Supreme Court Justices Rule Terror Suspects Can Appeal in Civilian Courts »
Posted By TechnologyExpert 1 year, 6 months ago in NewsThe Supreme Court has ruled that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the U.S. Constitution to challenge their detention in civilian courts.
Read Full Story at msnbc.msn.com »
1319 Views Share Story 74 Comments Report
Submitted By:
TechnologyExpert
I am Editor-in-Chief at Alice Hill's RealTechNews (http://www.realtechnews.com). I also have my own blog (Tech-Ex) at http://TechnologyExpert.Blogspot.com. Finally ...
Who Also Submitted: All »
Other Related Articles: All »
Why not submit a story?
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 437 of 460 Comments (view all)
-
Neutral
berkeley1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
scalia actually believes we're going to die because a few people might get their day in court. that leaves congress with no choice but to impeach him.
does this ruling only apply to guantanamo? what about the dozens of other secret prisons or prison ships?
and the fact that this was a 5-4 vote reminds us of the importance of this presidential election. reporters might want to ask mccain who he would nominate.
Reply-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm not sure how expressing his opinion is impeachable. But I'm AMAZED that he believes that giving a few people the right of judicial review will result in more American deaths. Too bad he couldn't spell out the logical process behind that--it almost reminds me of the way some folks on Propeller argue.
Though I haven't read the opinions yet, it seems to me the ruling must apply to any other prisons holding enemy combatants whose cases are reviewed in the same way as those at Guantanamo.
Reply -
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Berk, you're thinking like an American with all of the rights and beliefs in law and order. We're dealing with a group of terrorists who at best should be considered spies. They're military trained and dress in civilian cloths. They tend to target soft targets, town squares, markets, schools and the like. Prior to Jimmy Carter signing the PLO protection act, captured prisoners would have been considered spies. FDR, Truman, Ike, JFK, Nixon and Ford agreed, refusing to give special rights to terrorists. The UN and Carter sided with the PLO and against Israel. It seems Carter's incompetence has once again bitten us in the butt.
As to American's caught fighting or supporting the terrorists, I'm not sure how to handle them. They're guilty of treason and an enemy combatant. The final outcome should be death but I'm not sure if that solves anything.
Reply -
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned
-
Neutral
wpe043131 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
People have already died. Several detainess that the military was forced to release overseas for lack of evidence have already resorted to form and killed again, or did you miss that part of Scalia's opinion? Granting habeas corpus, for the very first time, to unlawful enemy combatants means allowing them access to evidence pursuant to less stringent federal evidentiary rules: military intelligence, witnesses who have supplied information, and anything else that can, eventually, be passed on to Al Qaeda. Heaven forbid that Justice Scalia might see this as not being a particularly good thing. And now that a civilian judge can determine the fate of a detainee, that gives the judicial system oversight into military affairs, something that has not happened in 230 years. It is truly frightening that people such as you see this as some run-of-the-mill civil rights issue and not for what this represents: the judiciary having final say over national security.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Teech1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And surprise! Dumbya announced in Rome that he "doesn't agree with the decision" and that he will have to "come home and study it."
Study it? Has he learned to read yet? Has the ruling been illustrated yet? He's also preaching the same "we're not safe" mantra again. If Scalia believes we are due for another 9/11 incident it is because of factors that are beyond our control. No nation on Earth can be totally immune from some form of attack no matter how big their military or how vigilant they are. If it happens, perhaps this time we'll deal with the country where the perpetrators actually came from! (9/11? They were Saudis, not Iraqis....Ooops, invaded the wrong country. Damn, don't you hate it when that happens?)
Life has its risks. I'd prefer to minimize mine under rule of Constitutional law as opposed to Bushtapo tactics.
Reply-
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Scalia represents the demise of the empire. He is the very depiction of the kind of american that has betrayed the promise of his country, has facilitated the dynasty of an inept idiot, the kind of citizen that fails to see the real bloody message from 9/11 is that we emerged weaker not as strong as the principles we hold so precious in our western ideals ought to dictate. We failed to rebuild bigger better and more impressive in every aspect towers in record time, we failed to take a stance of amazing intellectual and technological superiority against the barbarians that attacked us, we allowed ourselves to prove slaves to money interests and narrow minded partizanship.
Scalia and his type is the very reason a new America is now emerging stronger wiser and in the end effective where all those idiots failed us and the ancestors that made it all possible.
We deserve the most superior freedom embracing justice available in the planet. It is exactly what makes us better.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
disraeli1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."
The Bush administration does not seem to grasp this simple truth. Perhaps now they will or they will be forced to.
