This is RIDICULOUS! - DFWstangs Forums
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 15 (permalink) Old 06-12-2008, 06:32 PM Thread Starter
Lifer
 
Trip McNeely's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 29,396
Thumbs down This is RIDICULOUS!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365851,00.html

Our forefathers did NOT have this in mind when writing the Constitution. Why is it we give enemies and non-residents more rights than citizens? This makes me sick. Is this the path our country is headed towards? Down the shitter?? Why should ANY of those motherfuckers have the same rights as me, or any at all??

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

The justices, in a 5-4 ruling, handed the Bush administration its third setback at the high court since 2004 over its treatment of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Dissenting were Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

"Petitioners have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus. They are not barred from seeking the writ or invoking the Suspension Clause's protections because they have been designated as enemy combatants or because of their presence at Guantanamo," Kennedy wrote.

The Suspension Clause is a constitutional guarantee that blocks Congress from suspending habeas corpus.

"The Suspension Clause has full effect at Guantanamo. The government's argument that the Clause affords petitioners no rights because the United States does not claim sovereignty over the naval station is rejected," the opinion reads.

It was not immediately clear whether this ruling, unlike the first two, would lead to prompt hearings for the detainees, some of whom have been held more than six years. Roughly 270 men remain at the island prison, classified as enemy combatants and held on suspicion of terrorism or links to Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Five high-profile Guantanamo detainees appeared in a military tribunal last week, where one, Ramzi Binalshibh, admitted he was guilty of helping plan the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, and mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said he wanted to be put to death so he could be viewed as a martyr.

The case before the Supreme Court was brought by Lakhdar Boumediene, one of the remaining prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. He's been there since 2002.

After the court ruled in 2004, in Rasul v. Bush, that the prisoners were entitled to have access to the American court system, the government established a military tribunal process. As it stands, the prisoners can appeal adverse rulings to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Solicitor General Paul Clement argues the process provides Boumediene "along with the other enemy combatants being held at Guantanamo Bay, [the opportunity to] enjoy more procedural protections than any other captured enemy combatants in the history of warfare."

But the detainees' lawyers contend the current law fails to protect the constitutional rights the court said their clients were entitled to receive in Rasul. They want full habeas corpus rights, a constitutional protection that forces the government to justify in an open courtroom legitimate reasons an individual needs to be behind bars.

Also known as the "Great Writ," it is a universal right that was famously suspended by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.

Lawyers for the detainees argued the government, through the 2006 Military Commissions Act, unconstitutionally suspended the Great Writ for their clients. They sought a single remedy: a fair and impartial hearing before a neutral decision-maker to determine if there is a reasonable basis in the law and fact for detaining them.

They have never received such a hearing, although this court ruled more than three years ago that they are entitled to one.

The government contended the Rasul decision does not cover habeas rights and that earlier court rulings make clear that foreign prisoners held outside the United States have no such right. It further argued that the military tribunals passed by Congress are an adequate substitute for what habeas seeks to protect.

Although Congress expressly chose to foreclose detainees from challenging their status via habeas, it decided that aliens detained at Guantanamo Bay as enemy combatants should receive administrative hearings before a military tribunal, subject to judicial review in the District of Columbia Circuit.

That system builds additional protections on those available even to conventional prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention, and it was designed to track the requirements for due process deemed sufficient for American citizens.

Boumediene is an Algerian native who was living in Bosnia at the time of his arrest in October 2001. He and five others are accused of plotting to blow up the American embassy in Sarajevo. They were relocated in January 2002 to Guantanamo Bay, where Boumediene remains incarcerated. He denies any involvement in plots against the United States.

This case had provided one surprising twist. In April 2007, the court decided not to consider the matter but reversed itself in June. It is believed to be the first time in 60 years that the court changed course in such a manner.

The reversal required at least five of the nine justices to grant review. Normally, only four need to agree to hear a case, and even then very few are granted arguments.

CANADIANS = DOUCHERS


Last edited by Trip McNeely; 06-12-2008 at 08:41 PM.
Trip McNeely is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 15 (permalink) Old 06-12-2008, 08:28 PM
v2004 rebooted.
 
talisman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 30,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1BAD06
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365851,00.html

Our forefathers did NOT have this in mind when writing the Constitution. Why is it we give enemies and non-residents more rights than citizens? This makes me sick. Is this the path our country is headed towards? Down the shitter?? Why should ANY of those motherfuckers have the same rights as me, or any at all??

