U.S. Supreme Court backs Guantánamo prisoners' right to appeal

International Herald Tribune ^ | June 12, 2008

[MartinStyles]

Didn’t Reagan approve some of these?

Was he a RINO? You can’t expect a conservative to be able to read the minds of a Souter.. Sometimes it just happens.

[AuntB]

The repercussions are mind boggling to think of.

[DoughtyOne]

I don't give Reagan a pass on this. Some of his appointments have been terrible. I'm sure Reagan didn't individually research these people himself, but ultimately he contributed to the problem, no doubt about it. His staff vetted them and gave Reagan direction. Reagan submitted from those selected for him. And that's the problem with allowing leftists to creep into your administration.

My problem isn't with the President completely. It isn't with the Senate completely. My problem is with a groups of people who take their job so casually as to let folks like Ginsberg slip through with only three votes to deny affirmation.

What the hell do we pay these folks to do in D.C.? They don't read the bills they back and sign. They don't vet the appointments. When the big issues come along they get them wrong. It's baffling how these folks get the job in the first place. Incompetence like this generally doesn't gain one prominence.

Look at Bush signing that damned campaign finance bill. "Aw the Supremes will sort it out." Just damn.

[BCR #226]

Wow, I can’t believe I’m seeing this stuff from freerepublic. The detainees at GTMO are not POW’s. Most of them were not taken in combat but were turned in as “terrorists” by people that know them. Does any of this sound familiar????????

Most of the detainees at GTMO have been put there on heresay evidence. I don’t care if they are terrorists or not, they deserve the right to a fair trial instead of internment without due process. SCOTUS ruled correctly here gang. They STOPPED what was fast becoming a slippery slope. Do you think that had SCOTUS not stepped in, some enterprising Senator or Congressman wouldn’t have fielded the notion to suspend habeas corpus for US citizens? DO WE EVEN WANT TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD????

Our Constitution has been under constant assault by both sides of the isle. It needs to stop and stop now. SCOTUS did the right thing in this case. Sadly, the Conservatives on the bench sided with the destruction of the Constitution in this instance which leaves me wondering if they will trample the 2nd Amendment with the Heller decision.

Mike

[MartinStyles]

I try not to get that worked up about it. This one really hurts. We shouldn’t be extending citizen rights to illegal combatants. It just disgusts me. If they also go against citizens by killing the 2nd, I dunno if I’ll really care wtf happens anymore. The powers that be will have effectively sent the country to its death at the point.

[DoughtyOne]

This is ignorance of the highest magnitude.

Today we give people who serve no flag, who kill indescriminantly, who break every norm known to man, rights. These people swore off human rights when they took up arms to kill innocents.

They have no rights whatsoever.

[wolfcreek]

Aside from the obvious national security issues that might be brought up in a US court, I was wondering what this decision could lead to concerning the rights of illegals.

If the court is willing to give our constitutional rights to terrorists, what's to stop them from giving them to criminal aliens?

[AuntB]

Just a sideline, yesterday the Oregon Supreme Court (IIRC..don’t think it was US) ruled that property owners on the Rogue River MUST allow anyone on the river access to their property, because it is ‘navigable’. How would you like a bunch of drunks partying on the beach and land you developed and care for in your front yard??

We are so headed in the wrong direction.

[So Cal Rocket]

So, they’ve given Constitutional rights to Unlawful Enemy Combatants...

Does this ruling extend to Enemy Combatants who have been given Prisoner of War status? I would think so, since why would an individual participating in a war “lawfully” have fewer rights than an individual who is participating in a war “unlawfully”?

This ruling has HUGE impact on the conduct of future wars.

[Miss Didi]

The Last Days of the United States

Outrage Over Supreme Court Decision

[bluerose]

Whorealdo and Megan Kelly just had it out. He of course is pleased.

[Eva]

I think that they already give constitutional rights to aliens, illegal or otherwise. The reason that the WOT prisoners are being given that right is ( I think) because they were not uniformed combatants. So, we now have to prove that they didn’t accidentally shoot at our military, or blow them up with an IED, and that they were given the same rights as we are when they captured them. Maybe we even have to stop and Mirandize them.

[AuntB]

“Aside from the obvious national security issues that might be brought up in a US court, I was wondering what this decision could lead to concerning the rights of illegals.

If the court is willing to give our constitutional rights to terrorists, what’s to stop them from giving them to criminal aliens? “

The courts have already done that with illegals...right to health care, free, right to education, free, right to sue in our courts, etc, etc. This decision will only embolden them.