In truth why should it take a Supreme Court ruling to force this president to recognize that human rights are not the property of the state, they are the property of the individual. In a civilized country they are not to be taken from the individual by the state.
Reply-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The authors of the Constitution never dealt with terrorists like we face today. Since they're little more than terrorist or spies, I think the military courts were the correct way to deal with them. I think the court just released 500 to 1000 terrorists from Gitmo on the world. Only in the USA can we snatch success from the jaws of victory. We haven't had an attack here since 9-11. Now we're starting all over again. If there is another attack and it's by some of these people currently in custody, I hope it's one of the liberals on the courts that feels the pain of loss.
Reply -
Neutral
Teagen1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think an attack that took less than 2 hours to kill over 3000 Americans and in the end cost this country over 2 trillion dollars.
As to Kennedy, he clearly isn't the conservative he pretended to be. I'm not sure how we're supposed to offer the same degree of Habeas Corpus in the battlefield as he expects in the USA. What will end up happening is easy to predict. Prisoners with ties to Saudi and Egypt will be returned for their executions. Most have been tried and convicted of treason. Those outside of those nations will be tried under the new rules at huge costs to the American people and be released. Not because their innocent, but because we're not going to release all of the classified information. Even sealed court records show up on line, there's no way to completely protect national security information in open court.
In the future, I suspect we will no longer take prisoners. Since the terrorists don't this will bring our people down to their levels.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
walden31 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
-
-
anioklyComment removed: Spammer16 Replies
-
Neutral
fishifanb1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts criticized his colleagues for striking down what he called "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants."
So far as I know "enemy combatants" is a term that was coined by this administration. Of course these procedures were the most generous. They were the only ones!
If this is what passes for logic in the highest court of the land then we are all in real trouble. Thank goodness Roberts wound up in the minority on this one.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Enemy combatants" is nicer than scum sucking baby killers. You guys seem to forget who or what we're dealing with. This is a group of people who want to kill you. Civilian, military anyone. Roberts is right, I think the lefties made a very bad call. I hope they prove me wrong, but I suspect most of the prisoners will end up released because of technicalities. No rights were read. That was a planted AK47 or artillery shell.In the end, we will see another attack on US soil. I suspect no even that would get the left to understand the dangers we face.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
TrueProgressive1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In every age, you get morons like BB who would trash our liberties and civilization just for a few machismo ya-ya's. Fifty years ago the lunatic right's claim was we were fighting "Godless communists" whom the constitutional framers never envisioned. The only reasons we've had no further terrorist attacks here is pure luck and a lack of coordination or command among would-be terrorists. But a terrorist can strike at any time. Nothing can be done about that, especially trashing our liberties and dignities. Only a scared lunatic would claim otherwise.
Beyond that, Scalia is a very scary man. Putting him on a court whose job is to protect the Constitution is like installing Al Capone as Secretary of the Treasury. Scalia is a radical Catholic, a true Cardinal Richelieu. Scalia hates the ideas of liberty and freedom, unless it's his own to oppress others. He hates the Constitution, especially the Fourth Amendment. He's a real insult to justice.
Reply-
Neutral
Codi69341 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And in every age we have morons like TrueProgressive that would allow terrorist to have the rights of U.S. citizens. Allowing them access to classififed materials, calling for troops to testify and cause us to lose focus on a war that is not over yet.
I am sure part of the reason for no attack yet is luck. But alot of people have worked to disrupt terrorist cells here and overseas. And don't forget that the military has struck a blow to terrorist from Iraq, Afghanistan, Somilia , Phillipines, and other palces we will never know.
Allowing this is a bad deal. Again they are learning our system and using it against us. Will we every learn!
Reply -
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Before you comment, perhaps you should take a look at your universities. They have been a communist haven for the last 50 years, preaching the benefits of communism. Many student groups protesting America were funded by clandestine KGB or NKVD agents.
As to attacks here, there have been over 200 such attempts, the President made that comment last year. I agree, it was more luck then skill that they were stopped.
As to your rights, I think you will find your claims are not able to be backed up. Why if your Christian we're a radical yet crashing a plane into a building in the name of allah is fine. I think many of the left need help.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
TrueProgressive1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
fishifanb, Roberts is the classic right wing good ol' boy. He's Bush, only with better articulation skills and a judical robe. But he's also an epileptic. That gives me hope he'll have to leave the court for health reasons, and that'll give Obama more appointments which will mean more chances to isolate Scalia and his stooges, Alito and Thomas. (Knowing the right wing, they'll probably prop Roberts' corpse up on the bench to keep alive the appearance he's a functioning judge.)
