| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: WoT | |
| Top Court: Gitmo Detainees Can Seek Trial in U.S. Courts | |
| 2004-06-28 | |
Just breaking on Fox
| |
| Posted by:Sherry |
| #22 Why should they be tried? They are guilty and everyone knows it. We should not be spending taxes money to hear the true story. |
| Posted by: Anonymous55888 2004-06-29 1:41:48 AM |
| #21 The one part of the decision negates the other part. The government can hold detainees, but the ACLU-types can tie up the government in the courts until hell freezes over. The LLL will use this as just another tool to destroy the US govt. The LLL just keeps probing with the dagger for a soft spot to stick it in. We will not win the WoT by having to fight with one hand behind our backs. The LLL is just as serious an enemy as Al Q, and its in the Supreme Court. The LLL's use of the Federal Court system is provoking a constitutional crisis. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2004-06-28 11:34:33 PM |
| #20 "On further note, the Marine guards at the Cuban base were issued flamethrowers just in time to put down a prison riot. It seems that the detainees won't be needing lawyers anymore." Prisoners cost money. Prisoners are annoying. Ground terrorist can be used to raise pigs. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2004-06-28 9:06:31 PM |
| #19 "We will be filing hundreds of cases before the courts," said Qatari lawyer Najeeb al-Nauimi, who belongs to a committee of defense lawyers claiming to represent more than 300 detainees. "The Supreme Court reinstated our trust in the American judicial system." I'm glad somebody still trusts it. Too bad none of them are Americans. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2004-06-28 7:59:25 PM |
| #18 Memo to the troopies: Dead men have a hard time getting lawyers. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2004-06-28 6:50:13 PM |
| #17 if you took the initiative to over ride the decision giving rights to suspected terrorists. LOL! Good one! |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-06-28 4:35:03 PM |
| #16 henceforth no illegal combatants would be taken prisoner but instead that they would all be killed on the battlefield. That is within the letter of the Geneva Convention. They should go with it for a couple of weeks, and publish the "score." Then we can all have a big group hug and decided which the sensitive among us prefer: detainment in Gitmo or summary execution. |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2004-06-28 4:21:41 PM |
| #15 In the past, unlawful combatants were dealt with quite simply -- they were shot on the battlefield. True. I wonder what would happen politically if the DOD announced that henceforth no illegal combatants would be taken prisoner but instead that they would all be killed on the battlefield. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2004-06-28 4:13:26 PM |
| #14 Now we have the joy of watching the courts work towards the release of terrorists. It isn't going to be all that different from the situation with the released Abu Grabass prisoners. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-06-28 2:56:50 PM |
| #13 Our use of the unlawful combatant/enemy combatant categories is new post 9/11 and the Court is trying to figure out those rules. No, they're trying to butt into areas they're not entitled to. In the past, unlawful combatants were dealt with quite simply -- they were shot on the battlefield. We didn't do that in this case because we wanted to get information. Now we have the joy of watching the courts work towards the release of terrorists. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-06-28 1:18:02 PM |
| #12 VAMark, it would be strange if unlawful combatants ended up with more rights than POWs. The article says detainees may file suit in court contesting their detention. If they haven't been charged with anything, it would make a case for wrongful detention more plausible, it seems to me. |
| Posted by: virginian 2004-06-28 1:14:51 PM |
| #11 My reading (I'm no lawyer) is that these rulings have nothing to do with POWs. The rules for POWs are clear. Our use of the unlawful combatant/enemy combatant categories is new post 9/11 and the Court is trying to figure out those rules. Remember, none of the people affected by this ruling have been charged, let alone convicted, of anything. There are good reasons not to go the criminal conviction route with some/most of them, but I don't see giving the US citizens some sort of right to habeas corpus as an unreasonable decision. The Guatanamo situation never bothered me much, but claiming the base is completely outside anybody's law seems like a stretch. If, having claimed jursidiction, the courts start being stupid about the actual cases (nobody is getting let go as a result of these decisions), I'll be screaming along with the rest of you. Although I'd keep the prisoners away from anywhere that the Ninth Circuit can claim jurisdiction. |
| Posted by: VAMark 2004-06-28 12:52:03 PM |
| #10 Even so, virginian, what I said about never charging them still applies and as mojo points out, the killers will probably be long dead before they ever figure out which US court properly has jurisdiction. It's called "putting them in jail and throwing away the key." |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-06-28 12:43:58 PM |
| #9 Look, if talk radio interviewed this Hoover Institute scholar who wrote the article I quoted in #4 post, Congress could be shamed into challenging the Supreme Court. Even Democrats don't like their tax dollars wasted, #5. The Constitution does not give the Supreme Court any right to manage PRISONS and the Constitution gives Congress to over ride the Supreme Court but most people are not aware of this fact. So if can be put out on the air waves that Congress is just as sloppy about its job description as the Supreme Court is about its own, I think Congress may be forced to get off its butt whether it likes to or not. Talk radio and Fox News should bring this to eveyone's attention. Gitmo terrorist suspects are not going to be very sympathetic figures to the general public, either Republicans or Democrats. The vast majority of these detainees are not citizens so who is going to want to pay the legal costs to extend their rights? Okay, maybe Al Gore and Michael Moore, but who else? |
