Some finally have their wish

[audtatious]

SUPREME INSULT

According to five shysters on the Supreme Court, terrorists -- including the architect of the September 11 attacks -- who have been captured by the United States military in the course of prosecuting a congressionally declared war have a constitutional right to appeal their case in federal civilian courts.

This means that, for example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- a Kuwaiti -- now has the same constitutional due process rights as you, me and the thousands of Americans he murdered on September 11, 2001. In other words, the Supreme Ambulance Chasers sent this message to the rest of the world today: "If you want to same rights as an American citizen, simply murder American citizens."

With this ruling, Stevens, Breyer, Ginsberg, Souter, and Kennedy trivialize the mass murder committed on September 11. They trivialize the heroic sacrifice of our military men and women and their families. They trivialize the successes of the War on Terror. And they trivialize the sacredness of American citizenship.

Until today, a foreigner seeking to destroy America had no constitutional right to American legal protections. So lawyers are now in charge of the War on Terror, and that all but guarantees defeat.

[AZhitman]

So, my Constitutional rights are left at the border when I go down to Mexico, but KSM has the full protection of the Constitution?

Brilliant.

I can only take solace in knowing that the same Creator that gave them the intellect to pursue a law degree will judge them someday on what they did with their talents.

[rn79870]

It's amazing how incense we Americans become when some foreign country imprisons an American and denies that person access to the American embassy, counsel or even a hearing to determine the legality of their imprisonment. We would scream if one of ours was held on mere suspicion without benefit of even a hearing or other rights, like the right to cross examine witnesses and right to be heard. Yet we have taken all the alleged terrorlst and locked them up for years without regard to these rights.

What is the government afraid of? Give them a trial, and if they are found guilty, lock them up. If they aren't guilty, let them go. But to systematically denying them the same basic human rights that we demand for our citizens when they are detained in other countries, is unconscionable.

Here is one that I have to agree with SCOTUS on. Give them a trial or let them go. If not, at the very least, let an impartial party examine the evidence and see if there is enough to justify holding them.

[audtatious]

If they have constitutional rights for a 2nd trial in the US courts system, and the case is thrown out for BS reasons (which is why some people want it in the US system in the first place) then we can only assume they should have a right to stay in the US and receive reperations for the time they were held "illegally" in jail.

Some people do not care at all what a travesty this is. They have some anti-Bush/anti-war/pro-terrorism/anti-american viewpoint and it's "damn the torpedo's, full speed ahead". Hell, look at all the internal leaks that have happened while Bush has been President (secret CIA prison, phone surveilance, etc) to see that the anti-Bush establishment is pissing all over the citizens of this country in order to make select people look bad and to help press forth more partisan politics.

[audtatious]

It's amazing how incense we Americans become when some foreign country imprisons an American and denies that person access to the American embassy, counsel or even a hearing to determine the legality of their imprisonment. We would scream if one of ours was held on mere suspicion without benefit of even a hearing or other rights, like the right to cross examine witnesses and right to be heard. Yet we have taken all the alleged terrorlst and locked them up for years without regard to these rights.

Who what and when? Those beheaded or tortured/burned/strung up in public? When should terrorists be afronted the rights to those who wear uniforms and fight for a country instead of some crazy ideal?

Realize if their country gave a damn they would do the same thing as we do when a citizen is held for something.

What is the government afraid of? Give them a trial, and if they are found guilty, lock them up. If they aren't guilty, let them go. But to systematically denying them the same basic human rights that we demand for our citizens when they are detained in other countries, is unconscionable.

Give them a military trial. I'm fine with that and that is exactly what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed received.

Here is one that I have to agree with SCOTUS on. Give them a trial or let them go. If not, at the very least, let an impartial party examine the evidence and see if there is enough to justify holding them.

Fine. Then the terrorists who have been arrested and handed over to other governments should be brought over here too and receive a trial. If the US affords this to terrorists we are holding than Iraq, Britain, Spain and others MUST turn all their criminals over to us for trial in our US-based system.