And ani, please go back on your meds.
Reply -
-
Neutral
cleare1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
i am very proud of this court decision. it was clear to me from the outset that 9/11 was a criminal act of murder, not a "war" crime.
the "terrorists" complicit with 9/11 should have been tried in US Federal Courts long ago, even WITH all the protections of the constitution, they would probably have been found guilty and would either have been executed or sent to a high security federal pen, with a roomie named spike.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think both are wrong. We're dealing with terrorism. This is about as vile a crime or act of war or whatever you call it. They target women and children, justifying this in their distorted ideas of religion. Once this hits civilian courts, they're going to demand information that is classified. Where our agents are and why can't they testify. This happened during the drug wars in the late 70's. The justice department destroyed dozens of cases that way. With this ruling, the soldiers in the field will be less likely to take prisoners in the future. If you're an insurgent shooting, bombing or the like, when captured, why would they waste time so you could be released. You're going to hear more stories, truthful or otherwise about "frontier" justice taking place.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
getreal11 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Justice wears a blindfold and carries a double edge sword. there has been many a person to be guilty and walk away and there has been many an innocent to be found guilty. Our system of justice is supposed to allow a person to prove they are innocent. 911 was horrible, just as the bombing of Pearl Harbor. America has to practice what it preaches when it comes to holding on to our freedoms. Freedom and justice for all. If they are guilty, then let the trials begin. If innocent then they should be happy that our way of justice will set them free. Hopefully the guilty ones will be punished and the ones that are innocent will be happy it was our laws they were govern by. There are other countries that would put them to death without a trial.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Justice has a blind fold, good for her. Too bad the terrorists didn't provide that for the passengers and victims on 9-11.
9-11 and December 7th have very little in common. Dec. 7th was a military attack on a military base. Well planned and executed by a government committing an act of war. 9-11 was a terrorist act committed by a bunch of cowards. They were trained for covert operations and conducted an act of terror. This was the actions of a spy team at best. Their excuse, it was their religion that permitted this. Yea right, just spreading terror, like spies do. Treat them like spies and get rid of them.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Wolfie20071 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Activist judges are the bane of our Constitution. This ruling is in conflict with not only the US Constitution but with Geneva Convention and other treaties.
Btw, Guantanamo is not part of the United States we lease it from Cuba.
I for one am not willing to pay for lawyers for these creeps. These trails would take years and cost billions and still end with death sentences.
Reply-
Neutral
getreal11 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They are our prisoners. We rented the land and they are under our laws or should be. Our system most probably wouldn't give them smart lawyers anyway. How many public defenders have you ever known to up-hold their job? It is costing us to feed and keep them also.
Reply -
Neutral
Will13131 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Guantanamo is not part of the United States we lease it from Cuba
----
when you LEASE SOMETHING you OWN it for the duration of the LEASE... YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT HAPPENS THERE...
same as our embassies are sovreign American soil, no matter what country...
Reply -
Neutral
disraeli1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wolfie,
What are you talking about.
Clearly the ruling is not in violation of the Constitution, as the ruling upholds the Constitution by the very body empowered by the Constitution to make such rulings.
I should think that by definition alone it is very difficult to argue that a Supreme Court decision, any Supreme Court decision, is unconstitutional at the time it was made. That is why the Supreme Court (as are the lower courts) cognizant at all times of earlier rulings of the Supreme Court are taken into account. Either the matter at hand is distinguished on some grounds from the previous ruling, or the previous ruling stands. If someone can point out a Supreme Court decision that was subsequently declared unconstitutional I'm willing to be corrected and educated. I can't think of one off the top of my head.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
TrueProgressive1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hey BB, watch out, there's a terrorist under your bed.
Otherwise, those who are mentally unchallenged, and that excludes you, Codi and Wolfie, understand that you have a far greater risk of dying in your automobile than you do from anything a terrorist does.
And getreal, nice comment. Understand, "death without trial" is exactly what the regressive cretins here want America to become.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually I was in the Pentagon. We finished coffee at the Ground Zero cafe and were in the process of selling a new Navy power project. I've had my personal fill of terrorist.
As to regressive comment, it's nice you're giving the terrorist more rights than they've given their victims. Perhaps you and Barack can work out a treaty with them, establishing rules on how to kill people. Where they can plant the bombs and such. Yea right. Give me a break, you're dealing with animals who kill in the name of their god. So you're now going to tell me they're protected for that too right?
