Results 1 to 10 of 20

Hybrid View

  1. #1 SCOTUS sides with Gitmo detainees. 
    Senior Member AlmostThere's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    A Great Red State
    Posts
    1,920
    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.
    Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,807
    Quote Originally Posted by AlmostThere View Post
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    noonwitch
    Guest
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    gator
    Guest
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member Molon Labe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jihad Me At Hello
    Posts
    4,769
    Quote Originally Posted by gator View Post
    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. ;)
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown


    The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    gator
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Woodland Park, Colorado, United States
    Posts
    8,563
    [QUOTE=noonwitch;6952]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 Originally Posted by gator View Post
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member Constitutionally Speaking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by AmPat View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member Constitutionally Speaking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member AlmostThere's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    A Great Red State
    Posts
    1,920
    Quote Originally Posted by jinxmchue View Post
    Through a weapon scope, right?
    Exactly. I assumed that was obvious, but yea.
    Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •