PDA

View Full Version : SCOTUS sides with Gitmo detainees.



AlmostThere
06-12-2008, 10:17 AM
Just saw on FOX that in 5 - 4 decision, SCOTUS says Gitmo detainees have rights under Constitution to be tried in Fed court and all the rights an American citizen would have. We should just let them all go and them see them again on the battlefield.

jinxmchue
06-12-2008, 11:47 AM
Just saw on FOX that in 5 - 4 decision, SCOTUS says Gitmo detainees have rights under Constitution to be tried in Fed court and all the rights an American citizen would have. We should just let them all go and them see them again on the battlefield.

Through a weapon scope, right?

noonwitch
06-12-2008, 12:00 PM
I personally agree with their decision-not because I am sympathetic to the individuals involved, but because of the principle of a fair trial that we base our legal system upon is an important principle-we criticize other countries when they institute secret "kangaroo" courts, we can't be doing the same thing and expect to be respected by other nations.

I just hope that the judges involved are serious, like the one who heard McVeigh's trial, and not ridiculous, like Judge Ito on the OJ case.

gator
06-12-2008, 12:04 PM
Granting citizen rights to combatant non citizens is a damn stupid thing to do and an indication that we a re a damn weak ass country that can't take care of itself.

We have got to the point where we never get it right anymore.

Molon Labe
06-12-2008, 12:17 PM
Granting citizen rights to combatant non citizens is a damn stupid thing to do and an indication that we a re a damn weak ass country that can't take care of itself.

We have got to the point where we never get it right anymore.

Pesonally...I am not sure I believe that those detainees have rights to our court system or our bill of rights....but I'm open to hearing other's views.

In your quote you say we should listen to the founders.

Part of me wonders what the founders would say about detainees? I personally haven't studied it enough to really make an educated guess.
It seems it is a fair question to ask that if by denying people rights our founders said were "inalienable" to "All men", then this could lend itself to some hypocrisy. I've heard it argued that if the means that justify the ends conflict with your morality...then can you really say you are true to the morality you are trying to preserve?

Then again if they are released and they meet us again on the battlefield, they can be killed on that battlefield....case closed....no messing around with rights. ;)

Constitutionally Speaking
06-12-2008, 12:25 PM
I personally agree with their decision-not because I am sympathetic to the individuals involved, but because of the principle of a fair trial that we base our legal system upon is an important principle-we criticize other countries when they institute secret "kangaroo" courts, we can't be doing the same thing and expect to be respected by other nations.

I just hope that the judges involved are serious, like the one who heard McVeigh's trial, and not ridiculous, like Judge Ito on the OJ case.

They WERE getting a fair trial. NOw we cannot use some of the evidence against them because revealing it would endanger our troops in the field.


A military tribunal is NOT a railroad session, it is FAR more fair than even some of the European courts use.

gator
06-12-2008, 12:32 PM
Pesonally...I am not sure I believe that those detainees have rights to our court system or our bill of rights....but I'm open to hearing other's views.

In your quote you say we should listen to the founders.

Part of me wonders what the founders would say about detainees? I personally haven't studied it enough to really make an educated guess.
It seems it is a fair question to ask that if by denying people rights our founders said were "inalienable" to "All men", then this could lend itself to some hypocrisy. I've heard it argued that if the means that justify the ends conflict with your morality...then can you really say you are true to the morality you are trying to preserve?

Then again if they are released and they meet us again on the battlefield, they can be killed on that battlefield....case closed....no messing around with rights. ;)

I don't rememberthe Founders making the Constitution applicable to everybody in the world, do you?

Molon Labe
06-12-2008, 12:39 PM
I don't rememberthe Founders making the Constitution applicable to everybody in the world, do you?

No.., but I still wonder how it must look to other's (like say Iraq) when our politicians like Bush go around talking about promoting "freedom" in other countries.

namvet
06-12-2008, 12:46 PM
here's the story..............source (source)

and how much do the taxpayers cough up here?????

gator
06-12-2008, 12:55 PM
This will probably change Obama's view about Gitmo.

