Supreme Court Gives Detainees Habeas Rights....

[Mr. Peabody]

Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented.

Court gives detainees habeas rights
Thursday, June 12th, 2008 10:08 am | Lyle Denniston | Print This Post

Email this • Share on Facebook • Digg This!

In a stunning blow to the Bush Administration in its war-on-terrorism policies, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign nationals held at Guantanamo Bay have a right to pursue habeas challenges to their detention. The Court, dividing 5-4, ruled that Congress had not validly taken away habeas rights. If Congress wishes to suspend habeas, it must do so only as the Constitution allows — when the country faces rebellion or invasion.

The Court stressed that it was not ruling that the detainees are entitled to be released — that is, entitled to have writs issued to end their confinement. That issue, it said, is left to the District Court judges who will be hearing the challenges. The Court also said that “we do not address whether the President has authority to detain” individuals during the war on terrorism, and hold them at the U.S. Naval base in Cuba; that, too, it said, is to be considered first by the District judges.

The Court also declared that detainees do not have to go through the special civilian court review process that Congress created in 2005, since that is not an adequate substitute for habeas rights. The Court refused to interpret the Detainee Treatment Act — as the Bush Administration had suggested — to include enough legal protection to make it an adequate replacement for habeas. Congress, it concluded, unconstitutionally suspended the writ in enacting that Act.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s opinion for the majority in Boumediene v. Bush (06-1195) and Al Odah v. U.S. (06-1196) was an almost rhapsodic review of the history of the Great Writ. The Suspension Clause, he wrote, “protects the rights of the detained by a means consistent with the essential design of the Constitution. It ensures that except during periods of formal suspension, the writ, to maintain the ‘delicate balance of governance’ that is itself the surest safeguard of liberty.”

In a second ruling on habeas, the Court decided unanimously that U.S. citizens held by U.S. military forces in Iraq have a right to file habeas cases, because it does extend to them, but it went on to rule that federal judges do not have any authority to bar the transfer of those individuals to Iraqi authorites to face prosecution or punishment for crimes committed in that country in violation of Iraqi laws.

[JoeChalupa]

Wow.

[101A]

There is no way this becomes a spectacle.

[Mr. Peabody]

One of the candidates had a little foresight on this issue....
9BIylNUkmvo

[balli]

Thank God Kennedy kept his shit together this time.

[PixelPusher]

Score one for justice, the rule of law, and one of the oldest "civil right" that is the foundation for due process.

[xrayzebra]

Thank God Kennedy kept his shit together this time.

Yeah, does this mean a GI has to give the
Miranda warning when capturing someone on the
battlefield?

As the in a old TV series: Very Interesting!

[SRJ]

This is how radicals win. While we smugly congratulate ourselves for our civilized ways, our enemies cut off heads, enslave women, and kill all of those who don't believe in the one true God.

Rest assured, wussbags: when they come for you, they're not at all going to be impressed that you supported their habeas corpus rights. Your heads will be liberated from your bodies too. Of course, in your final moment, instead of blaming jihadists, you'll blame the eeeeeeeevil conservatives.

[PixelPusher]

This is how radicals win. While we smugly congratulate ourselves for our civilized ways, our enemies cut off heads, enslave women, and kill all of those who don't believe in the one true God.

Rest assured, wussbags: when they come for you, they're not at all going to be impressed that you supported their habeas corpus rights. Your heads will be liberated from your bodies too. Of course, in your final moment, instead of blaming jihadists, you'll blame the eeeeeeeevil conservatives.
Yes, if we adhere to tenent of justice that has been around since King John agreed to the Magna Carta in 1215, terrorists will pop out the ground and behead us all! We need some extra adult diapers for all wingnut pussies who shit their pants during every episode of 24.

[SRJ]

Yes, if we adhere to tenent of justice that has been around since King John agreed to the Magna Carta in 1215, terrorists will pop out the ground and behead us all! We need some extra adult diapers for all wingnut pussies who shit their pants during every episode of 24.

Keep your head in the sand all you like. :)

[PixelPusher]

Keep your head in the sand all you like. :)

Keep an eagle eye out for those scarves and fist-bumps. :tu

[clambake]

hey pix, since your head is in the sand, tell me, can you see SRJ's fear bunker?

