Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

(3-judge panel, 9th Circuit) Rules ALL GITMO detainees must have access to an attorney
Fox

Posted on 12/18/2003 11:46:39 AM PST by Dog

AP via Fox news alert..

Lord help us from the judges..


TOPICS: Breaking News
KEYWORDS: 9thcircuit; courts; detainees; gitmo; jihadinamerica; judges; oligarchy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-323 next last
To: theDentist
Wait now, I thought these guys were under Military arrest.

If we had stored them on non-United States land, Guantanamo is a US reservation, they would have had no rights. However, since they are on United states soil, and thanks to some liberal judge years ago, it was determined that people have certain inaliable (pardon the spelling) rights when they get on US soil. Just like illegal aliens making it to US soil and having rights. If they had been stored in, say, Turkey, the 9th circuit would not have had jurisdiction. I'm not happy about it, but this is their outlook.

Merry Christmas
251 posted on 12/18/2003 4:35:30 PM PST by Redwood71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Dog
As part of the War on Terror and in order to save our Republic we need to impeach and remove judges.
252 posted on 12/18/2003 4:43:57 PM PST by af_vet_1981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lepton
I read the opinion and the dissent. I am not an attorney so I really don't know the laws involved. But after you get passed all their arguments about what the definition of "is" is in order to conclude that Gitmo is sovereign US territory, they seem to be arguing the principle that there should be / are no circumstances under which the US Govt can detain people indefinitely without due process.

Okay. On an emotional level I can see that principle. But ... these people are illegal combatants and its my understanding that we may have had the legal right, under international treaty and US laws of war, to summarily execute them without ever taking them prisoner. The concept of legal due process for people making illegal war against us seems absurd to me.

The principle they argue seems to hold that if they had landed a 10,000 strong army in southern California and commenced military operations against us, all while wearing civilian clothes and not acting under the command of a state army, that each and every one of them would be entitled to protections under our courts and could hire lawyers to argue that they were just innocent bystanding illegal aliens awaiting their new CA drivers licenses and matricula cards. All because they happened to be on US soil.

Would we actually have to provide due process for invaders? Is there no body of law or international treaty that prevents detained combatants from using the very protections they are fighting against to further their cause?

I can see an absolute requirement that US citizens taken into custody in the US have an unquestioned right to due process. I can see that no government should have the right to conduct rifle shot abductions on foreign soil. But with regards to combatants in a war zone I just can't believe there is no law allowing us to detain people for military purposes as the military sees fit.
253 posted on 12/18/2003 5:34:15 PM PST by cdrw (Freedom and responsibility are inseparable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: Redwood71
Yes but there outlook is incorrect. The treaty between the US and Cuba specifically states:

The Guantanamo Lease
(i) The Lease Recognizes the "Continuance of Ultimate Sovereignty" by Cuba Over Guantanamo.

The majority concluded "that, at least for habeas purposes, Guantanamo is a part of the sovereign territory of the United States."

Which implies that for the Ninth Circuits political purpose GITMO is not sovereign under Cuba but for all other purposes it is.

Lunacy.

254 posted on 12/18/2003 5:41:53 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: chookter
Hey - I'd been told long before this ruling that Gitmo was US soil. I was misinformed.

I fail to see how, if there is a lease that states Cuba retains sovereignty over the leased land, any US Court other than a military tribunal can assert jurisdiction over anyone on Gitmo.

And no, I'm not reading the opinion. The only sense I've ever seen that came out of the Ninth Circus is the dissent in Locklear when the Court refused the request for an en banc review.

255 posted on 12/18/2003 6:36:36 PM PST by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
AS much as I'd love for that to work, the sovereignty of the land is based upon the same type of lease the feds use for land many times inside the conus. It is considered a reservation rather than a territory or a homestead. This is how the real owners can retake the land upon forfeiture of the lease but remain corporate to its use during US Federal occupation. It also creates a very cheap settlement on buildings or installed property the Feds have to sacrifice depending upon the terms of the lease and whether they adhered to it. You're so right, lunacy.
256 posted on 12/18/2003 6:50:56 PM PST by Redwood71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
when Islam surrenders, they can go home.
257 posted on 12/18/2003 6:56:35 PM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Dog
Aside from the merits of this ruling...this same matter is already being reviewed by the Supreme Court. It is ridiculous that the 9th Circuit would issue a ruling. These people not only issue embarrassing rulings, but they also act unprofessionally.
258 posted on 12/18/2003 7:08:48 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: microgood
Well, it is a non-ruling, and a disrespectful one to the Supreme Court which is already reviewing the matter of the Gitmo detainees.

