Supreme Court ruling on Gitmo prisoners and Padilla

[Arabella Figg 2003]

court hands Bush a defeat

 

[AirForceRocks]

1) A partial defeat

2) There's already another thread on this subject

 

[Arabella Figg 2003]

Brenda.


I'd sy that when Bush says "I can hold them indefinitely without trial" and the court says "well, yes, you can hold them, but they are entitled to their day in court and access to counsel -- even if they're not citizens", that's a defeat.

Of course, the "win" didn't go as far as Souter and Ginsburg would have wanted. That would have been a thorough defeat.

 

[AirForceRocks]

One of the central points of the case was that the President did not have the right to designate detainees as enemy combatants. The court affirmed that the President does indeed have that right. True, detainees can fight the designation in federal court, but that's a far cry from telling the President the designation can't take place to begin with.

 

[Arabella Figg 2003]

but we're done with a person being held indefinitely without charges, without access to counsel and without legal recourse. in other words, PROVE I'm an enemy combatant who needs to be locked up indefintely before you send me off to oblivion.

 

[Arabella Figg 2003]

Ruling in the case of American-born detainee Yaser Esam Hamdi, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the court has "made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."

Congress did give the president authority to hold Hamdi, a four-justice plurality of the court said, but that does not cancel out the basic right to a day in court. (Padilla case background)

The court ruled similarly in the case of about 600 non-U.S.-born men held indefinitely at a U.S. Navy prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The men can use American courts to contest their captivity and treatment, the high court said. (Detainees case background)

Steven R. Shapiro, legal director of the ACLU, called the rulings "a strong repudiation of the administration's argument that its actions in the war on terrorism are beyond the rule of law and unreviewable by American courts."

The court sidestepped a third major terrorism case, ruling that a lawsuit filed on behalf of detainee Jose Padilla improperly named Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld instead of the much lower-level military officer in charge of the Navy brig in South Carolina where Padilla has been held for more than two years.

The court left hard questions unanswered in all three cases.

The administration had fought any suggestion that Hamdi or another U.S.-born terrorism suspect could go to court, saying that such a legal fight posed a threat to the president's power to wage war as he sees fit.

"We have no reason to doubt that courts, faced with these sensitive matters, will pay proper heed both to the matters of national security that might arise in an individual case and to the constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties that remain vibrant even in times of security concerns," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in the Hamdi case.

O'Connor said that Hamdi "unquestionably has the right to access to counsel."

The court threw out a lower court ruling that supported the government's position fully, and Hamdi's case now returns to a lower court.
The Bush administration contends that as "enemy combatants," the men are not entitled to the usual rights of prisoners of war set out in the Geneva Conventions. Enemy combatants are also outside the constitutional protections for ordinary criminal suspects, the government has claimed.

The administration argued that the president alone has authority to order their detention, and that courts have no business second-guessing that decision

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by Arabella Figg 2003
but we're done with a person being held indefinitely without charges, without access to counsel and without legal recourse. in other words, PROVE I'm an enemy combatant who needs to be locked up indefintely before you send me off to oblivion.

And that's a shame.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
And that's a shame.

Yes, because it was such a great thing when our president could simply point his finger and say "Lock that person up", and that person would be thoroughly screwed, since they'd have no legal recourse at all.

Yes...the constitution is a TERRIBLE thing

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Yes, because it was such a great thing when our president could simply point his finger and say "Lock that person up", and that person would be thoroughly screwed, since they'd have no legal recourse at all.

Yes...the constitution is a TERRIBLE thing

The Constitution isn't a terrible thing, but using the Constitution to set terrorists free is a terrible thing, IMO.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Hopefully, our troops in Afghanistan will take a valuable lesson from this decision. When confronted with an enemy combatant attempting to kill you, don't bother taking prisoners, just shoot 'em dead.

 

[Arabella Figg 2003]

Alleged terrorists.

In a country where we've convicted people of crimes they didn't commit based on evidence, it's a scary thought to allow a government to hold someone indefinitely based on suspicion of wrongdoing -- including terrorist activity.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
The Constitution isn't a terrible thing, but using the Constitution to set terrorists free is a terrible thing, IMO.

If they were terrorists, I'd agree with you. But one of the founding principles of this country was that it's better for 100 guilty men to go free than for 1 innocent man to have his liberty wrongly taken from him. We have no idea of the "guilt" of the prisoners, because they were wrongly being denied access to the system of law we're supposed to be defending.

Not only that, but the entire system of checks and balances was designed to keep that kind of power out of the hands of the executive. For Bush to try to usurp it quite frankly disgusts me.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by Arabella Figg 2003
Alleged terrorists.

There is no alleged when it comes to what these detainees were doing. They were fighting American troops, not as part of an organized, recognized army but as enemy combatants that had illegally taken up arms.

What is alleged about that?

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Hopefully, our troops in Afghanistan will take a valuable lesson from this decision. When confronted with an enemy combatant attempting to kill you, don't bother taking prisoners, just shoot 'em dead.

Gee, do jury duty much ? I certainly hope not...lol

"If the cops caught you, you MUST be guilty of something"



Yes...the government never makes mistakes...

 

[AirForceRocks]

If they were terrorists, I'd agree with you.

You're saying their not? So why were they trying to kill American troops in battle? They weren't part of an organized army or defense force. So if not terrorists, what are they?

Oh I forgot - they all just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time with weapons in their hands.

For Bush to try to usurp it quite frankly disgusts me.

Be serious - the fact that President Bush is alive and breathing disgusts you.

 

[Arabella Figg 2003]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
There is no alleged when it comes to what these detainees were doing. They were fighting American troops, not as part of an organized, recognized army but as enemy combatants that had illegally taken up arms.

What is alleged about that?

You are 100% certain that each and every man sitting in Gitmo was actually involved in the fighting? that not a single one of them was taken into custody based on just being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

You're convinced Hamdi committed acts of terrorism, even though you never heard of him until after he'd been detained?

You are certain that Padilla, who's case was dismissed on technical grounds, committed a crime?

I'm glad you are so certian of something when you weren't there to see it.

I can't be so certain.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Gee, do jury duty much ? I certainly hope not...lol

"If the cops caught you, you MUST be guilty of something"



Yes...the government never makes mistakes...

I've done jury duty twice, thanks for asking.

Let's take a look at the options of the troop in the field when facing an enemy combatant trying to kill him or her:

1) Capture the enemy combatant, and let him be sent to Gitmo where he'll be freed to come back and shoot at you again.

2) Kill the ******* so that you don't have to worry about him again.

Option 2 sounds like the way to go.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by Arabella Figg 2003
You are 100% certain that each and every man sitting in Gitmo was actually involved in the fighting? that not a single one of them was taken into custody based on just being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

You're convinced Hamdi committed acts of terrorism, even though you never heard of him until after he'd been detained?

You are certain that Padilla, who's case was dismissed on technical grounds, committed a crime?

I'm glad you are so certian of something when you weren't there to see it.

I can't be so certain.

I don't believe that the government ever claimed that Hamdi and Padilla had committed acts of terrorism, but rather that they had plotted to do so.

I'd never heard of Mohammed Atta until 9/11/01, but that certainly didn't make him innocent, did it?

As for you not being certain, I'm not surprised.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
2) Kill the ******* so that you don't have to worry about him again.

Option 2 sounds like the way to go.

Well, that's no surprise coming from Brenda.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Well, that's no surprise coming from Brenda.

So what would you do, ThreeCircles? Some guy is trying to kill you - would you let him go to fight another day, or would you kill him?