SCOTUS lets GITMO Detainees have

this decision could've been avoided had the executive branch made a decision in the six or so years that these folks have been imprisoned. right now, it looks like we're just holding them to hold them. for a nation that proudly proclaims "freedom" as its watchword, the gitmo detention is somewhat contradictory.
 
I'm not a lawyer but I have a serious question.

Does this ruling mean that when we capture someone on the battlefield in say Iraq or Afghanistan they are entitled to the same rights that I am? A speedy trial, etc..?
 
SenateHorn--

I think you raise a vaild point. The problem is that the Bush administration created this legal mess.

If it were to me those captured in battle in Afghanistan and would be treated as POWs and afforded protection under the Geneva Convention.

Iraq is a bit trickier as we are not technically at war with them (remember Bush declared major military operations over), but are an occupying power.
 
Having now read through most of the majority opinion, I tend to agree with some of wash's thoughts (but not all)

This is not a 14th amendment opinion -- it is an opinion based primarily on the Suspension clause of the Constitution (Article 1, section 9, clause 2).

While the length of detention was not a factor in whether the law applied, it was a factor in the Court's decision to take on the issue.

It may be "territorial" for the Court to assert the power of the Judiciary over this, but this is the same fight since Marbury v. Madison. And it is over habeus corpus, the Great Writ, one of the cornerstones of English common law as it has come into our country.

They do get into procedural due process, but the opinion makes for interesting reading on why they think this is different from some of the WWII cases. They do look at what the CSRT process involves, and it is not the same as what most of you would imagine a trial is.

wash, you are being entirely too dismissive of this case. It is not as broad a bogeyman as other posters make it out to be, but it is significant. I would differ that it is proof of a "living" doctrine of the Constitution. Habeus corpus is a very, very old longstanding feature in English common law. It just doesn't come up in this context except for the unique circumstances of Gitmo.
 
If you claim to make the moral high ground, then you must take the moral high ground. Thats it.

Damn shame that some ******* idiot terrorists turned half of America into whiny little *******. Either they took your values or your never had them..? Go back to bed and cuddle with your hateful BS ideas.....the gay terrorists are taking over.
 
The problem, washpark, is that we are neither talking about the perils of "scrupulous adherence" nor doctrinaire logic. Wisdom has been wholly absent, practical or otherwise, and this experiment in incarceration has been almost completely improvised, even as 6 years passed without an actual legal state of war with anybody, even as emergency either abated or came under control and what remained was either self-created or were determined to have been figments of the imagination.

I repeat, nobody believes that legal order equates to suicide. Not even you, and not even for the sake of argument.
 
I have to disagree with Justice Scalia's doomsday scenario. The ramifications of this opinion are far more straightforward.

1) There remains nothing in the Geneva Conventions that requires a soldier to take prisoners. Until a surrender is accepted, the surrendering person may still be shot. This is doubly true of insurgents who wear no uniform or insignia, and are therefore largely outside the protections of the Geneva Conventions. So what we will see is our troops taking a lot fewer prisoners.

2) There is nothing to indicate that prisoners cannot be released from Guantanamo and repatriated to their home countries. In many instanaces, those home countries will treat these people rather worse than they have been treated at Guantanamo. A pyrrhic victory, indeed, for some of these folks who are going to get to spend time in Egyptian, Syrian, and Saudi torture chambers rather than in the air conditioned cells at Gitmo.

3) For those who cannot be repatriated, the decision holds open the possibility that we could build a replacement facility in another country (e.g., Afghanistan) and manage that facility without exercising sovereignty over it. Kind of like what we did with Spandau Prison after World War II. I would foresee that happening in the near future.

4) Some of these people are actually going to get a public trial. Good. Let's see what these evil ******** were up to. Let's expose their designs to the scruitny of the American public.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top