It's nutty the 9th Circuit would make a ruling with the Supreme Court already having the matter under review.
259 posted on 12/18/2003 7:15:28 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
I think the people who live outside the 9th Circuit should get together and file suit against them. They are undercutting America at every turn, writing laws instead of interpreting laws, and now they are endangering the American people.

I also think we all need to get together and have the 9th Circuit broken up. I'd be perfectly happy if their jurisdiction was restricted to San Francisco and a new circuit could be established to cover the rest.

260 posted on 12/18/2003 7:15:36 PM PST by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: Dog
Tammy Bruce was on Larry Elder today talking about this. She says the Judge who wrote this ruling (Reinhart?) is married to the President of the Los Angeles Chapter of the ACLU.

Isn't that sweet?
261 posted on 12/18/2003 7:21:43 PM PST by cgk (Kraut, 1989: We must brace ourselves for disquisitions on peer pressure, adolescent anomie & rage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grut
Correct...however, the 9th Circuit Court doesn't have jurisidiction because Cuba is not part of the 9th Circuit. They had absolutely no business issuing any ruling on this or even hearing the case.

The D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court would have jurisdiction to rule on this matter...and in fact are reviewing the cases, another reason why it was assinine for the 9th to be getting involved.
262 posted on 12/18/2003 7:25:35 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: cdrw
I also have read the opinion and the dissent and believe that there is little question that the Supreme Court will take up this appeal, as they are already considering the very question themselves.

I believe that this decision of the 9th is a tempest in a teapot. Nothing is going to come of it. The decision was a waste of taxpayer time, trees for the paper and bandwidth.

263 posted on 12/18/2003 7:28:38 PM PST by Lawgvr1955 (Sic Semper Tyrannus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Well, they've already taken care of that, see. They ruled last week that one has a First Amendment right to assist terrorist organizations.
264 posted on 12/18/2003 7:31:31 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Dog
Where does the 9th Circuit get its authority to rule on the status of prisoners that are in Cuba? These are not residents of any of the states within the 9th Circuit and they are not being detained within the 9th circuit.

Because they are outside of the united states, only the Supreme Court would have jurisdiction to hear arguments in this case or to accept a writ.

the 9th is out of control. We need to get congress to impeach every one of them.

265 posted on 12/18/2003 7:39:42 PM PST by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
They are not POWs.They are illegal combatants.
We are properly exercising our options as to treatment of illegal combatants by interring them at GITMO, and processing them by military standards IAW the Geneva conventions.
We would also be properly exercising our legal options if we conducted military tribunals and executed the lot of them.
I dont understand why many people (not just you) fail to grasp or stubbornly ignore this simple fact.
266 posted on 12/18/2003 8:21:41 PM PST by sarasmom (Message to the DOD : Very good , troops.Carry on. IN MY NAME)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Dog
The morons from California have spoken. IMO, the sooner they die of horrible diseases the better for the country.
267 posted on 12/18/2003 9:26:15 PM PST by Mad_Tom_Rackham ("...the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
I guess they ment COURT and I need to invest in glasses...

And we need to invest in guns'n'ammo. When the firestorm starts, these bastards will be the first to be eliminated.

268 posted on 12/18/2003 9:32:07 PM PST by Mad_Tom_Rackham ("...the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Dog
Anyway we can send these judges to Gitmo instead?
269 posted on 12/18/2003 9:34:16 PM PST by Sparta (Tommy Dasshole on Saddam's capture: "I'm deeply saddened")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog
Hoping to hear this being appealed in the near future.
270 posted on 12/18/2003 11:27:42 PM PST by k2blader (Jesus: Liar, Lunatic, or Lord?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #271 Removed by Moderator

Comment #272 Removed by Moderator

Comment #273 Removed by Moderator

To: Dog
The Ninth Circus does it again. Can you imagine the impact of this ruling during World War II? We would have needed a draft just to get enough lawyers to tell the POWs, "You have the right to remain silent."
274 posted on 12/19/2003 4:09:50 AM PST by JoeGar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
I don't know how I feel on this. I don't like the whole "enemy combatents" thing given that there IS NO CLEARLY DEFINED ENEMY! When is the war on terror going to be over? Never. When will they be released? Never. Are they all guilty? I doubt that. This issue needs to be discussed and not just accepted.
275 posted on 12/19/2003 4:12:50 AM PST by Clock King
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

Comment #276 Removed by Moderator

To: Clock King
You're Wrong Clock King. US federal courts do not have jurisdiction of US military prisioners whether they are POWs, terrorists or foriegn combatants. They do not even have jurisdiction over US soldiers; that's why we have the UCMJ. The only civil authority over the US military is the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense.

9th Circuit Court = Traitors!
277 posted on 12/19/2003 5:16:34 AM PST by Bad Dog2 (Bad Dog - No Biscuit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: templar
"They are not unaccountable. They can be impeached."

But only for criminal actions. They cannot be impeached for misinterpreting, misapplying, or ignoring the Constitution (although they should be). They can be impeached for malfeasance in office, which, for a federal judge, is almost impossible to prosecute, since they have such broad protections. Nope, I'm afraid we are on the cusp of a judicial dictatorship.
278 posted on 12/19/2003 5:37:58 AM PST by ought-six
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: ought-six
The constitutional amendment proposed by Robert Bork would be interesting, namely that a supermajority of both houses of Congress may vote to overturn any Federal court ruling. Get a few stink rulings like this, and such an amendment will sail through.
279 posted on 12/19/2003 5:42:51 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: angkor
"Many people believe we are in a state of declared war, which we are not."

And, many people, such as yourself continue to believe the fiction that we are not in a state of war. If you dispute the fact that we are not in a state of war, please provide the Constitutional references that support your position.
280 posted on 12/19/2003 6:21:20 AM PST by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke
I guess I don't understand the distinction you're making.

A state of war exists only under a Declaration Of War from Congress.

There's been no such Declaration.

If there's some other statute, law, or provision that defines this thing called "state of war," please cite it and I'll stand corrected.

281 posted on 12/19/2003 6:37:44 AM PST by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Abundy
I fail to see how, if there is a lease that states Cuba retains sovereignty over the leased land, any US Court other than a military tribunal can assert jurisdiction over anyone on Gitmo.

Precisely.

282 posted on 12/19/2003 8:33:46 AM PST by Cogadh na Sith (The Guns of Brixton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Dog
9th Circuit the Left wing court. Here is an idea..if this stands..I say release these guys march them out the gate at GITMO and let Castro deal with them. I rather let them go than have their left wing lawyer use their trials as a soap box to run down the US
283 posted on 12/19/2003 8:39:02 AM PST by FlatLandBeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: republicanwizard
bump to your post 18!
284 posted on 12/19/2003 8:41:40 AM PST by votelife (Elect a Filibuster Proof Majority)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Redwood71
The Ninth Jercut Court needs to be disbanded and it's members jailed, at least until the war is over.
285 posted on 12/19/2003 9:32:52 AM PST by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: angkor
If you refuse to realize that we are at war, why don't you move your sorry ass to France or Germany.
286 posted on 12/19/2003 9:35:47 AM PST by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: Dog
Time for Bush to imitate Lincoln.....
287 posted on 12/19/2003 9:37:17 AM PST by Dan from Michigan ("if you wanna run cool, you got to run, on heavy heavy fuel" - Dire Straits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog
Isn't this the same 9th Circus Court that makes all the other nutty decisions we've heard lately. Like the Texas sodomy case.
288 posted on 12/19/2003 10:09:00 AM PST by GigaDittos (Bumper sticker: "Vote Democrat, it's easier than getting a job.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: angkor
A state of war exists only under a Declaration Of War from Congress.

There's been no such Declaration.

It is longstanding precedent that a Declaration of War by the U.S. is only neccessary for the making of war when we have not yet been attacked, nor has war been declared against us. The Founding Fathers noted this in the incidences with the Barbary Pirates. A full declaration of war by our Congress results in many, many laws which severely abridge freedoms to go into effect - and so the Congress did a half-measure, by authorizing and funding a war.

289 posted on 12/19/2003 10:41:10 AM PST by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: lepton
a Declaration of War by the U.S. is only neccessary for the making of war when we have not yet been attacked,

Interesting statement. Then why did Congress enact the War Powers Resolution in 1973?

Anyway, you're not clearly reading these posts.

I'm saying that there is no legal definition for anything called "a state of war," and certainly there is no actual "state of war" without a formal Declaration Of War from Congress.

Authorizations Of Force are not Declarations Of War, and you guys know it. Stop pretending they're the same thing, they are most certainly not.

290 posted on 12/19/2003 11:48:23 AM PST by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: ohioman
If you refuse to realize that we are at war

Hey, why don't you just cut the BS, OK? Let's see if you're bright enough to follow:

You know that only Congress can declare war. Yes?

You also know that Congress has not declared war. Correct?

Then you also know that we are not at war in the technical and legal sense mandated by the Constitution.

Get it?

291 posted on 12/19/2003 12:29:57 PM PST by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: angkor
Regardless, we are at war and you know it.
292 posted on 12/19/2003 1:01:18 PM PST by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: ohioman
we are at war and you know it.

Oh, you mean slicing and dicing jihadis? Of course. Don't be silly.

But I also believe that 9/11 warranted a formal Congressional Declaration Of War against al Qaeda and all other groups we deem as terrorists. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents it, while the "war on terror" is both lame and imprecise.

