This story is archived
Court denies appeal from Gitmo detainees »
Posted by: jeremytoday 2 years, 3 months agoThe Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday from Guantanamo detainees who want challenge their five-year-long confinement in court, a victory for the Bush administration's legal strategy in its fight against terrorism.
Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com »
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 304
-
Shirtless
April 2, 2007, 1:31 p.m.While it is a victory for the Bush Administration, we need to keep two things in mind: (1) this result comes only after the arrogant George Bush was compelled, by the Court, in the previous case, to recognize the constitutional role of the Congress in formulating the laws in this country, and (2) when the Supreme Court denies review, it is expressing no opinion on the merits of the case. It merely denied review.
-
disraeli
April 2, 2007, 3:47 p.m.The court did not rule on the merits of the case.
From the article, it only requires 4 judges' votes for a case to be reviewed, three judges voted outright to accept the case for their review and two (Kennedy and Stevens) made it "clear in a separate opinion that they were rejecting the appeals only on procedural grounds."
Don't trumpet your "victory" too loud or too long, it may be fleeting.
-
keinkampf
April 2, 2007, 4:12 p.m.It's really no victory at all--for anyone. It's a defeat for the Constitution. As I have said before, if we reach the point where the courts "recognize" that anyone who is labeled an "enemy combatant" or "terrorist" may be held without access to the courts, so long as he or she is held at a US facility outside the country, we are all in danger. All the President--or a minor administrator in the Departments of Defense or Homeland Security--will have to do to imprison anyone, and I mean ANYONE (even a native-born citizen like me, with roots in this country going back to the Revolution), is to administratively declare them an "enemy combatant" and make sure that they are transported out of the US to Guantanamo (or wherever)before they have a chance to file any court papers. Then they will NEVER be afforded the opportunity to prove their citizenship--and their right to due process--until the eternal war on terrorism ends.
Wake up, people!
-
-
Reignman
April 2, 2007, 1:51 p.m.Ahh I love how the democrats love to spin this one.. IM laughing so hard I almost coughed up my starbucks coffee!! Im glad to see our judicial system is doing the RIGHT THING!! Yes Pun intended.. Not much else to say except Im very pleased with the results... btw.. Earthlover, who gets the call when other countries need help... Ill give you a clue, its not the United Nations.....
-
UnusualSuspect
April 2, 2007, 1:59 p.m.All anyone would want is a fair hearing. But, thanks to Shrub, that's not going to happen. What is this country coming to, anyway? I guess it depends on who you are. Viewed as "enemy combatants", they have no rights, whereas someone who has actually committed a crime in this country, they do. Uniform or not, human rights policies should still be adhered to. Hypocrisy runs rampant here. And Shrub wants to spread democracy worldwide? Wow...no better example than us, huh...ha!
-
joeblowe
April 2, 2007, 1:55 p.m.This is a tough case. On the one hand, if these people being held in Gitmo had been wearing uniforms of the "enemy" military when captured on the battlefield, there would never be any question about holding them until the end of the conflict. However, since they are terrorists, and do NOT wear any uniform - but nevertheless kill American citizens and soldiers just AS THOUGH they were in a regular military, do we not have the same right to detain them? And yet - because they were NOT wearing a uniform, is it possible that someone on the battlefield MADE A MISTAKE? That is what the military tribunals are SUPPOSED to be for - determining in each case whether each person is, in fact, an enemy. If not, I presume they would be released. Personally, considering the stakes, I would prefer to err on the side of caution. Also, again, since they were NOT wearing uniforms, they are NOT entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions. (I thought that had already been established.)
-
walden3
April 2, 2007, 1:56 p.m.while it is wrong to keep people locked up for five years without adequate due process, what is wrong with doing what's always worked - charge em, try em, convict em and sentence em even to death if it's called for?
if there's no evidence then cut em loose.
-
Reignman
April 2, 2007, 1:57 p.m.Unusual suspect... The last time I checked a military tribunal is a fair hearing.... IS IT NOT!! I cant stand it when typical democrats spew such ignorant propaganda...
-
toddfuller
April 2, 2007, 2:13 p.m.i wonder how many of these men would get a hearing at all if they were in their home countries and were involved in terrorist activities against their own
-
toddfuller
April 2, 2007, 2:30 p.m.ive got a better one. lets give them a choice gitmo or maybe the chinese court system or maybe that beautiful justice system set up in russia
-
UnusualSuspect
April 2, 2007, 3:39 p.m.LOL...I can see where you get the name "knothead"....it certainly fits...
-
-
engineer
April 2, 2007, 3:33 p.m.We sure want to show this country as a dictatorship, rather than a democracy
-
anthrosteve
April 2, 2007, 3:48 p.m.Wow I have so much to say. I think I will place it into parts. Part one. Shooting individuals, trying individuals by lower stanads, and doing anything else that falls below the standard of care which americans expect from the justice system is not really an option. I think we should remember the saying "judge not unless ye be judged." Which means that when we are judging others we should be prepared to be judged by how we treat them. It also implies that we should judge people at the standards which we expect to be judged at. This means that if we expect to be judged by the laws of our lands then we should try all that we catch by the laws and principals of our lands.
