" outside your cell.

Makes an American proud, huh?  Gimme a break, read the Constitution, read the (LACK OF) evidence against most of these "combatants" and read the Supreme Court opinions (all of them, majority and dissent) in cases like Hamdan, Padilla, Rasul, and Hamdi  and news coverage of people like Maher Arar from Canada. You can't just make up your own rules and your own courts ala the Star Chamber and not expect to be called on it when you trumpet yourself as the Champion of Liberty.  Puhlease!

Responses like these remind me of Monty Python, "Burn the Witch!"  "How do you know she is a Witch?"  "She turned me into a newt!  ...  I got better."  "BURN HER ANYWAY!"

I don't want to be an American if it means killing terrorists and then deciding later if they are or not.  Or just "taking our word for it" from the government.  Same guy who said Sadam had WMD is telling us who is and isn't a terrorist?  Good grief!

www.oyez.org to read the full opinions, not just news snippits full of spin.

"a state of war is not a blank check for the President." - Sandra Day O'Connor

 

 

Nice little post and filled with emotion.....BUT, where and when exactly have we executed these detained people?????

Ever travelled to Mexico or other latin countries or even Russia, China and so on......you better watch your butt there, you can be arrested for anything and never see the light of day, and that's without a war going on.

dgriego

until you start blowing up buildings with planes, chopping off heads,etc etc

And if these people are found to be guilty of those crimes, they should be prosecuted.

aerial1313

No one can overturn a decision of the Supreme Court except the Supreme Court themselves.  You can't appeal a Supreme Court decision. 

I've seen Bush do things that "no one could do".  

aerial1313

I'm sorry, I do not believe most of these people are "innocents."  Khalid Sheik Muhammad is not an innocent. 

aerial1313

I don't understand, though, how people can be held there without being charged, so if someone can explain that, I'd appreciate it.

Spend an hour reading the Human Rights Watch

snownose

Yes, we are suspects, too....we are Americans and what happens to Americans, even civilian workers in those countries? Are they rounded up and detained.....heck no......instant torture and death occurs.

Is that a reason to lower our standards?  The height of personal responsibility and accountability is living to our own standards, regardless of the standards to which others choose to live.

snownose

and we are just handing over civilian rights to war suspects..

That's not true. I don't know why people think this has anything to do with military court or trials. Read about the Court's decision here.

The right of prisoners to challenge the legal basis of their detention, the centuries-old right known as habeas corpus, provides a basic check against the abuses inherent in unfettered executive power [...] “The Supreme Court decision has stripped Guantanamo of its reason for being: a law-free zone where prisoners can’t challenge their detention,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director at Human Rights Watch. “The ruling is not only a landmark victory for justice, it’s a big step toward establishing a smarter, more effective counterterrorism policy.” 

aerial1313

In 1950, the US Supreme Court heard a similar case (Johnson v Eisentrager), and ruled the exact opposite of yesterday's ruling about the right of non-US enemy combatants' right to habeas corpus in US courts. 

Totally different situation. Those were WAR CRIMINALS. Convicted of crimes. That's exactly why Bush made it possible to call these "detainees" "enemy combatants". Because war criminals on US soil get treated much better.

The prisoners had been convicted in China by an American military commission of violating laws of war, by engaging in, permitting or ordering continued military activity against the United States after surrender of Germany and before surrender of Japan.

I'm bowing out now. No hard feelings, but I'm proud of this decision and I don't wish to argue about it and continue to defend our country's decision to "do the right thing", for the first time in a long time. 

How exactly is a decision on the right to habeas corpus related to execution?  What are the names of the "enemy combatants" who are being held because there is clear and convincing evidence that they are the faceless executioners on those videos?  And if there WAS clear and convincing evidence, the habeas corpus motion would reveal that and THEREFORE the detention would be valid.  The issue is the holding without the presentation of charges or evidence to support those charges!

Justice Steven said it best in his dissent in Padilla:

"At stake in this case is nothing less than the essence of a free society. Even more important than the method of selecting the people's rulers and their successors is the character of the constraints imposed on the Executive by the rule of law. Unconstrained Executive detention for the purpose of investigating and preventing subversive activity is the hallmark of the Star Chamber.¹⁰ Access to counsel for the purpose of protecting the citizen from official mistakes and mistreatment is the hallmark of due process.

Executive detention of subversive citizens, like detention of enemy soldiers to keep them off the battlefield, may sometimes be justified to prevent persons from launching or becoming missiles of destruction. It may not, however, be justified by the naked interest in using unlawful procedures to extract information. Incommunicado detention for months on end is such a procedure. Whether the information so procured is more or less reliable than that acquired by more extreme forms of torture is of no consequence. For if this Nation is to remain true to the ideals symbolized by its flag, it must not wield the tools of tyrants even to resist an assault by the forces of tyranny."

 Do you even know what habeas corpus is or how it works?  You seem to imagine it's some special "ticket out" for KNOWN TERRORISTS. 

FourIsCompany

Totally different situation. Those were WAR CRIMINALS. Convicted of crimes. That's exactly why Bush made it possible to call these "detainees" "enemy combatants". Because war criminals on US soil get treated much better.

The prisoners had been convicted in China by an American military commission of violating laws of war, by engaging in, permitting or ordering continued military activity against the United States after surrender of Germany and before surrender of Japan.

Incorrect.  It does not matter that they had already been convicted, and as you state above, they were convicted by a US military commission in China.  That is exactly what the US government wishes to do today with the prisoners at Guantanamo, but the current Supreme Court says otherwise.  More importantly, here is why the two cases are, in fact, the same.  Excerpted from the decision:

"We hold that the Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or an immunity from military trial and punishment upon an alien enemy engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States."

BCMixs

What are the names of the "enemy combatants" who are being held because there is clear and convincing evidence that they are the faceless executioners on those videos

You can find this information online.  It is public information.

ETA:

BCMixs

 Do you even know what habeas corpus is or how it works?

Article One, Section 9 of the US Constitution: The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.

This was excerpted into the Constitution directly from English Common Law, BTW.  I believe the section in bold is what many people say excludes these detainees from this privilege.  Many arguments can be made that if these folks are given the ability to argue in court, they could be released and cause harm to US citizens.