U.S. Judge: Guantanamo Tribunals Unconstitutional

I dunno, I thought the point of the whole mess was that the combatants weren't due US Constitutional protection, since they aren't citizens of the US. Does this mean everyone in the world, no matter where they are, are protected by US Law? That seems like a huge can of worms to open.

I hope they understand that this will just mean a lot less prisoners taken... if you get my drift...

I dunno, I thought the point of the whole mess was that the combatants weren't due US Constitutional protection, since they aren't citizens of the US. Does this mean everyone in the world, no matter where they are, are protected by US Law? That seems like a huge can of worms to open.

I guess this means we are going to have to give them the right to vote in our next elections too? We may as well just start shipping out ballets to every country for 2006.

Just reading this artical makes me feel like the Judge is trashing my rights.

That's My Two Cents

'We may as well just start shipping out ballets to every country for 2006.'
I vote for 'Swan Lake' to lead the charge ...

as do many others on the left side of the aisle

So standing up for the constitution is now considered left wing? Maybe Washington, Jefferson and those other left wing 'commies' should have been shot rather than allowed form the United States.

This mentality is very very sad.

Paul.

makes me feel like the Judge is trashing my rights

What about THEIR rights?
You don't have the right to imprison others without cause.
You don't have the right to remove due process.
You don't have the right to torture those who disagree with your way.

Or maybe you believe that you are a superior being who should be granted rights that they should not have? Take away their rights to liberty, equality and freedom?

Innoncent till proven guilty is the bedrock of the American legal system. If the US military has proof that these peopel are a threat to the United States then it can take them to court. Either put them on trial or release them. The fact is that they don't have proof and therefore they must be freed. It's very telling that the UK government instantly released the four Guantanemo Bay suspects the US returned to them. There is no proof.

Paul.

They are abducted from their lands, their hands cuffed 24 hours a day, they are gagged 24 hours a day, they are forced to bask in the sun 12 hours a day, they are forced to feel the harsh cold wind of the night in the open air.
So you citizen of free world feels they are not humans cause they were defending their homeland and beliefs, which were condemned by your land and beliefs?
Why don't you get dragged off your land and gagged and made like crippled dog?
Feels like Inquisition Era is creeping back, slowly, bullet by bullet.

bleh, I hate thoughtless knee-jerk junk...

"They are abducted from their lands, their hands cuffed 24 hours a day, they are gagged 24 hours a day, they are forced to bask in the sun 12 hours a day"

No, No, No, and No...

They weren't "abducted", and most of them weren't even in their own countries when they were captured.
They aren't handcuffed or gagged 24 hours a day, and frankly even if they were forced to bask in the sun 12 hours a day, which they aren't, "basking in the sun" isn't what I would call abuse. Does the US Constitution guarantee shade?

why aren't we kicking in doors in China to prevent the government there from infringing on the US Constitutional rights of the Chinese? Shouldn't we be protecting the rights of the French to display their religious symbols? If US Constitutional protection applies to anyone in the world, damn, the time has come to start bringing these fekkers in line...

Why the court thinks the US Constitution applies to Afghanis or any other non-US citizen is beyond me. The fact of the matter is, non-US citizens outside the US aren't guaranteed a damn thing by a US governmental document. If anything, they should have gotten Geneva convention protection. Allowing them the rights of a US citizen is asinine.

You don't have the right to imprison others without cause.

The cause was because they were on the battlefield. Most carrying guns, loaded and pointed at our troops.

You don't have the right to remove due process.

Due process was being served just fine by Military Tribunals. Giving these scum access to other scum (lawyers) paid for by our taxes, and allowing them to use our own legal system and it's assumptions about innocence until proven guilty to run up huge legal bills (again, on our dime) is wrong.

You don't have the right to torture those who disagree with your way.

No you don't. But they don't have the right to take up arms against you, kidnap your citizens and your allies, blow them up, and otherwise try to disrupt their lives at every turn. If torturing one terrorist saves your life is it worth it? (Maybe not, from certain points of view). But if it saves my life, or the life of my wife, my son, my daughter, my mother, father, sister, etc., then by god, it's worth it.

If torturing 100 terrorists, and making it well known that there's a severe price to pay for crossing the United States and it's allies saves lives by putting fear into the hearts and minds of our enemies, then the ends do justify the means.


Baker Street addressed the comments on abducting these people. If they were natural citizens of the lands they willingly ran into to 'help defend', then you might have a point. But.. since many of these people were found thousands of miles away from their home countries, they deserve nothing.

Fortunately, this is just one judge's opinion. The fat lady is only warming up.

Cheers,
Daiwa

It's very telling that the UK government instantly released the four Guantanemo Bay suspects the US returned to them. There is no proof.

It's also quite telling that a large percentage of those released went right back into the business of taking up arms against us and our allies.


These creatures of lesser intelligence need to be locked away permanently, fed whatever scraps we wish to drop their way, and left to rot like Edmond Dantes.

The root issue to me is why these people are afforded CONSTITUTIONAL rights, instead of Geneva Convention rights. I could almost understand if these folks were deemed enemy combatants and given PoW status, but saying they deserve Constitutional protection as if they were citizens or were vacationing here... I don't get that at all...

Due process was being served just fine by Military Tribunals

Not according to the judge. This issue may be appealed to a higher court, but the US Supreme Court already made very clear that the government was already in breach of the constitution and I would be surprised if it overturned this ruling.

a large percentage of those released went right back into the business of taking up arms against us and our allies

This is certainly not true of the UK detainees. Which detainees do you refer to?

why these people are afforded CONSTITUTIONAL rights, instead of Geneva Convention rights

This is a good question. The US can recognise their status as POWs at any stage. The porblem is that the US refuses to do this and hence the Supreme Court ruled that they must have their legal status determined.


The problem I have with Guantanemo bay is not that potential terrorists are being held, but that they are being held without any recourse to the legal system. Due process must be applied or else the terrorists have won. They would have succeeded in destroying the land of the free and turning it into the land of oppression. The US needs to completely rethink it's approach here. Removing the detainees from the country of their crime was a major mistake as it makes them answerable to US law. That also means that US tax payers money is being spent on their 'due process', and rightly so as the US military decided to bring them to US territory. They should have been detained and tried (if evidence existed) in the lands they were captured in. If the evidence did not exist then they should have been released. Either way local laws should have been used and the legal systems of those countries should have been strengthened and supported to do the job.

Paul.

How is it that these folks fail to see the irony of affording combatants who fight on the premise that our government and lifestyle are "evil" the rights of that "evil" government?

The trial of these prisoners should be based on INTERNATIONAL law, as opposed to US law,as opposed to Iraqi or Afghani law. It is the only way to put them under a fair standard that both affords them reasonable rights and respects their culture. As they are prisoners of war,it is my understanding (PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong) that military tribunals are the accepted means of trial for prisoners of such classification.

Due process must be applied or else the terrorists have won.

Nail on the head award, solitair.

As they are prisoners of war

They're not. That's the problem. The US refuses to grant them that legal status and so at the moment they are 'emeny combatants'. This is the very point the US Supreme Court rules against and the very reason the military tribunals were set up in the first place. Their legal status must be determined BEFORE any trials may take place. Furthermore they must have access to the US legal system as the US military brought them to US territory. Now a judge has ruled that the military tribunal is illegal and not an acceptable way for their legal status to be determined.

Paul.

