The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Politics
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-13-2008, 04:43 PM   #1
dar512
dar512 is now Pete Zicato
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Chicago suburb
Posts: 4,968
SCOTUS Grants Guantanamo Prisoners Habeas Corpus

Article here.

Personally, I think this will be a good thing in the long run.
__________________
"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."
-- Friedrich Schiller
dar512 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 05:36 PM   #2
BigV
Goon Squad Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 27,063
I agree. A victory for the rule of law is a good thing.

If the bad guy's goal is to destroy our way of life, dismantling/ignoring/disrespecting our legal system is doing their work *for them*, right?
__________________
Be Just and Fear Not.
BigV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 05:39 PM   #3
DanaC
We have to go back, Kate!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
If they're a bad guy, then there should be evidence to prove it. If there isn't evidence to prove it then you can't say they're a bad guy. If you can prove it then you have no reason not to allow them a proper defence. If by allowing them a proper defence the evidence fails.....then so be it.
DanaC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 05:52 PM   #4
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
I can't agree more. Lets just bag the trials and send them all to their home countries immediately, whether they want to go there or not, and close the place. Burn it down.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 06:27 PM   #5
Radar
Constitutional Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ocala, FL
Posts: 4,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC View Post
If they're a bad guy, then there should be evidence to prove it. If there isn't evidence to prove it then you can't say they're a bad guy. If you can prove it then you have no reason not to allow them a proper defence. If by allowing them a proper defence the evidence fails.....then so be it.
Mark today on your calendar. DanaC and I agree on something. I agree with everything she said other than the spelling of the word "defense". These people should be taken to an American court and given access to American defense lawyers, and get all of the same due process as anyone born in America.
__________________
"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death."
- George Carlin
Radar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 06:31 PM   #6
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Yea, setting the first precident for illegals. But hey, now that the system is working in your favor you want to take advantage of it. What happened to the reams of discussion how the SCOTUS should not exist? But they have spoken. I support them in their decision making process.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 07:25 PM   #7
deadbeater
Sir Post-A-Lot
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 439
Now this is something the Supreme Court has done right, alluding to a title on a thread on this board! If they ruled otherwise, Americans abroad, and every diplomat, is fair game for any despot, anybody who has a grudge. And the US couldn't do squat.
deadbeater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 07:33 PM   #8
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar View Post
These people should be taken to an American court and given access to American defense lawyers, and get all of the same due process as anyone born in America.
This is a third time that a Supreme Court has ruled against this administration on Guantanamo - and almost nothing changed.

Well something like 450 of the 800 prisoners in Guantanamo were released as innocent after being imprisoned without judicial review for many years. Question remains how many are guilty. Typical numbers are 14 of 800 were guilty. How will the White House again subvert a Supreme Court ruling?
tw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 07:45 PM   #9
flaja
High Propagandist
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by deadbeater View Post
Now this is something the Supreme Court has done right, alluding to a title on a thread on this board! If they ruled otherwise, Americans abroad, and every diplomat, is fair game for any despot, anybody who has a grudge. And the US couldn't do squat.

Diplomats have diplomatic immunity because of treaty agreements. The most any foreign government can do to diplomats is expel them from the foreign government’s country.

Since Congress has not declared war on any country, I don’t know of any treaty that would be applicable to the inmates at Gitmo. But since Congress has the constitutional power to define and punish offenses against the law of nations and to make laws governing capture on both land and sea, anyone whom we have captured in Iraq or Afghanistan would be under the jurisdiction of U.S. courts (if we were legally at war, then the Geneva Convention would kick in but I don’t know if POWs would have automatic access to U.S. civil courts- we have tried enemy espionage agents in civil courts during times of war).

Furthermore, there is something inherently dangerous about any government that takes it upon itself to lock-up someone indefinitely without charge or trial. The rightwing media pundits that are hinting that the President/military should ignore the court and continue to keep people jailed at Gitmo are little different than the SS and Gestapo that routinely took criminal defendants into “protective custody” after they had been acquitted by German courts.
flaja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 10:20 PM   #10
Flint
Snowflake
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Dystopia
Posts: 13,136
I loved Bush's comment on this. He said he agreed very strongly with the judges that dissented! lol
__________________
******************
There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there
it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your
expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever
gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio
Flint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 10:22 PM   #11
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flint View Post
I loved Bush's comment on this. He said he agreed very strongly with the judges that dissented! lol
Did ya expect something different?
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2008, 01:34 PM   #12
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by flaja View Post
Since Congress has not declared war on any country, I don’t know of any treaty that would be applicable to the inmates at Gitmo.
An additional point. George Jr attempted to suspend the constitutionally guaranteed right of Habeas Corpus. That right can be suspended only during war. George Jr's presidential signings (that we know about) have essentially declared America at war. This Supreme Court ruling says the writ of Habeas Corpus has not been suspended - implying that America is not at war.

Interesting question remains: what will the administration do this time to subvert the court's ruling.

This court ruling has suspended the July trial of Hamdan. This court ruling comes with cheers from virtually the entire Military Judge Advocate corp who have been appalled at the perversion of American laws, military justice, massive violations of basic human rights, and routine use of torture.
tw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2008, 01:37 PM   #13
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by tw View Post
and routine use of torture.
Supporting facts please for "routine".
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2008, 02:39 PM   #14
flaja
High Propagandist
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by tw View Post
An additional point. George Jr attempted to suspend the constitutionally guaranteed right of Habeas Corpus. That right can be suspended only during war. George Jr's presidential signings (that we know about) have essentially declared America at war. This Supreme Court ruling says the writ of Habeas Corpus has not been suspended - implying that America is not at war.

Interesting question remains: what will the administration do this time to subvert the court's ruling.

This court ruling has suspended the July trial of Hamdan. This court ruling comes with cheers from virtually the entire Military Judge Advocate corp who have been appalled at the perversion of American laws, military justice, massive violations of basic human rights, and routine use of torture.
Habeas corpus is not an absolute right, and a declared state of war isn’t the only reason for suspending habeas corpus:

U.S. Constitution Article I

“The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

9-11 could be construed as an invasion and thus habeas corpus could be suspended. But the problem here is how do we know when the invasion is over? The way GWB is fighting his so-called war on terror means that victory parameters don’t exist. Thus we could theoretically be perpetually in danger and habeas corpus could be suspended indefinitely.
flaja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2008, 02:42 PM   #15
flaja
High Propagandist
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary View Post
Supporting facts please for "routine".
Does this means that you support occasional torture?

Any act of torture on the part of the U.S. or on behalf of the U.S. is deplorable.
flaja is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not 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 Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:15 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.