Just Curious if anyone else is angry over this?

Wow, the thread is going far afield, but what the heck.  The problem with the military tribunals are 1) they are secret  2) there's no review/appeal process  3) the defendants either don't get representation or their lawyers aren't given the evidence because it's 'NATIONAL SECURITY'.  How are you supposed to defend yourself against something you can't see?  And 4) there are 2 processes for criminal law in this country the UCMJ - Uniform Code of Military Justice for those in the armed forces and for members of opposing armies in uniform (which terrorists aren't) and the criminal courts.  Bush didn't like either of these options because of pesky things like due process and the Geneva Convention so he wanted to create his uniquely own court where he makes his own rules.  Uhm, no, that's really not okay Georgie boy.

I suppose those who oppose this ruling and support these indefinite detentions also felt that the interment of  Japanese citizens during WWII because of Pearl Harbor was okay as well.

You know, even the *** got trials.  Jus sayin'   

It may or may not have been Benjamin Franklin who said that "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

The core of America is our Constitution. When we blatantly disregard it, we harm America just as surely if we were dropping bombs.  

I am willing to live with the notion of innocent until proven guilty, and with the notion that you cannot indefinitely hold a person without charge. It doesn't matter if that person killed my mother, my husband, or my child. I am serious, and not speaking lightly. Without laws and judicial processes, what do we have? 

aerial1313

Then what are we debating about?  That is at the very heart of this ruling.

I think there's a misunderstanding here about this ruling. It's not about how the detainees are tried or IF they are tried. It simply says that these people who have been held in limbo since the beginning, can say, "What am I being held for? Either charge me with a crime or let me go."

Some History

While this ruling grants the handful of prisoners who have already been charged and are being tried under military commissions little immediate assistance, the vast majority of prisoners at Gitmo -- some 270 men -- now have the right to have their attorneys bring forth habeas appeals to Washington. The burden of proof will be on the government to establish that there is a legal and factual basis for the suspects' detention.

Bear with me for a second. I know the detainees aren't US citizens, but I'm going to use you as an example.  You're walking down the street one day, going to your car and a cop comes up to you and says, "You're under arrest," and puts you in handcuffs and takes you to the jail and puts you in jail. For 4 years, you are not allowed to have a lawyer, make a phone call or even know why they they picked you up or what you are being charged with. No Miranda rights, nothing. They just take you off the street and incarcerate you.

That's what happened to many of these detainees. Some were gathered up by other countries and "sold" to the US in exchange for money. They knew the US was looking for "Arabs" so they rounded some up and sold them to us. And our government paid for them. Some were "captured" by the US military. The vast majority were innocent people. And now, 270 of the ones left, who haven't been charged, but just held in limbo are going to be able to demand, by law, that they be charged with a crime or released.  

Is that how you understand the ruling?  

Dog_ma

 Without laws and judicial processes, what do we have? 

Anarchy ... total chaos ... I doubt that would be an improvement.

Joyce

And, after all this discussion, I find that I am not opposed to allowing detainees to challenge their detention. Let them challenge and let the govt prove enough of the allegation to support detainment. Or, let them go and find out the real information. If they are innocent, fine. If they turn up in another terrorist cell or turn out to be a terrorist after all, treat them as an enemy in war. You just can't beat a .308 for durability and accuracy. Optimum range is up to 600 yards but you can make it farther by adjusting the scope.

So, I agree, we are wasting time with indefinite detainment. They would have more rights as war criminals. Or more humanely dispatched as enemies of the state. I agree that allowing them to challenge their detainment returns us to the America that we want, land of due process. While we are at it, do away with the Patriot Act. It won't stop the govt from covert surveillance (they've been doing it all along, the Act just gives it a veneer of legitimacy) but at least it allows us our rights to challenge.

I don't know if it will help but our next president will be Democrat. Not because Clinton or Obama are particularly hot stuff but because the Republicans don't have a strong enough candidate and many, including some Republicans, are dissatisfied with Bush and haven't found another Republican that can undo some of what has been done.

And I know I am beating a dead horse but you can combat terrorism much easier if we quit buying from OPEC. Basically, let the "suspects" go back to their countries and then pull out the financing. Money talks, youknowwhat walks.

BCMixs

Wow, the thread is going far afield, but what the heck.  The problem with the military tribunals are 1) they are secret  2) there's no review/appeal process  3) the defendants either don't get representation or their lawyers aren't given the evidence because it's 'NATIONAL SECURITY'.  How are you supposed to defend yourself against something you can't see? 

Yeah, when I made my earlier post I didn't know anything about how military courts work, so I did some reading. I figured A trial would be better than NO trial, which is what's happening now, but when I found out that they are secret, along with the other concerns you mentioned, I agree with you.

We have a right to know what our elected officials and those they've appointed are doing in our name, as citizens of this country. We need more transparency, not less.

chelsea_b

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

 I do not think I said anything to imply that I believe we should cut off their heads.

 For clarification, in my earlier post, I said even the blanks got trials but no matter how I change it, it blocks me, so the people I was referring to were those people of German descent who wore a particular red white and black symbol, lead by Hitler (it'll probably block his name too!) and responsible for the Holocaust.  See if that gets through. 

Cassidys Mom

BCMixs

Wow, the thread is going far afield, but what the heck.  The problem with the military tribunals are 1) they are secret  2) there's no review/appeal process  3) the defendants either don't get representation or their lawyers aren't given the evidence because it's 'NATIONAL SECURITY'.  How are you supposed to defend yourself against something you can't see? 

 

Yeah, when I made my earlier post I didn't know anything about how military courts work, so I did some reading. I figured A trial would be better than NO trial, which is what's happening now, but when I found out that they are secret, along with the other concerns you mentioned, I agree with you.

We have a right to know what our elected officials and those they've appointed are doing in our name, as citizens of this country. We need more transparency, not less.

Unfortunately (for my brain!) I just spent an entire semester on this stuff and had to write 5 LONG papers addressing these very issues.  How to deal with terrorists is a very difficult task because of the things that have been mentioned in this thread, they're not uniformed armed forces so we can't classify them as POWs, they operate in small independent cells, so you can't get them with alot of "traditional" laws aimed at criminal activity.  There are several authors who feel that a new system does need to be developed that addresses the unique threat of terrorism because of this gap between the military judicial powers and the civilian criminal laws.  The problem is that the current administration prefers that new system be left completely in their hands and not subject to any type of judicial review or any transparency.

With regard to the current topic at hand, habeas corpus, a really good coverage of the topic is found in Justice Rehnquist's "All the Laws but One".  I don't agree with his position in the book, but he gives a good coverage of past instances when Presidents have suspended the writ, such as Lincoln, Truman and Clinton. 

BCMixs

The problem is that the current administration prefers that new system be left completely in their hands and not subject to any type of judicial review or any transparency.

chelsea_b

THANK GOD we actually, for one moment in time, are proving ourselves "good guys", because I don't know about anyone else, but for a good part of the past 7 years I've been doubtful that there ARE any 'good guys' in this war!

Just because you don't agree with the war there is no reason to disparage the troops that are over there doing their job.  My step brother is a special forces officer who is going BACK, by his own choice, in a few months regardless of the fact that he just recently recovered from a nasty injury he suffered during combat last year.

Please keep in mind that that some of those people whose "goodness" you are doubting are the brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, cousins, spouses, nieces, nephews, friends and in some cases parents of many of the people posting on here.

These GOOD GUYS that you are so doubtful that exist are over their risking life and limb daily so that you can sit in your comfy home, play on the internet, and not have to be sent over there to fight......

sillysally

chelsea_b

THANK GOD we actually, for one moment in time, are proving ourselves "good guys", because I don't know about anyone else, but for a good part of the past 7 years I've been doubtful that there ARE any 'good guys' in this war!

 

Just because you don't agree with the war there is no reason to disparage the troops that are over there doing their job.  My step brother is a special forces officer who is going BACK, by his own choice, in a few months regardless of the fact that he just recently recovered from a nasty injury he suffered during combat last year.

Please keep in mind that that some of those people whose "goodness" you are doubting are the brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, cousins, spouses, nieces, nephews, friends and in some cases parents of many of the people posting on here.

These GOOD GUYS that you are so doubtful that exist are over their risking life and limb daily so that you can sit in your comfy home, play on the internet, and not have to be sent over there to fight......

I totally agree with you on this one.......also, remember, Chelsea is a very young woman with not a whole lot of life experience as of yet, and apparently with no connection to the Armed Forces......I come from a military family, my father is retired Army and I have several members in the Armed Forces.......that alone gives me a little different outlook on the "No Good Guys" in this war.

I also feel if we didn't fight in the middle east we would be under attack in this country........

sillysally

Just because you don't agree with the war there is no reason to disparage the troops that are over there doing their job. 

I don't think anyone has said anything disparaging about the troops.  The troops go where they're sent and do the jobs  they're told to do and  they have everyone's support.  I'm pretty sure that any disparaging remarks were directed toward the vile and corrupt administration that sent them there in the first place.  Apples and oranges.

Joyce

 I pray that we do not soon read on the news of the death and destruction some of these detainees will accomplish once they are released because all we have is suspicions and not enough evidence for our "courts" to hold them.

 And you all speak of family, and how horrible it must be if an innocent family member is locked up like this. I wonder what you will say to me, or other American families when one of these “innocent” detainees caused the death of our loved one who is serving? I hope it never comes to that, but since it has already in the past one can assume it very well may in the future, and regardless of what you think of our government or their abuse of rights, I find it hard to believe that they are just picking these people off the streets because they look like terrorists. They have some reason that justifies their having them, and all though that may not be enough for the courts it was enough for the military or other agencies involved.

 And face it, if we had to fight a war based on the approval of our courts, we would be unable to fight our way out of a paper bag, let alone protect our nation from terrorists.

fuzzy_dogs_mom

sillysally

Just because you don't agree with the war there is no reason to disparage the troops that are over there doing their job. 

I don't think anyone has said anything disparaging about the troops.  The troops go where they're sent and do the jobs  they're told to do and  they have everyone's support.  I'm pretty sure that any disparaging remarks were directed toward the vile and corrupt administration that sent them there in the first place.  Apples and oranges.

Joyce