[AuntB]

“So, we now have to prove that they didn’t accidentally shoot at our military, or blow them up with an IED, and that they were given the same rights as we are when they captured them. Maybe we even have to stop and Mirandize them.”

And the US taxpayer will pay for their lawyers. ugh! We need to get the lawyers out of government.

[Deut28]

So does that mean that the DC Circuit now has jurisdicion anywhere a person is in custody by US soldiers?

I haven’t had time to read the ruling, but it would seem they have stretched the jurisdictional boundaries of at least one Federal district to be the globe.

[athelass]

This is why wars are fought by soldiers, sailors, airmen, guardsmen, and Marines. Not lawyers. Meghan Kelly just had a knock down drag out with Geraldo over this (guess which side The Stache was on). She said, “They could have been killed on the battlefield.” Good idea. Somebody get right on that. Meanwhile, now I can get behind John McCain’s insistence that we close Gitmo, as long as we send them all back to the Iraqis. They don’t give habeus corpus there. They hang em.

[wolfcreek]

“This decision will only embolden them.”

I agree! I was thinking more along the lines of any future amnesty arguments.

[NinoFan]

*Yawn*

Personally, I think it’d be great if we sent the detainees to some other country, but arranged it that so on the way there was an unfortunate “accident”. Problem solved. It’d be a great way to tell the Court to go to hell while still maintaining some deniability.

[DoughtyOne]

Wow, I can’t believe I’m seeing this stuff from freerepublic. The detainees at GTMO are not POW’s. Most of them were not taken in combat but were turned in as “terrorists” by people that know them. Does any of this sound familiar????????  Mike, these were people taken in the heat of battle.  They were terrorists.  The ones at Gitmo aren't your average run of the mill terrorists either.  Most of the terrorist combatants were kept in-country.  The worst of the worst were sent to Gitmo.

Most of the detainees at GTMO have been put there on heresay evidence. I don’t care if they are terrorists or not, they deserve the right to a fair trial instead of internment without due process.  Well, that's rather evident.  You don't care.  What happens when these folks get the due process you think they deserve, and they provide classified information in open court that jeopardizes our methods and contacts?  Are you going to protect the people that get outed for helping us?  Are you going to comfort and financially support the families of those who get killed because our ability to gather clandestine information and get Iraqis to help us, suddenly stops?  Will you support the families of U.S. citizens who are killed because we couldn't get information to prevent future attacks on U.S. soil?  That's what we're talking about here.  These terrorists are not covered under Geneva Convention status.  They are not bonified combatants who are merely defending their nation.  They are people who kill innocent men, women and children by choice.

SCOTUS ruled correctly here gang.  The SCOTUS doesn't know it's ass from a hole in the ground.  It thinks we must play by Marcus of Queensbury rules while the terrorists play by no rules whatsoever.

They STOPPED what was fast becoming a slippery slope.  This is pure rubbish.  We're talking about foreign terrorist combatants.  Even bonified soldiers covered under the Geneva Convention are not guaranteed to be repatriated until the end of hostilities have been achieved during a recognized conflict.  They are not guaranteed due process.  They are held as captives, prisoners of war until the war is over.  Is the war over?

Do you think that had SCOTUS not stepped in, some enterprising Senator or Congressman wouldn’t have fielded the notion to suspend habeas corpus for US citizens? DO WE EVEN WANT TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD????  My God, the ignorance of this post is staggering.

Our Constitution has been under constant assault by both sides of the isle. It needs to stop and stop now. SCOTUS did the right thing in this case. Sadly, the Conservatives on the bench sided with the destruction of the Constitution in this instance which leaves me wondering if they will trample the 2nd Amendment with the Heller decision.  Bud, I know you think you are defending the U.S. Constitution here, but wow, you aren't even in the same ball park as the truth.

Until this war is over, these detainees have not rights whatsoever, other than to be held in captivity.  They are NOT POWs.  They are terrorists, and are therefore not covered by any international laws governing the treatment of terrorists.  If they wanted to be covered, they should have gained acceptance to the military of a bonified state.  They should have put on the uniform of that nation.  They should have abided by Geneva Convention status when conducting military operations.

You do our service members a massive disservice when you grant terrorists the same rights they have on the battlefield.  I don't think terrorists should be tortured or maltreated, but short of that, they have no rights.

[Santa Fe_Conservative]

Bush Sr. and Sununu said they found a justice who would be a home run for conservatives...OOPS! He was in today’s majority.