So we should just detain people indefinetly, because they might or might not be a terrorist? Sorry, but I'm never going to agree with that. I also don't see where they are getting more rights than the rest of us, maybe you could point it out?
talisman is offline  
post #3 of 15 (permalink) Old 06-12-2008, 08:34 PM Thread Starter
Lifer
 
Trip McNeely's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 29,396
Im glad you think that we should waste time and money on American trials for these so called innocents that were caught at terrorist training camps. These people were not just picked up drinking a late' on the corner. They're using our justice system against us and laughing about it. You think if the foot were on the other shoe, an American POW would get the same rights? Please.

On a similar note, should an illegal immigrant get those rights as well, if he was on trial for a crime against a person?

CANADIANS = DOUCHERS


Last edited by Trip McNeely; 06-12-2008 at 08:43 PM.
Trip McNeely is offline  
 
post #4 of 15 (permalink) Old 06-12-2008, 08:34 PM
Lifer
 
greenrebel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: DFW
Posts: 4,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by talisman
So we should just detain people indefinetly, because they might or might not be a terrorist? Sorry, but I'm never going to agree with that. I also don't see where they are getting more rights than the rest of us, maybe you could point it out?
agreed
greenrebel is offline  
post #5 of 15 (permalink) Old 06-12-2008, 08:42 PM
v2004 rebooted.
 
talisman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 30,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1BAD06
Im glad you think that we should waste time and money on American trials for these so called innocents that were caught at terrorist training camps. Theyre using our justice system against us and laughing about it. You think if the foot were on the other shoe, an American POW would get the same rights? Please.

On a similar note, should an illegal immigrant get those rights as well, if he was on trial for a crime against a person?

Illegal immigrants can get stuffed into a garbage bag with a couple of cinder blocks and dumped in the Potomac for all I care. That doesn't really have much to do with holding people.... possibly FOREVER... without deciding if they have actually.... DONE anything. You're right, our forefathers definetly wouldn't have agreed with that.
talisman is offline  
post #6 of 15 (permalink) Old 06-12-2008, 08:45 PM Thread Starter
Lifer
 
Trip McNeely's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 29,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by talisman
Illegal immigrants can get stuffed into a garbage bag with a couple of cinder blocks and dumped in the Potomac for all I care. That doesn't really have much to do with holding people.... possibly FOREVER... without deciding if they have actually.... DONE anything. You're right, our forefathers definetly wouldn't have agreed with that.
It does in the broad scope of things. Its called giving rights to people that have no business having AMERICAN rights. When you go to a foreign country and do something, do you think you have the same rights there? No, you dont. If you get busted doing something, you pretty much have to have a presidential signature and consulate bail you out. Why is it here, that we just give people who have no connection, and hell in this case harming us these same rights? It just baffles me. If anything try them in an international court.

CANADIANS = DOUCHERS

Trip McNeely is offline  
post #7 of 15 (permalink) Old 06-12-2008, 08:47 PM
v2004 rebooted.
 
talisman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 30,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1BAD06
It does in the broad scope of things. Its called giving rights to people that have no business having AMERICAN rights. When you go to a foreign country and do something, do you think you have the same rights there? No, you dont. If you get busted doing something, you pretty much have to have a presidential signature and consulate bail you out. Why is it here, that we just give people who have no connection, and hell in this case harming us these same rights? It just baffles me. If anything try them in an international court.


I'm cool with trying them in international court. Just so long as SOMETHING gets done with them, and they aren't left there to rot.
talisman is offline  
post #8 of 15 (permalink) Old 06-12-2008, 08:49 PM
Lifer
 
46Tbird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 33,187
I firmly believe we haven't had any new attacks on our soil because of those people being detained. I don't have a big problem with them being held and interrogated.

What I do think we should implement is a maximum length of time that we can hold them without trial.

You can't really compare what we do to what the rest of the world's idiots and assholes would do. We're supposed to be better than that.

We're not of course, but we should be.
46Tbird is offline  
post #9 of 15 (permalink) Old 06-12-2008, 09:06 PM Thread Starter
Lifer
 
Trip McNeely's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 29,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by 46Tbird
I firmly believe we haven't had any new attacks on our soil because of those people being detained.
I 100% agree with that. Through these interrogations from detainees we have obtained a multitude of information, of course the media would never divulge that.