Reply #12 By: Solitair - 2/1/2005 12:51:11 PM Due process was being served just fine by Military Tribunals Not according to the judge. This issue may be appealed to a higher court, but the US Supreme Court already made very clear that the government was already in breach of the constitution and I would be surprised if it overturned this ruling. a large percentage of those released went right back into the business of taking up arms against us and our allies This is certainly not true of the UK detainees. Which detainees do you refer to? why these people are afforded CONSTITUTIONAL rights, instead of Geneva Convention rights This is a good question. The US can recognise their status as POWs at any stage. The porblem is that the US refuses to do this and hence the Supreme Court ruled that they must have their legal status determined. The problem I have with Guantanemo bay is not that potential terrorists are being held, but that they are being held without any recourse to the legal system. Due process must be applied or else the terrorists have won. They would have succeeded in destroying the land of the free and turning it into the land of oppression. The US needs to completely rethink it's approach here. Removing the detainees from the country of their crime was a major mistake as it makes them answerable to US law. That also means that US tax payers money is being spent on their 'due process', and rightly so as the US military decided to bring them to US territory. They should have been detained and tried (if evidence existed) in the lands they were captured in. If the evidence did not exist then they should have been released. Either way local laws should have been used and the legal systems of those countries should have been strengthened and supported to do the job.

Question? Did they give their victims "due process"?

Two ways to threaten our justice system is to interpret our laws so broadly that they can't be enforced, or to interpret them so rigidly that they become an effective weapon against us.

I think the point here is that "enemy combatants" is a phrase created by the Bush administration to run an end around on both international laws and the Geneva conventions (if they're designated POWs they have certain rights and access to the IRC). The ACLU was right to challenge this one. These people were clearly placed at GitMo since it is U.S. controlled, but not a state. If they were placed in a foreign country they would be subject to that nation's laws and any international laws or treaties that country signed. Placing them at GitMo puts them out of the way and keeps it low on the radar.

Also, I believe that we do owe them "due process." If we are to sink to the lowest common denominator of human decency, are we any better than those we're fighting?

Reply #18 By: sqrrldrw - 2/2/2005 1:49:22 AM I think the point here is that "enemy combatants" is a phrase created by the Bush administration to run an end around on both international laws and the Geneva conventions (if they're designated POWs they have certain rights and access to the IRC). The ACLU was right to challenge this one. These people were clearly placed at GitMo since it is U.S. controlled, but not a state. If they were placed in a foreign country they would be subject to that nation's laws and any international laws or treaties that country signed. Placing them at GitMo puts them out of the way and keeps it low on the radar. Also, I believe that we do owe them "due process." If we are to sink to the lowest common denominator of human decency, are we any better than those we're fighting?

I said this before and I'll say it again. Do you think these "enemy combantants" gave their victims *due process*? If you think they did, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'll sell you cheap.

I think the point here is that "enemy combatants" is a phrase created by the Bush administration to run an end around on both international laws and the Geneva conventions (if they're designated POWs they have certain rights and access to the IRC). The ACLU was right to challenge this one. These people were clearly placed at GitMo since it is U.S. controlled, but not a state. If they were placed in a foreign country they would be subject to that nation's laws and any international laws or treaties that country signed. Placing them at GitMo puts them out of the way and keeps it low on the radar.

Since IRC has been there almost from the beginning, and given many reports about their observations, I fail to see how the detainees have been kept "below the radar".

If all they have to do is flood our justice system with cases, they have won without firing a shot. Even Prs. Lincoln saw the need to temporarily suspend some rights, in order to save the Union for you and me.

This is the kind of response governments get when they work out in the open. I think all the "embedding" and openness needs to be rejected. There's just too many partisan nit-wits that take advantage of it. A government can't make war and worry about nuisence litigation from twits like the ACLU.

In the end, then, this sorty of pickiness is just going to keep prisoners like this from being heard about at all, or not taken prisoner at all and dealt with on the battlefield.

Did they give their victims "due process"?

What victims?!?!?!?

There is no proof of any wrong doing by these people or else there wouldn't be this problem. They would have been chargd, tried and convicted (of the proof existed).

This is the problem. You assume they are guilty without any proof.

Paul.