Fair is fair, right?

What a clusterfuk

[ishkabibble]

What's wrong with due process? No faith in the justice system, guys?

[rn79870]

I think you're forgetting that many were merely turned in by neighbors, enemies, old girlfriends, etc. We need to establish, before a reviewing panel with the right to release them, whether or not they were a combatant and/or took arms against the US.

If nothing else, they should have the opportunity to prove they were not guilty. That's basic fairness.

[audtatious]

Then send them back to their countries and let them deal with the outcome

[sensibleS13driver]

.

[rn79870]

What's wrong with due process? No faith in the justice system, guys?

Constitutional due process entails more rights than necessary. However, the opportunity for them to be apprised of the specific reason behind their confinement isn't unreasonable, as well as their right to counter those allegations.

[rn79870]

What you're portraying as our weakness is what actually makes us so much better than them. These are rights that ALL PEOPLE have ALWAYS been guaranteed by the United States. The Constitution doesn't give temporary breaks for wartime, particularly without a declaration. And when it does, that's when the terrorists have truly won.

Come on, need I post the Ben Franklin quote that always comes up in these arguments?

The Constitution doesn't guaranty all people anything. Foreigners, people in the military, prisoners, and other classes of people ofter lose constitutional rights. The Gitmo prisoners never touched US soil, an interesting argument used to keep them from claiming rights provided by the constitution.

[sensibleS13driver]

.

[audtatious]

The US constitution covers other countries too? Can we tax them as well?

It says people and not citizen. I don't see "foreign" nor "domestic" in there anywhere....

[sensibleS13driver]

.

[heliochrome85]

just a quibble, isnt Gitmo technically US Soil? I know that US embassies and consulates world wide are on US soil. As are bases etc. We lease it from them, but once you cross the gates, you are in US jurisdiction and protection. Maybe im wrong.

[rn79870]

The military isn't bound by the constitution to the same degree as a state is. Try exerting your 1st.amendment rights in boot camp, or in rank for that matter.

The first line of the 14th amendment states:All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

(underlining mine)

If the detrainees weren't born or naturalized in the US they aren't within the provisions of the 14th amendment.

[ishkabibble]

It says people and not citizen. I don't see "foreign" nor "domestic" in there anywhere....

Yep. You are arguing against your own point here.

[ishkabibble]

The military isn't bound by the constitution to the same degree as a state is. Try exerting your 1st.amendment rights in boot camp, or in rank for that matter.

That's because you willfully gave up said rights.

The first line of the 14th amendment states:All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

(underlining mine)

If the detrainees weren't born or naturalized in the US they aren't within the provisions of the 14th amendment.

Because the 5th amendment pertains to the actions of the Federal government, and the 14th to the actions of the States?

Under the 5th amendment, non-U.S. citizens within the U.S. are granted the same due process rights as U.S. citizens.

[rn79870]

The US constitution covers other countries too? Can we tax them as well?

It says people and not citizen. I don't see "foreign" nor "domestic" in there anywhere....

No, the US constitution has a funny history. If you remember the Dread Scott case you'll remember that the justices held that "citizens of the US" was specifically written and directed towards those individuals living in the US at the time it was written. It was that case that helped spark the 14th. amendment. The 14th. amendment took it a little further, including freed slaves in the "citizenry" among others. But it never addressed or intended to give citizenship rights to individuals on foreign soil that were not citizens of the US. The Gitmo detainees are not protected by the 14th. amendment.(unless SCOTUS says otherwise, as I haven't read their full decision)

[rn79870]

Because the 5th amendment pertains to the actions of the Federal government, and the 14th to the actions of the States?

Under the 5th amendment, non-U.S. citizens within the U.S. are granted the same due process rights as U.S. citizens.