-
joemont
April 2, 2007, 4:16 p.m.Why is it that I hear none of the 4Lers, (Loonie, Lying, Leftist, Liberals), posting here screaming about the treatment of the POW's held at the Hanoi Hilton during Nam.
Where was your outrage then folks?
You might want to ask Senator John McCain how he feels about your position.
Go Tiger!
(:>)
-
crespi
April 2, 2007, 4:16 p.m.Maybe if Bush tries an air strike without the permission of congress (he hasn't listened to them about anything else) or maybe if the wheels of justice catch up to him about the secret police, wire-taps, revenge "outing" of agents, revenge "firing" of judges, lying repeatedly to the American people and congress, torture of innocent American citizens without trial, then maybe he will have to be escorted to Guantanamo to have the cattle prods applied to his genitalia until he confesses his part in subverting and attacking our Democracy.
That would be a sad day for ALL Americans.
Unless he runs to that 90,000 acres of land he just bought in Paraguay (when VP Cheney escapes justice to Dubai.) That would be an even sadder day for America.
-
acedmnd77
April 2, 2007, 4:23 p.m.It's the "Democratic" way of calling them "prisoners of war" I guess!?
-
Obtruder
April 2, 2007, 4:29 p.m.A military tribunal is the most appropriate setting for a trial if those who are being held claim that they were not military combatants.
I absolutely shutter when liberals try to apply the US Constitution to those who have no knowledge of it, or comprehension about it, in the first place.
The Bill of Rights are guarantees to ONLY US citizens and ONLY under peacetime conditions.
The Writ of Habeous Corpus has been suspended several time throughout the history of this country.
I suspect that it isn't about reality, but I do suspect it is about all of the HATRED towards George W. Bush for being such a strong leader.
-
darth-chris
April 2, 2007, 4:34 p.m.I think McCain feels this way:
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewA...
And this way:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=...
By the way, I need to make sure that I understand your logic: It was not okay for the NV to torture our prisoners, but it is okay for US to torture the prisoners we are holding. What were the NV's rationale for torturing their US captives? That they were not really POW's, but engaged in an illegal war and thus had no rights.
See for instance:
http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/1998/winte...
Does that sound familiar?
-
Amazing1
April 2, 2007, 4:36 p.m.What we allow to be done to others, can eventually be done to us. The tribunals as set up are not fair. And it is not right to hold people, torture them until they confess and then convict them. Torture is not the way to the truth or to any kind of moral high road.
Torture me enough and I will confess to plotting Pearl Harbor, despite the fact that I wasn't fully potty trained at the time it happened.
Gitmo is wrong and should be closed.
-
anthrosteve
April 2, 2007, 4:57 p.m.If you travel to another country and do something against their law, you are subject to their laws. I think it should be the same thing if you are picked up by a country for doing something wrong. If that country wants to try you it should try you by the laws of that land. So if you are picked up by Americans you should be subject to American laws under American rules. Gitmo is an American base, therefore it is on American soil and American rules apply. The Bill of Rights guarentees rights to individuals subject to American law not just American citizens. (Amendment XIV section 1). IF they are not to be treated by American rules because they are enemy combatants, then they should have a military tribunal, but that tribunal should be at Geneva Code standards and not the standards that have been recently passed by this gov. ps. to knothead can we shoot you even if we ONLY SUSPECT you MIGHT be a terrorist.
-
Reignman
April 2, 2007, 5:10 p.m.Well due to the patriot act, unfortunetly the ones being held in guantanamo are being held without being formally told what they are being charged with. I know that some have been released, but we still need to work on this issue, well I believe we need gitmo. Its also our responsibility to be fair as well...
-
artists-and-writers
April 2, 2007, 5:12 p.m.The Constitution is quite clear on the subject: only Congress may suspend the Privilege of Writ of Habeas Corpus, and not the president or the Supreme Court (Art. I, Section 9, Para. 2). As a matter of historical interest, Lincoln did the same thing. When Chief Justice Roger Taney objected on strict Constitutional grounds, Lincoln threatened to have him arrested and thrown into jail, so Taney just shut up. That president did the same thing as Bush. Here's the kicker: Bush and Lincoln are remotely related.
These guys have been held at Gitmo for five years now without any charges having been preferred against them. They are still suspects, not convicts. Regardless of the overwhelming evidence, due process of law must still be followed. This is the way we Americans do things, and not Syria, Israel, or Iran. Now, the question is, is this simply a practice run to use against us? Are we next? This is what frightens me, and I don't scare easily.
-
earthlover
April 2, 2007, 5:24 p.m.well they may as well use it on us citizens....they use it on every other countries citizens....even their allies
The first 207 comments are shown. Show all 304 comments »
Submit a Story