CANADIANS = DOUCHERS

Trip McNeely is offline  
post #10 of 15 (permalink) Old 06-12-2008, 09:36 PM
PAN
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Under a rock
Posts: 20,154
While I agree that people shouldn't be held indefinitely, I do believe that any and all terrorists should be drawn and quartered...
Fox466 is offline  
post #11 of 15 (permalink) Old 06-12-2008, 09:54 PM
NOT the Oldest Fart HERE
 
jyro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Midlothian, Tx
Posts: 4,427
My faith in the media reporting truth is below zero after

As some of you might know, Gerdau Ameristeel, (the Brazilian company that bought Chaparral Steel last September) had a fire a couple of weeks ago in the scrap yard. At Gerdau we shred flattened cars for the steel and store them next to the shredder. Some caught fire, it was nothing but a pile of scrap cars burning for a few days, (about 100 sq yards of scrap cars burning) in a operation that covers about 3 miles. The media reported major damage to the plant for the 3 days the scrap cars were burning. They also reported that many at the plant were unhappy and may have started the fire intentionally.

None of that was true, last month we got a 47% bonus for the month, this month it's 43%.

only trash inside the scrap cars was burning, it didn't even hurt the steel. We have 2 melt shops and 3 steel mills, none were affected in any way.

If the media distorts simple things like this, WTF.
jyro is offline  
post #12 of 15 (permalink) Old 06-12-2008, 10:00 PM
PAN
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Under a rock
Posts: 20,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by jyro
As some of you might know, Gerdau Ameristeel, (the Brazilian company that bought Chaparral Steel last September) had a fire a couple of weeks ago in the scrap yard. At Gerdau we shred flattened cars for the steel and store them next to the shredder. Some caught fire, it was nothing but a pile of scrap cars burning for a few days, (about 100 sq yards of scrap cars burning) in a operation that covers about 3 miles. The media reported major damage to the plant for the 3 days the scrap cars were burning. They also reported that many at the plant were unhappy and may have started the fire intentionally.

None of that was true, last month we got a 47% bonus for the month, this month it's 43%.

only trash inside the scrap cars was burning, it didn't even hurt the steel. We have 2 melt shops and 3 steel mills, none were affected in any way.

If the media distorts simple things like this, WTF.
Heh. A prime example of "Things that make you go hmmm"
Fox466 is offline  
post #13 of 15 (permalink) Old 06-12-2008, 10:02 PM
BP
Keep your unicorns
 
BP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: At the Dexter Lake Club
Posts: 12,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by 46Tbird
I firmly believe we haven't had any new attacks on our soil because of those people being detained. I don't have a big problem with them being held and interrogated.
No new attacks here but they are sure up in the rest of the world. Check out the NCTC's report on 2007 terrorism attacks (it's a long read).

I think now that the entire intelligence community is being held somewhat accountable has helped keep attacks from our soil. From local beat cops to CIA operatives on the ground, intelligence flows through the channels now and is actually being processed instead of put in a filing cabinet somewhere.

Buell 1125R
Raptor 700R
No fast cars though
BP is offline  
post #14 of 15 (permalink) Old 06-12-2008, 10:09 PM
NOT the Oldest Fart HERE
 
jyro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Midlothian, Tx
Posts: 4,427
as for the Gitmo prisoners

their going to bring them on the U.S. mainland for the trials. You think it might make it easier to plan strikes on us. Many of the detainees that have been released have been involved in terrorist activities after release.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/07/gitmo.bomber/
Pentagon: Ex-detainees returning to fight
"Of the more than 500 detainees released from Guantanamo since the detention camp was opened in 2002, 38 have been stripped of their "enemy combatant" status and determined to pose no future threat to the United States. The remaining 462 were repatriated to home countries or resettled to third-party countries and still considered a threat, Pentagon records show.

Some countries have since released those detainees back into the public, according to various reports.

The United States is still holding about 65 detainees scheduled to be released to their home governments. But before that can happen, the United States has to get assurances the detainees will not be persecuted or harmed when they arrive home, Pentagon officials have said.


"We have no desire to be the world's jailer, which is why the 500 were allowed to depart," Gordon said.

There are about 270 detainees still held at the U.S. prison camp ."
jyro is offline  
post #15 of 15 (permalink) Old 06-12-2008, 10:43 PM
Lifer
 
89gt-stanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Keller
Posts: 2,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by talisman
Illegal immigrants can get stuffed into a garbage bag with a couple of cinder blocks and dumped in the Potomac for all I care. That doesn't really have much to do with holding people.... possibly FOREVER... without deciding if they have actually.... DONE anything. You're right, our forefathers definetly wouldn't have agreed with that.

Get Glad bags, the regular ones will tear.























j/k I know jack shit bout politics.
89gt-stanger is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the DFWstangs Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome