Former military officials, European leaders side with (Gitmo) detainees on access to U.S. courts
AP on San Diego Union-Tribune ^ | 8/24/07 | Pete Yost - ap
Posted on 08/24/2007 6:22:32 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON – Twenty retired federal judges, two rear admirals and a Marine general joined 383 current or former members of the European and British parliaments on Friday in urging the Supreme Court to grant detainees at Guantanamo Bay full access to the U.S. court system.
First of all, it doesn't amount to a hill of Molly's muffins what 383 idiots from Europe think. The very idea they would try to hold sway over our Supreme Court is nothing less than insulting. Europe seems destined to turn it's dimmest bulbs loose every so often. When it does, the Marxists go on a rant, we use the paper for the appropiate task, and wait for the next afterbirth to stink up the place.
As for the twenty retired judges, I'm sure Jimma and Bill know them intimately enough that I'm left wondering just how many of them used to embarass themselves and the nation from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Strike them. Now we're down to two "rear" admirals and a Marine General. It's my take that even rear admirals and the Marine General are entitled to make a horible mistake once in a while. Make no mistake about it, this is one whopper!
Lower court rulings supporting the Bush administration's opposition to full court access “were seized upon by repressive governments as a license to incarcerate their own citizens and others with impunity,” 25 retired American diplomats wrote in one court filing.
Let's face it, one of the worst problems with our foreign policy is the State Department. I can't say that every diplomat is an idiot, but there certainly are enough of them around at times like these to do their best to destroy what our President is trying to do. If the court sided with Bush, then his policy stands on farily firm ground to this point. Why should I side with 25 retired wanna-bes?
In June, the Supreme Court agreed to take the detainees' case, reversing a decision in April not to hear arguments over whether the prisoners can use federal courts to challenge their confinement. Court filings by the Bush administration in the case are due on Oct. 9.
And that is as it should be. The court will review and we will wait for it's decision. It would be difficult for me to imagine that the court would demand full court hearings for these detainees prior to the end of the hostilities in Iraq. Let's be clear here, those detainees could go home in a couple of months if their fellow terrorists would capitulate. End the hostilities and put up the white flag. Promise to live in peace and you'll have your fellow ex-terrorists back home lickety split. It is unfortunate, but the Gitmo detainees made the decison to back the wrong horse. It may be decades before the idiots who talked them into terrorism, are killed or mend their ways. That's something they should have considered before taking actions that would cost their freedom.
The 383 European politicians of divergent political views said it is important that even when faced with the threat of international terrorism, all states, including the United States, comply with the standards set by international humanitarian law and human rights law by granting full court access.
No prisoners of war ever get full court access. Period! This is a smoke and mirrors attempt to front for the terrorists. It's feeble minded and dangerous. A full court hearing cannot be held because methods and tactics would be divulged. This is a very simple concept. It's a concept simple enough that government officals should be able to understand, even if they are from Europe. But let's be clear here, these are "politicians", not government officials. There is a difference and the wording of this is couched in such a manner as to convince anyone not paying attention, that these are or were office holders. Well, that isn't the case. Moslem advocacy groups are filled with political figures. These 'political' figures have no standing with me. They are unnamed. Their organizations are not name. Their alliances are not named. The organization goals are not named. This is deceptive fluff.
“The treatment of petitioners currently falls short of these standards,” the European diplomats said.
Let's rephrase this. The petitioners (being terrorists, the supporters of terrorists, people intent on carrying out terrorism, or simply caught with terrorists in the heat of battle) don't think they're being treated fairly. Well boo f'n hoo. They want to subvert our judicial system to further their cause. That my friends is simply one more tactic of terrorism. Attack the enemy and use the enemies tools to defeat him. We should have no part of it. Further we should be taking names and writing them down. Anyone who falls for this sheist should be barred from any contact with our future government negotions and dealings. Diplomats my ---....
Currently, the 355 detainees have only narrowly structured appeal rights. They are entitled to a single civilian court review of their status as enemy combatants, a designation made by three-member military panels. The detainees have no legal counsel before the military panels, which rely largely on classified information that the detainees are not allowed to see.
Even during wars when both sides play by the rules, prisoners of war are not given an out. They are detained until hostilities are over. They are not given their freedom so they can rejoin the battle and kill more of the opposing side's troops. Of course these detainees are not given access to classified information. Duh! Imagine the havok it would crate if detainees could see all clasified information that pertained to their case. They would gain a wealth of information to pass along. Then if the above idiots had their way, they'd be given their freedom to boot. Honestly, what planet do these simpletons come from?
The panels, called Combatant Status Review Tribunals, have been tainted by the permissible use of evidence obtained by torture, said a court filing by two former Navy judge advocates general and the former senior legal adviser for the Marine Corps.
I don't know the specifics of the case which resulted in this JAG crew making this finding. I am reminded that the panties on the heads of the poor prisoner (victims) in Iraq, was also found to be unacceptable torture. (at least that was the pseudo-conclusion foisted off on the U.S. Citizens by the media) IMO, these detainees are being treated fairly at Gitmo. The facilities are sparse, but then they get their Koran and a compas. That's more than I'd be giving them.
“If the United States holds prisoners indefinitely – potentially lifetime imprisonment – based on sham CSRT proceedings and without providing meaningful judicial review of their imprisonment, enemies in current or future conflicts may use that as an excuse to mete out similar treatment to captured American military forces,” said the three.
Of all the ignorant and thoughtless comments to make, would these by any chance be three people old enough to have remained silent while our men were held captive in Vietnam? Indefinately?
Just what hearings did those men get? Oh yes, I forgot. Jane came by to give them the one finger salute. As I understand it, those are guaranteed to produce a few broken bones.
Our nation is one of the most longsuffering nations the world has ever know. We pull nation's bacon out of the fire, not once, not twice, but three or more times, and the thankless bastards always stand first in line the next time our enemies gather to curse us. These three can pack my reply where the sun doesn't shine.
They are Brig. Gen. David M. Brahms, the senior legal advisor for the Marine Corps from 1985-88; Rear Adm. Donald J. Guter the Navy's judge advocate general from 2000 to 2002; and Rear Adm. John D. Hutson, the Navy's judge advocate general from 1997 to 2000.
The 20 retired federal judges, both Republicans and Democrats, said the stringent review procedure “corrupts the judicial function” because it does not provide for fact-finding into whether statements were obtained by torture. “The English common law and our nation's fundamental traditions condemn judicial reliance upon statements extracted by torture or other impermissible coercion,” the retired judges' brief stated. “There are substantial allegations, however, that Combatant Status Review Tribunal panels have relied on such statements.” Not you Norm... Heh heh heh...
I don't care who these individuals are, if they cannot grasp the concept of 'prisoner of war status' and what it implies, then I have no use for them. We did NOT force the Gitmo detainees to oppose us on the battlefield. We did NOt force them to fall in with people who want to see the 'useful idiots' on this thread, mutilated. If these folks haven't the brainpower to understand these concepts, and can't get out of their own way, then just get out of mine. We're at war and I'm not going to wait and see how this thing turns out. I'm going to advocate that we go full out to win. And if we hurt a few feelings along the way, the offended people will live.
On the other hand, if we submit to insanity, we are insane and many of our people will die.
I say no to open trials. Get it?
Well said!
Also, giving them enemy ‘prisoner of war status’ is very generous. They could be executed as enemy spies since they don’t wear a uniform.