Before he talked about closing Gitmo. Now that the Trail Lawyer stand a chance of making tons of money at taxpayer's expense then he will probably keep it open. Second only to the unions the Trial Lawyer's Association is the largest contributor to the Democrat Party and they have Obama in thier back pocket.

namvet
06-12-2008, 12:59 PM
and they'll go free to kill more Americans. :mad:

lacarnut
06-12-2008, 01:03 PM
This will probably change Obama's view about Gitmo.

Before he talked about closing Gitmo. Now that the Trail Lawyer stand a chance of making tons of money at taxpayer's expense then he will probably keep it open. Second only to the unions the Trial Lawyer's Association is the largest contributor to the Democrat Party and they have Obama in thier back pocket.

Agree; I am not an authority on the subject but since these enemy combatants ( prisoners) were not in uniform, they are not entitled to a trial in my opinion. I think that is how it works in other countries.

Odysseus
06-12-2008, 07:02 PM
Agree; I am not an authority on the subject but since these enemy combatants ( prisoners) were not in uniform, they are not entitled to a trial in my opinion. I think that is how it works in other countries.

Under the Geneva and Hague Conventions, irregular forces who do not openly carry arms, wear uniforms, or deliberately blur the distinction between themselves and non-combatants are not accorded POW status. POWs don't get trials because they are combatants and are accountable to a chain of command. A trial criminalizes legitimate wartime conduct. Note that Gerrmany and Japan never conducted trials of Allied POWs, nor did the Allies trie Axis POWs during the war, and after the war, the only charges that were brought against any of the war crimes defendents were specific violations of the Geneva Conventions, such as murder of non-combatants or deliberate destruction of protected sites. One of the reasons that the Nuremburg tribunals (and yes, they were military tribunals, not civilian trials) were so very carefully managed was to ensure that they did not become simply a means of exacting revenge on a defeated enemy, but a genuine inquiry into conduct that was in violation of the recognized laws and norms of warfare.

POWs can be detained until the cessation of hostilities and then, if they are suspected of war crimes, they may be tried, but trials during wartime are confined to spies and saboteurs of domestic origin. Unlawful combatants, such as the Al Qaeda terrorists, are supposed to get trials if they are not recognized as acting under the lawful authority of a combatant command, but the trials are conducted by the nations in which they committed their crimes. If the left wants them tried, we should extradict them to Afghanistan and Iraq for trial. Somehow, though, I doubt that American trial lawyers would enjoy trying to explain to a jury of Iraqi Kurds or Shia that an Al Qaeda thug from Pakistan raped and murdered their relatives because he was a victim of imperialism.

Zathras
06-12-2008, 07:36 PM
Agree; I am not an authority on the subject but since these enemy combatants ( prisoners) were not in uniform, they are not entitled to a trial in my opinion. I think that is how it works in other countries.

Hell, IIRC the GC states that they could be executed without trial.

SarasotaRepub
06-12-2008, 08:12 PM
I think we should free all the scum at Gitmo.

And then walk them to a nice cliff over the beautiful shark infested waters
of the Carib and point the way to Mecca! :D

Oh...we'll also give em a ZipLoc baggie for their Koran's.

SaintLouieWoman
06-12-2008, 10:53 PM
This will probably change Obama's view about Gitmo.

Before he talked about closing Gitmo. Now that the Trail Lawyer stand a chance of making tons of money at taxpayer's expense then he will probably keep it open. Second only to the unions the Trial Lawyer's Association is the largest contributor to the Democrat Party and they have Obama in thier back pocket.
Right on, but who doesn't have Obama in their back pocket? I'm sure they're generously donating to him.

AmPat
06-13-2008, 05:08 AM
I personally agree with their decision-not because I am sympathetic to the individuals involved, but because of the principle of a fair trial that we base our legal system upon is an important principle-we criticize other countries when they institute secret "kangaroo" courts, we can't be doing the same thing and expect to be respected by other nations.
QUOTE]
Miilitary Tribunals would have assured a fair trial without the leaks that our court system allowed when Clintoon tried the WTC terrorists. The leaks lead to disclosure of EXACTLY how to bring down the towers using a BFA. (Big F****** Airplane).

[QUOTE=gator;6957]Granting citizen rights to combatant non citizens is a damn stupid thing to do and an indication that we a re a damn weak ass country that can't take care of itself.

We have got to the point where we never get it right anymore.

Agreed! I said essentially the same on another similar post. We do not OWE rights to NON- CITIZENS. Why can't these LIBIOTS understand this?

Constitutionally Speaking
06-13-2008, 06:47 AM
Miilitary Tribunals would have assured a fair trial without the leaks that our court system allowed when Clintoon tried the WTC terrorists. The leaks lead to disclosure of EXACTLY how to bring down the towers using a BFA. (Big F****** Airplane).



Yep. And the current trials would expose our men on the battlefield and in intelligence. It would jeopardize ongoing intelligence operations and risk the lives of our men.

Odysseus
06-13-2008, 02:44 PM
Yep. And the current trials would expose our men on the battlefield and in intelligence. It would jeopardize ongoing intelligence operations and risk the lives of our men.


Court Transcript
US Vs. Ali A'li Aksa n'fre
Testimony of prosecution witness, US Army SPC Robert Moore
11 September 2009:

Defense attorney Ron Kuby: Would you state your name for the record, please?

US Army SPC Robert Moore: Robert Moore.

Defense attorney Ron Kuby: Lieutenant Moore, would it be fair to say that you dislike people of Middle Eastern descent...?

US Army SPC Robert Moore: Uh, sir, I'm not a lieutenant, I'm enlisted...

Defense attorney Ron Kuby: Non responsive! Move to strike! Your honor, please direct the witness to answer the question!

Presiding Judge: The witness will answer the question.

US Army SPC Robert Moore: Uh, no sir. I don't really have a problem with the people of Iraq.

Defense attorney Ron Kuby: And yet you invaded their country, with machine guns, grenades, tanks and jet planes, did you not?

US Army SPC Robert Moore: Sir, I'm not a pilot or a tanker, I just drive a fuel truck...

Defense attorney Ron Kuby: Non responsive! Move to strike! Your honor, please direct the witness to answer the question!

Presiding Judge: The witness will answer the question.

Defense attorney Ron Kuby: Did you, in fact, invade Iraq?

US Army SPC Robert Moore: Well, yes, sir, I was part of the invasion force... But I wasn't the only one. I was part of a much larger unit...

Defense attorney Ron Kuby: So that makes it okay? That everyone does it?

US Army SPC Robert Moore: No! I mean, that's not what I meant! I mean that I didn't...

Defense attorney Ron Kuby: Nevermind. We'll move on. Do you recall your actions on November 3rd, 2004?

US Army SPC Robert Moore: Yes, sir. My column was hit by an IED.

Defense attorney Ron Kuby: And you captured my client at that time?

US Army SPC Robert Moore: Uh, yes, sir. We caught him just outside of the blast area with several detonators made from cell phones, a copy of "IEDs for Dummies" and a videotape of the detonation.

Defense attorney Ron Kuby: I see... And the person that you captured, is he in this courtroom today?

US Army SPC Robert Moore: Yes, sir. That's him, over there. (Indicates the defendent)

Defense attorney Ron Kuby: And you're sure that it was my client?

US Army SPC Robert Moore: Well, it's been five years, sir, and he wasn't wearing an Armani suit, just one of those man-dress things, and sandals. And his beard was a lot longer... Come to think of it, he's got more teeth now than he did then, and they're straighter.

Ali A'li Aksa n'fre: I get braces at Gitmo! Nice, no?

Defense attorney Ron Kuby: Your honor!

Presiding Judge: I will remind the defendent not to speak except when questioned.

Ali A'li Aksa n'fre: H'okey Dokey!

Defense attorney Ron Kuby: Now then, General Moore, you say that you do not recognize my client, the man that you claim to have unjustly captured and railroaded into years of deprivation and torture at Guantanamo Bay? You blighted this man's life and now you cannot tell is if it is the same man that you took from his adopted country of Iraq, where he emigrated from Saudi Arabia almost two long weeks before? Is that what you're saying?

US Army SPC Robert Moore: Sir, I'm not a general, just a specia...

Defense attorney Ron Kuby: Answer the question!!!


Continues ad nauseum...

AlmostThere
06-13-2008, 03:24 PM
Through a weapon scope, right?

Exactly. I assumed that was obvious, but yea.