Reply
-
-
Neutral
canadianrancher571 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I was reading the coments to another story the other day where people were stating that the constitution was created with rights given by God and this idea was supported by many consevative minded people. Now using this logic does it not mean that the rights granted American citizens would not include all of the other people in the world. Just something to think about.
Reply-
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
nicely done
I'm not sure of the second to last sentence, but I take the meaning
this goes to something I wrote previously about mental compartmentalization:
in one drawer God gave us the inalienable rights in the constitution
in another drawer, there is one God over all mankind
in yet another drawer, these rights do not extend to foreigners and other people beneath that God, therefore He gave these rights to us alone
now what color socks do I want to wear today...
Reply -
Neutral
miklkit1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There was a saying we told each other long ago. "No matter what you do or where you go, there you are." Meaning you are the same person no matter where you happen to be.
In this context, it means we are Americans and are subject to American law. No matter where we happen to find ourselves, or our situation. It doesn't matter where we got the people in gitmo from. WE have to judge them according to American laws. Not some wild west foolishness, like some wish.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
dandydebwhitener1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
bush should be in jail,did he fool you into voteing for him?We are our brothers keeper and bush is no keeper,the only GOD he knows is himself...he has hurt the U.S.A and its people,and you fooled people think he a GODLY MAN---YOU WERE FOOLED,,IF you like bush you will love mccane
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Perhaps before you post you might want to read it. I do the same thing.
On your comments, I know we've done the right things, fighting the war on terror. We're holding a lot of very bad people. I think we should have released them to Saudi and let their justice department take care of our failings.
As to Bush fooling people, you're claiming he's this big evil guy who isn't Christian. We're fighting a group of terrorist troops that believe by killing innocent unarmed civilians he will get into heaven. I think that's crazy. Unless Islam really is a death cult or something like that. I keep hearing how it's a religion of piece. A piece here a piece of terrorist there. I did that part as a joke.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Hobe1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Supreme Court Justices Rule Terror Suspects Can Appeal inâ;¦
Sad day for America, a really bad Decision by the Supreme Court.
These Islamic Terrorist Murders are responsible for Killing over 3,000 Innocent American civilians In New Your City. This is a War issue and should be dealt with accordingly.
Just ask the family members who lost Loved one's in this Coward disgraceful act.
How sad....
Reply-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What do you think we should do about Bush daddy killing several thousand Panamanians? Or Ford (with the help of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz) helping kill up to a million Indonesians? Or Reagan killing 300,000 christians in central america? Shouldn't we ask the loved ones who lost family members in these cowardly, disgusting acts?
"Good News" From Iraq & Beyond
Do No Evil â;; In December 2007 Panama declared a Day of Mourning to commemorate the US invasion of 1989, which killed thousands of poor people, when Bush I bombed the El Chorillo slums. Panama was more deadly than Saddam's invasion of Kuwait a few months later, but US military imperialism there and throughout the world is never touched by US media.
http://donoevil.propeller.com/story/2008/04/04/...
Reply -
Neutral
Ratskii1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So you're saying that the Justices shouldn't interpret law based on the U.S. Constitution, but should interpret according to their own fears and current political opinion: you're calling for the Supreme court to become activist and create law.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Hobe1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Supreme Court Justices Rule Terror Suspects Can Appeal inâ;¦
Sad day for America, a really bad Decision by the Supreme Court.
These Islamic Terrorist Murders are responsible for Killing over 3,000 Innocent American civilians In New Your City. This is a War issue and should be dealt with accordingly.
Just ask the family members who lost Loved one's in this Coward disgraceful act.
How sad....
Reply-
Neutral
walden31 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Um ... ALL but ONE of the 9/11 hijackers are DEAD. So it would be just a bit difficult to accuse any of the Gitmo detainees of that.
MOST detainees were NOT "pulled from the battlefield". They were 'turned in' by there fellow countrymen who "claimed" they were suspected "terrorists" so that those fellow countrymen could collect the reward offered by the U.S. for turning in "suspected terrorists". And that occurred well after 9/11 ...
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/gitmo3.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200602u/nj_taylo...
How sad that you are so misinformed ...
Reply
-
-
Neutral
ghengisghan1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Walden, above, re the authoritarian paradox you mention, that authoritarians decry strong centralized power even as they enthrone it...
...it's really a matter of the KIND or stripe of power, isn't it?
As in, my god is better than yours (god being the ultimate example of centralized authority).
Liberals are spooky to the authoritarian brotherhood because they're inclined to place the individual above the group, fairness over loyalty....
Reply -
-
-
-
-
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
DeLeMaComment removed: Retracted by user
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.