Not so. The Dred Scott case clearly defined "Citizens of the United States" as those citizens recognized by the original framers of the constitution. Specifically, that case provides that "those who came later" are not covered by the same provisions as those of the 1st. 13 states. That is one of the reasons behind the 14th. amendment - to extend those rights to all citizens of all states.

Without the 14th, amendment, the 5th. amendment would be very narrowly applied to a very limited group of individuals. (per Dred Scott) The 14th. amendment extends the application to those "born here and/or naturalized."

[sensibleS13driver]

.

[rn79870]

Dred Scott precipitated the 14th. amendment. It is quoted because it explains the history and the thrust of the US constitution. Without that decision, there may not have been a 14th. Amendment.

If you reread the first line of the 14th. amendment, you'll see that "persons" become "citizens" when they qualify by "birth or naturalization." The Gitmo detainees are clearly outside of the intended class and therefore, not subject to the provisions of the US Constitution. At least, this was the case as it was prior to the SCOTUS ruling.

[Cold_Zero]

Let these rat bastard Lawyers from Fordham and NYU represent these terrorists. Tie up the Federal Court systems from now until eternity and then go write their books. This is what will happen. If these detainees are found not guilty or more likely released on a technicality, the courts will order their release. They will then be flown back to their country of origin or a proxy country where they will be tortured for more information (or just for the hell of it) put before the courts, found guilty and hung or shot. Either that or they are sent back to the CIA black prisons in Poland and Romania.Aint American justice grand?Bush is probably not going to send these detainees through the Federal Court system and let the next President deal with them.

My concern is this. Some New York lawyer gets his hands on 'evidence' that is classified and of a matter of National Security. He/she conveniently makes copies and leaks it to the public and informants, spies and our troops are put at risk. As long as these rat lawyers get to write the book, who cares?

Contrary to these lawyers’ statements, there IS a legal precedence for us trying enemy non combatants. The Nazi's released spies and saboteurs into this country during WWII. Most of them were tried by a Military Tribunal and executed.

[rn79870]

I've reviewed the ruling and it sounds like what they have been given is a limited right to Habeas Corpus. They are not allowed full blown trials. And the attorneys representing them may well be denied classified information which may work to the detainees benefit. However, remember, the "trial court" appears to be a panel of military officers. This means that this mess is far from over. Bush has promised new legislation further closing the door on the detainees.

I think that they deserve the right to address their detention and possible release. I think we're still safe here.

[sensibleS13driver]

.

[rn79870]

Yes, a citizen is a person, but a person is not necessarily a citizen. The protections apply to persons, citizens included. That is what the first line says. This is so explicit and uncontested, please don't cite Korematsu next.

Sorry, I'm not following that paragraph. The protection applies to "persons" who are also "citizens." Merely being a person is insufficient to empower the US Constitution.

Our courts uphold OUR laws and OUR constitution, not natural rights or justice. Military Tribunals were consciously avoided by the administration. These ad-hoc trials were literally fabricated within the last few years in an attempt to bypass due process protections.

They tried that many times. We haven't seen the end of it either.

[sensibleS13driver]

.

[rn79870]

You're not reading what I said. There are "persons" who are not "citizens" and "persons" who are "Citizens." However, all citizens are persons.

That's why I saidQuote »The protection applies to "persons" who are also "citizens." [/quote]

[audtatious]

No, you are just adamant that you are correct regardless of what was posted and enjoy interpreting the Constitution to meet your case based on semantics.

Let these rat bastard Lawyers from Fordham and NYU represent these terrorists. Tie up the Federal Court systems from now until eternity and then go write their books. This is what will happen. If these detainees are found not guilty or more likely released on a technicality, the courts will order their release. They will then be flown back to their country of origin or a proxy country where they will be tortured for more information (or just for the hell of it) put before the courts, found guilty and hung or shot.

If I remember correctly, the courts have ruled (not SCOTUS) that we cannot release detainees back to countries where they will be abused, killed, tortured, etc.

[sensibleS13driver]

.