| Posted by: rex 2004-06-28 12:43:51 PM |
| #8 Jen: ABC news is reporting this as ALL Gitmo prisoners have right to courts. |
| Posted by: virginian 2004-06-28 12:34:37 PM |
| #7 Agree with rex this seems like a major change in the separation of powers. It implies that any prisoner of war, legal or illegal combatant, citizen or not, can claim access to US courts. If so why is it limited to prisoners of war? Why couldn't anybody who had a grievance against the US military bring a case against it in court? Does it mean that prisoners of war can sue the military for unlawful detainment? Do we have to prove in every case that the detainment was justified? What happens if we have a war in which we capture several hundred thousand prisoners? For that matter, it implies any member of the US military should be able to appeal outside the military courts system. Does it render military courts obsolete? |
| Posted by: virginian 2004-06-28 12:20:35 PM |
| #6 RC, note this only applies to Americans who are detainees. The way I read this, we're cool as long as we don't charge the guys with anything (ever). Don't you love how the Leftist MSM calls a 6-3 decision "narrow?" |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-06-28 12:15:38 PM |
| #5 If I remember right, previous cases said POWs have no right to sue in US courts. Now, the Supremes have ruled that people who don't even qualify for POW status have more rights than POWs. Simply unbelievable. rex: Even Democrat voters would see a Supreme Court judgement giving rights to terrorist types is absolute hogwash and would pressure the liberal politicians to vote with Republicans. You must be smoking some powerful stuff. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-06-28 12:11:35 PM |
| #4 This is a defeat. How is it anything but? And, no, I'm not happy that bad guys can waste my tax money dragging their frivolous cases through court on my dime. It was bad enough furnishing them with prayer rugs and 3 square vegetarian meals each day and visits with their Muslim psychiatrists. Who do you think is going to pay for the services of the likes of Lynne Stewart[and believe me there are thousands of her lawwwwyyyyyer types salivating at the thought of defending evil people on the taxpayer's dime]. It's time for the President and Congress to over ride the Supreme Court's idiotic decisions, starting with this one, and to remind these wizards in black robes of their job description and their limitations. Here's some cut and paste from a recent article by Arnold Beichman, a Hoover Institution research fellow, and who is also the author of "Anti-American Myths: Their Causes and Consequences.": http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20040522-102507-1868r.htm ...By a simple majority vote in both Houses, Congress under Article III, Section 2, can curtail the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. In other words, Congress could by majority vote tell the court it may not rule, say, on abortion. This is the language of the Constitution: "The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and to fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." What could be clearer? The writers of the Constitution did not intend to give the Supreme Court or the lower courts the power they have assumed almost from the beginning of the Republic. The Founding Fathers were concerned about a runaway judiciary. In fact, in the "Federalist Papers," Alexander Hamilton wrote that the powers of Congress provide "a complete security [against] the danger of judiciary encroachments on the legislative authority." Hamilton was anticipating the Supreme Court might become another legislature with this difference: its members have life tenure. Here is a list of other congressional powers over the Supreme Court as enacted by the Founding Fathers: (1) Congress decides on the appropriation for the judicial branch, including salaries. If Congress says no to a requested salary increase, there is nothing the court can do about it. (2) The president appoints the justices but they must be confirmed by the Senate. (3) Congress has the power to define the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts because the Constitution grants Congress the right "to ordain and establish such courts." Nowhere in the Constitution, directly or implicitly, are federal judges granted the right to manage schools, hospitals, prisons and other institutions. (4) The House may impeach and the Senate may try and remove federal judges right up to the Supreme Court. There is nothing the courts can do about it because neither the chief executive nor the Supreme Court can interfere with the impeachment powers of Congress. (5) Congress is empowered to decide how many Supreme Court justices there shall be. The distinguished legal scholar the late Professor Herbert Wechsler has said, "Congress has the power by enactment of a statute to strike at what it deems judicial excess." And yet Congress has rarely acted on its undoubted privilege... Grow some backbone Republicans! Now is the time. Americans would give you a landslide victory and the Oval Office on a platter, if you took the initiative to over ride the decision giving rights to suspected terrorists. Even Democrat voters would see a Supreme Court judgement giving rights to terrorist types is absolute hogwash and would pressure the liberal politicians to vote with Republicans. |
| Posted by: rex 2004-06-28 11:42:37 AM |
| #3 Mojo, I disagree. I do NOT want a bunch of GTMO hard boyz giving training and olde tyme religion to Castro's goon squads... |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2004-06-28 11:41:42 AM |
| #2 Uh-huh. And which court has jurisdiction over US military bases in Cuba? Stick a beeper in their butts and shove 'em out the Gitmo gate. Let Fidel support 'em. |
| Posted by: mojo 2004-06-28 11:11:11 AM |
| #1 a defeat is how it's being painted, but I don't see it. We can still hold these idjits while their cases drag through the courts for years...and in most cases we never really wanted to hold them forever. Wring em dry on intel, repatriate the hard cases back from a C-130 at 25,000 ft without a chute |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-06-28 11:03:57 AM |