It is a war against identifiable Islamist groups and their supporters, and the sooner we name them, formally Declare War on them, and kill them, the better.

293 posted on 12/19/2003 1:14:48 PM PST by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: angkor
I can agree with you on one point, we need to formally Declare War on them, and kill them. However, all those against our current war effort (especially the 9th Circle of Jerks) are nothing more than the Enemy Within.
294 posted on 12/19/2003 1:27:36 PM PST by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: angkor
Authorizations Of Force are not Declarations Of War, and you guys know it.

Then what are they? They are not identical, but with the exception of not invoking broad DOMESTIC powers - such as triggering about 150 emergency provisions in the law, such as the right to impose censorship, to expedite licensing for nuclear facilities, and to control communications - the authorization is effectively the same.

Interesting statement. Then why did Congress enact the War Powers Resolution in 1973?

Because they felt like it. BTW, no later President has ever acknowledged the authority of that Act. They have always been very clear to abide by it as an official courtesy rather than legal obligation. Its Constitutionality is questionable - though all that is aside from the previous point.

Hamilton wrote that war "between two nations is completely produced by the act of one -it requires no concurrent act of the other. . . [W]hen a foreign nation declares, or openly and avowedly makes war upon the United States, they are then by the very fact, already at war, and any declaration on the part of Congress is nugatory: it is at least unnecessary."

Thomas Jefferson noted similarly while he was President.

295 posted on 12/19/2003 1:32:18 PM PST by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: angkor
The Sept. 14, 2001 congressional resolution states: "The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

That's pretty clearly a limited Declaration of War - limited to external force and procedures, and which denies authorization for "triggered" domestic powers over U.S. citizens.

296 posted on 12/19/2003 1:44:26 PM PST by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: ought-six
They can be impeached for malfeasance in office, which, for a federal judge, is almost impossible to prosecute, since they have such broad protections.

True, but are we sure about this with Reinhardt? He generally is considered to be a "bully," as well as the most liberal appellate judge in the country, or at least the most activist in his beliefs. His opinion makes clear that he does not HAVE to issue it, since the SC will be taking up the other Guantanamo cases. I clerked on a federal court of appeals and we would almost always have waited when a parallel case is before the SC; anything else is completely wasteful, since you'll probably have to write a new decision when they rule. So besides being totally wrong on merits, the timing of the opinion is strange.

Except that ... Reinhardt's wife is Ramona Ripston, the head of the LA ACLU. Reinhardt says he is issuing the opinion to "help" the SC with its cases -- indicating that he recognizes issuing the opinion is DISCRETIONARY. But won't the ACLU file an amicus brief on behalf of the Guantanamo prisoners? Won't it be able to cite Reinhardt now? If it does, Reinhardt's decision (which is indefensible on the merits) appears to me to better explained as an attempt to influence the SC cases in which his wife has an arguable institutional interest than as an independent resolution of the California case.

Consequently, Reinhardt has an apparent conflict of interest and his actions create the appearance of impropriety, bringing into question the integrity and independence of the judiciary (i.e. a violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics). This is grounds for impeachment, but it has to wait until the ACLU files its brief. I realize the impeachment would probably be unsuccessful, and even if successful, the Senate would not convict, but I disagree that he has not made himself potentially eligible for the procedure. And no, I am not Larry Klayman.

297 posted on 12/19/2003 2:09:12 PM PST by Turin_Turambar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: lepton
I think you're aware that the debate we're having has been going on for 200+ years.

You think the Authorization is sufficient. I do not. That's all, fini.

298 posted on 12/19/2003 2:09:55 PM PST by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: Dog
I'm ok with this, just as long as they all get this guy:

http://www.rateitall.com/showimg.asp?k=2D716DDD-804B-4DAE-B8F8-6ABC02218955-0

299 posted on 12/19/2003 2:11:57 PM PST by ChicagoHebrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: angkor
"A state of war exists only under a Declaration Of War from Congress."

The Constitution gives the Congress the power to declare war. It does not stipulate the method. It does not, for example, say: Congress shall pass a "Declaration of War".

"If there's some other statute, law, or provision that defines this thing called "state of war," please cite it and I'll stand corrected."

A state of war exists whenever a country chooses to use military force to achieve it's objectives. A "Declaration of War" is not a necessary condition. For example, do you doubt that a "state of war" existed between the US and Japan, the instant the first Japanese aircraft released the first bomb over Pearl Harbor? Was this prior to the passage of a "Declaration of War"?

Just cite the portion of the Constitution that states the Congress "shall" pass a declaration of war in order for a state of war to exist.

BTW, this was resolved by the US Supreme Court in the early 1800's. Even these dodo judges admit as much in their opinion. Did you read it?
300 posted on 12/19/2003 2:42:59 PM PST by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-323 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson