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

Fox

[Thud]

Wrong planet.

[demlosers]

I say ignore the 9th court.

[oceanview]

a different court is releasing Padilla.

[TheBattman]

IMHO it is time for the SENATE to institute impeachment proceedings.

Never happen. Our Lovely Senate has proven time and time again that it doesn't even have the backbone of a squid.

[jimbo123]

Even Castro is going to be upset by this ruling. The court took away Gitmo from him and gave it to the U.S. Can we stop paying rent now?

[Leatherneck_MT]

Good place to put 'em. They wouldn't last 3 days up here before becoming Bear Scat.

We'd make DAMN sure of that.

[MEG33]

The full court may meet and overrule..there are more than 3 judges on the 9tth circuit.

[Dog Gone]

It wouldn't surprise me if this is reversed en banc just like their most recent crazy decision. I can't imagine that this new ruling will be popular, even in California.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Never happen. Our Lovely Senate has proven time and time again that it doesn't even have the backbone of a squid.

And the fact that it's not up to the Senate. US Const., Art. I, Sec. 2, Cl. 5.

[demlosers]

Court ruled Gitmo is US territory, not Cuban.

These guys have got to go!

[TheBattman]

Exactly what authority does the 9th Circuit have over the case of terrorist "enemy combatants?

Which brings up the question - when did it become "normal" for people with a "cause" to shop around their case to find a friendly court? I thought our court systems were suppose to be organized so that each has it's own jurisdiction geographically and as to the types of cases it is responsible for.

[b4its2late]

This court is wacko.

BTW, you're posting a bunch stories today.... You must be on vacation or something, right?

[Thud]

Correct, and I put up a duplicate thread on the 2nd Circuit ruling, just after Dog's first. But 9th Circuit opinions aren't worth the paper they're printed on. I've lived in California all my life, went to law school here, etc., and nothing the 9th Circuit says can surprise me anymore. It's just useless.

[alancarp]

I've got to question the timing of this decision, being released the same week that the United States announced the capture of Saddam Hussein. It sounds like it could easily be a political move on the part of these Judges in an attempt to embarrass the Bush Administration, and to take scrutiny away from the recently publicized in-fighting amongst the Democratic candidates for President.

There has certainly been good solid news reported lately in both the economy and with the war on terrorrism, and I believe this may well be an attempt from the Left to squelch those headlines for the purposes of political gain.

Besides, I'm sure these Judges are angry at the Military for showing those embarrassing and degrading photos of the former Iraqi President. The International Community hasn't come down hard enough on the US for this atrocity, and so the Ninth Circuit is doing its part.

[Redbob]

Once again, I'm guessing this is from the 9th Circus.

[BushisTheMan]

Declare war Bush! One way to keep these ______ away from the judges that will set them free to kill again. It's bad enough they let repeat sex offenders out, now the courts are letting out terrorists.

[alancarp]

(wink)

[only1percent]

It is this view, in fact, which the majority of the court purports to reject. It holds that the lease and treaty effectively transfered substantive sovereignty to the U.S. with Cuba retaining a "reversionary" sovereign right -- i.e., Cuba's sole right is the right to resume sovereignty when the U.S. relinquishes occupancy, but in the mean time the U.S. is effectively sovereign. I'm not persuaded of that, although I do think the majority does a good job distinguishing Gitmo from the U.S. Army prison in Germany which was the location relevant to the Supreme Court case on which the government (and the dissenting judge) would rely.

GITMO does not qualify as US soil because the lease establishing the base in 1903 and re-established in 1934 upholds Cuban sovereignty of the land the base is on.

The US has neither Territorial Jurisdiction nor Sovereign Jurisdiction, we merely have 'Jurisdiction and Control'--in that we can exercise jurisdiction over crimes occuring ON that land and restrict access to that land.

Now take that tablecloth off your head...

[ellery]

The Padilla ruling, I understand. But how the h*ll do Us courts even claim jurisdiction over foreign citizens being held outside the country??? Their treatment should be solely determined by existing US treaties and agreements between our government and those of the detainees'. Grrrrr.

[demlosers]

God help us! You can bet that SCOTUS will use it to take away another right from us.

It depends what that turn-coat O'connor is thinking.