[balli]

http://www.terrorismawareness.org/images/43tt.jpg

Somewhere Edward R. Murrow is shedding a tear.

[Wild Cobra]

I haven't research any of this since hearing about it. I would suggest that someone interested keep in mind the court only said they have the right be heard on if their detainment is warranted or not. This still doesn't give them the right to their crimes being heard in the normal justice system we all enjoy.

I should spend the time reading the opinions, or whatever the court calls the write-ups they do.

Mr. Peabody... could you give us the relevant links for research please?

This is a surprising one to me. From the information I know of, I think the ruling was correct, and I'm surprised who the dissenters are. There must be something missing. I wonder what wasn't reported.

[xrayzebra]

How did we ever get through WWII, Korea, and VN wars.
Also WWI and the Civil War. Gee, wouldn't it have been
nice to have our Judges around to keep us straight.

Boy are the federal courts going to be busy in California.
I wonder is William Wayne Justice still in Tyler. He
will do great things with this ruling. Like he did with
schools in Del Rio and the prison system in Texas. What
a guy.

[Ignignokt]

Score one for justice, the rule of law, and one of the oldest "civil right" that is the foundation for due process.

Not even our soldiers get civil courts. What are you talking about. Are you an idiot.

Rule of law? WTF! George Washington, Polk, Jackson, didn't give our combatants that option. No King in England with the Magna Carta gave them that option either. This is sheer stupidity.

[Ignignokt]

http://www.terrorismawareness.org/images/43tt.jpg

Somewhere Edward R. Murrow is shedding a tear.

Wow i hope you're not being sarcastic. It's ok to hate the war, but to act cavalier about a real threat is disgusting.

[balli]

Wow i hope you're not being sarcastic. It's ok to hate the war, but to act cavalier about a real threat is disgusting.

You know what disgusts me? A bunch of scared, chump, paranoid & xenophobic pussies like yourself trying to bring a new breed of radical McCarthyist fear back into the mainstream. Fuck off.

[01.20.09]

I heard that McCaine said is he hasn't read the opinion yet, but what he really means is that Lieberman hadn't read it to him and explained it to him yet.

[Don Quixote]

I don't see this ending well. The terrorists will absolutely use our legal system against us.

[Saddam]

:bang

[ElNono]

This is exactly what I was talking about a couple days ago with Wild Cobra. According to him, the government has really good evidence, so they should have no problem justifying the long detention time and the reason for the detention in front of a federal judge.
The only shame is that it took this long to right this wrong.

[ElNono]

Interesting excerpt from: The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/washington/13scotus.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp)

Mr. Bush, in his statement in Rome, said the administration would decide whether to ask Congress to weigh in once more. Success at such an effort would appear unlikely, given that the Supreme Court decision was praised not only by the Democratic leadership, but also by the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Senator Specter had voted for the jurisdiction-stripping measure, but then filed a brief at the court arguing that the law was unconstitutional.

[Extra Stout]

Keep your head in the sand all you like. :)

I ate another falafel yesterday. I'm coming for you!!!!

[PixelPusher]

Not even our soldiers get civil courts. What are you talking about. Are you an idiot.

Rule of law? WTF! George Washington, Polk, Jackson, didn't give our combatants that option. No King in England with the Magna Carta gave them that option either. This is sheer stupidity.
This isn't about trying them in civil courts, it's about Habeas Corpus; the right to be brought before a court (civil or military) and hear what charges are being brought against you. Many of those detainees are just random guys who got turned in by some Afghan goat herder for the bounty promised by fliers we dropped.

[Clandestino]

This isn't about trying them in civil courts, it's about Habeas Corpus; the right to be brought before a court (civil or military) and hear what charges are being brought against you. Many of those detainees are just random guys who got turned in by some Afghan goat herder for the bounty promised by fliers we dropped.

surrrreeeee.... just like all those little fucking dirty vietnamese... farmers by day and murderers by night.

[PixelPusher]

surrrreeeee.... just like all those little fucking dirty vietnamese... farmers by day and murderers by night.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Taliban_bounty_flyer.jpg

Yeah, because after seeing this, no one would be tempted to turn in a personal enemy or some random stranger for millions of dollars.

[Mr. Peabody]

I haven't research any of this since hearing about it. I would suggest that someone interested keep in mind the court only said they have the right be heard on if their detainment is warranted or not. This still doesn't give them the right to their crimes being heard in the normal justice system we all enjoy.

I should spend the time reading the opinions, or whatever the court calls the write-ups they do.

Mr. Peabody... could you give us the relevant links for research please?

This is a surprising one to me. From the information I know of, I think the ruling was correct, and I'm surprised who the dissenters are. There must be something missing. I wonder what wasn't reported.

This is the best analysis I've seen of what the decision means.



Analysis: What are detainees’ rights now?
Thursday, June 12th, 2008 3:59 pm | Lyle Denniston | Print This Post

Email this • Share on Facebook • Digg This!

The Supreme Court’s lead opinion in the Guantanamo Bay cases Monday declares simply: “The detainees in these cases are entitled to a prompt habeas corpus hearing….The costs of delay can no longer be borne by those who are held in custody.”

But that does not mean any detainee is going to be released soon — although that ultimate remedy does have to remain available as a potential outcome. Much was decided on Monday — particularly in terms of constitutional magnitude — but much remains open for the future. What is next, and where might the decision lead in the end? Answers, but only preliminary answers, can be suggested.

First, however, some policy and political calculations have to be gauged. The decision does leave President Bush and Congress with the power to try again (assuming they could find some common ground) to head off habeas. Even though Monday’s decision was a constitutional ruling, the Court did not say that there can never be any substitutes for habeas review of detention. But, as a matter of political reality, a Republican President with only six months left in office and historically low popular approval ratings, and a Democratic Congress that is less and less deferential to the Executive even on war-on-terrorism issues, very likely will not be able to agree in the short time realistically available to find an alternative to habeas that has any chance of surviving a court test.

The Pentagon, too, still has some options open to it. It can scrap the existing system that decides who is to be designated as an “enemy combatant” and thus must remain confined. The Court did not strike down the so-called Combatant Status Review Tribunals; indeed, it said, they “remain intact.” But, the less such a filtering system protects a detainee’s legal rights, the more chances he has to challenge the enemy label and the detention in court, according to Monday’s decision. Does the Pentagon have a military interest in expanding detainee’s rights up-front? Given its history with CSRTs, the answer is probably not.

The Pentagon perhaps also might ponder some changes in the system for trying detainees on war crimes charges — the so-called military commissions that are ponderously moving forward at Guantanamo. But the Court said nothing about the commission system Monday, so the military may have no incentive to re-think a system that it has struggled to keep going amid a host of difficulties, major and minor. Still, the Court’s ruling does portend some serious challenges to the military commissions through habeas cases, even though the specific cases decided Monday involved challenges only to detention, not to prosecution.

There is one other political calculation to take into account: the prospect that Guatanamo Bay itself may be shut down entirely as an apparatus for detention and prosecution of captives in the war on terrorism. That could change, in wholesale ways, the fate of the detainees, and Bush Administration policy. But, between now and the start of a new Presidency, the time may be too short to find an alternative to Guantanamo, at least one that the President and Congress could agree on.

Thus, leaving aside all the prospects for political change of greater or lesser moment, what is going to happen next for the detainees is going to be legal in nature. As the Court said, the captives must have a “prompt” habeas hearing. What will go on in those hearings is going to be discussed shortly by the judges of the U.S. District Court in Washington (where such hearings will be held) joined by lawyers for the detainees, and for the government (Justice Department and Pentagon, in particular). As an earlier post on this blog indicated, the judges are already planning for such discussions.

Those in on the discussions about habeas proceedings have some leeway in how to proceed, because the Court said explicitly on Monday that its “opinion does not address the content of the law that governs” the Guantanamo detention. “That is a matter yet to be determined.”

But there is a good deal of guidance in the Court’s opinion written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, although some of its is a bit contradictory, or perhaps at least a bit unclear. On the one hand, for example, the Court says the detainees must have a “prompt” habeas hearing. But elsewhere, the opinion says that “federal courts should refrain from entertaining an enemy combatant’s habeas corpus petition at least until after the [Defense] Department, acting via the CSRT, has had a chance to review his status.” The latter point, however, does not explicitly take account of the fact that all of the detainees now at Guantanamo (270 or so remain) have had at least one CSRT review, and a few have had more than one. The Pentagon, though, may want to have some additional “do-overs,” especially if it fears that the existing basis for a specific prisoner’s detention is vulnerable to a strong habeas challenge, so the Court may be anticipating some time for those to occur. And it obviously did have in mind future captives, not yet at Guantanamo.

It is clear from the opinion that the detainees who already have had their CSRT reviews may proceed directly to District Court, with a new or reopened habeas challenge. (Some 200 habeas petitions are already waiting there.) The Court said that the detainees in that category need not pursue their challenges to CSRT decisions in the D.C. Circuit Court under the Detainee Treatment Act (Congress’ alternative to habeas). To require those who have been held for six years to complete that process ahead of habeas “would be to require additional months, if not years, of delay,” the Court said.

In fact, in the two cases that the Court explicitly decided Monday (Boumediene v. Bush, 06-1195, and Al Odah v. U.S., 06-1196), the Court ordered the D.C. Circuit to send them back to District Courts for the habeas review now required.

Still, the Court said it was not disturbing the DTA process that Congress assigned to the D.C. Circuit, so it will be up to that tribunal, in cases other than those in which detainees have been held for years, to decide how to proceed, if at all, now. Lawyers in some of the DTA cases pending at the Circuit Court are already under orders to advise that Court on what they think should happen following the Supreme Court decision. One of the cases in which such an updating order has been issued involves Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who has seeking to use his DTA not only to challenge his detention, but his war crimes prosecution before a military commission. The Circuit Court already has under advisement an appeal testing the legal rights of another Guantanamo detainee, Omar Ahmed Khadr.

But, returning to the habeas cases that are expected to resume in District Court, what rights will the captives have? Or, at least, what did Monday’s decision seem to say about those rights, even while insisting it was not providing a final checklist of rights?

Two somewhat general principles were stated: (1) that, if the detention decision comes in a proceeding in which the captive’s legal rights are limited so that the process was not “thorough,” the habeas review must be more expansive and comprehensive; and (2) that the judges handling habeas cases “must have adequate authority to make a determination in light of the relevant law and facts and to formulate and issue appropriate orders for relief, including, if necessary, an order directing the prisoner’s release.”

Going beyond those generalities, the Court made comments, in critiquing the CSRT and DTA proceedings, that suggest what habeas rights a detainee probably has to have before a court can uphold a decision that he must remain in detention or before a court would allow him to be tried for war crimes (since a CSRT or other designation of enemy status is necessary for a war crimes trial):

1. The habeas hearing must be prompt — at least for a detainee who has been held for several years (the time factor is uncertain).

2. The habeas review must be sufficiently comprehensive to significantly reduce the risk of error in an enemy designation, and the court must have the authority to correct errors in that designation.

3. The detainee must have a meaningful right to rebut the Pentagon’s evidence that seeks to support an enemy label, including some right to bring in additional evidence challenging the enemy status finding.

4. The detainee must have the assistance of a lawyer.

5. The detainee’s habeas case may demand an answer to the question of whether the President has the authority to order a captive held indefinitely — in other words, to challenge the basic authority of the Executive to have a prolonged detention policy for war-on-terrorism captives.

6. Release of custody, at least a “conditional” release (unspecified conditions), must remain one of the remedy options. It would not be enough, constitutionally, for a court merely to order a new CSRT proceeding as the only possible remedy.

Potentially, the first five of these rights may exist in a habeas case brought by a detainee who is facing a war crimes prosecution before a military commission. That is because a habeas challenge in that context would be, in part, a challenge to the enemy designation that must be made before a detainee may be charged with war crimes. But a habeas challenge in the war crimes context might also involve other constitutional claims of defects in the military prosecution itself — such as a denial of access to classified evidence against the accused. It is unclear, though, whether a habeas court would have the authority to examine those challenges in a pre-trial habeas case — or would have to await a final conviction. There might be other ways, different from habeas, for challenging the constitutionality of the commission process. The Court said nothing Monday about such challenges. Those, too, are for the future.

There is no way, at this point, to predict how many — if any — detainees now at Guantanamo may win their freedom as a result of the ruling. District Court judges already have been divided in their views of detainees’ rights, and that conflict is likely to continue.

An entirely separate question arises over whether the decision will provide habeas access for any detainees held elsewhere than at Guantanamo Bay — for example, at the U.S. military’s detention facility at Bagram air base in Afghanistan. Detainees there now have attempts at habeas pending in the District Courts in Washington. Their attorneys surely will attempt to take advantage of the ruling, and of the separate decision Monday (in Munaf v. Geren, 06-1666), finding that habeas rights do apply to those held by the U.S. military in Iraq. The Munaf decision involved only American citizens so held, but lawyers predictably would contend that should apply to foreign nationals so held, too — on the same ratrionale that the Guantanamo decision recognized habeas rights for foreign nationals at the Cuba base.

[Guajalote]

Do they get to pick the Federal judge, since there aren't too many around Gitmo?

[Oh, Gee!!]

surrrreeeee.... just like all those little fucking dirty vietnamese... farmers by day and murderers by night.

wtf do you know about vietnam? you didn't serve, so STFU!!

[ChumpDumper]

Don't we have enough evidence on every detainee to put them away for life or kill them, much less simply keep them in custody?

Don't we?

[Clandestino]

wtf do you know about vietnam? you didn't serve, so STFU!!


i served in the military. so fuck yourself.

[Nbadan]

"Illegal enemy combatants" is a legal fiction invented by the Bushies to deny POW status to suspected terrorists and the human rights that cannot be denied to any one. If the detainees are given POW status, then we have to determine when the war on terror is over so that they can be repatriated.

The writ of Habeas Corpus grows out the the natural right to the freedom to move about. In a state of nature, it is just as wrong to restrain another person from hunting or foraging as necessary as it in more civilized states to lock him up and throw away the key on the whim of the King or the President. We insist that the President give a reason to holding any other human against his will, and we do that for our own safety. A tyrant unrestrained by a legal structure who can incarcerate Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and put him on trial without due process can do the same to any one.

Yes, there has to be some structure here. The Military Commissions Act is the chaos of tyranny. Every part of it is unconstitutional. Every part of it is a violation of the natural rights of every man or woman on this planet, who lives or has ever lived or who will ever live.

[xrayzebra]

Every part of it is unconstitutional. Every part of it is a violation of the natural rights of every man or woman on this planet, who lives or has ever lived or who will ever live.


There is no such thing as "natural" rights. Otherwise there wouldn't be the right of abortion. Okay!

[ChumpDumper]

Don't we have enough evidence on every detainee to put them away for life or kill them, much less simply keep them in custody?

Don't we?

[Wild Cobra]

Don't we have enough evidence on every detainee to put them away for life or kill them, much less simply keep them in custody?

Don't we?
I don't know the details, but I think it is yes. We have plenty of evidence for all of them detained. The problem is that not all of them are caught by evidence the military wishes to share, and some of it is even classified as to the means of knowing they are guilty.

Consider the ones caught by military operations. When the court trial comes, the defense can demand evidence entered that may give away the military operations that should remain unknown to the enemy. We do not want to share our tactics with them. This is information that should not be shared until military operations there are over.

For classified information, this is how some of the worse of them may be caught. We may have means of surveillance that should remain classified for years to come. The only evidence that holds some will never be seen outside a military tribunal.

I'm sure I'm not good at explaining this, but I think you can get the general idea.

[ElNono]

I don't know the details, but I think it is yes. We have plenty of evidence for all of them detained. The problem is that not all of them are caught by evidence the military wishes to share, and some of it is even classified as to the means of knowing they are guilty.

Consider the ones caught by military operations. When the court trial comes, the defense can demand evidence entered that may give away the military operations that should remain unknown to the enemy. We do not want to share our tactics with them. This is information that should not be shared until military operations there are over.

For classified information, this is how some of the worse of them may be caught. We may have means of surveillance that should remain classified for years to come. The only evidence that holds some will never be seen outside a military tribunal.

I'm sure I'm not good at explaining this, but I think you can get the general idea.

There are ways to deal with this on a federal court. Sealed documents et all.
The FBI goes through the same problem as far as having to hide surveillance and tactical methods when dealing with gangs/mafia. This is really no different.

[Mr. Peabody]

I don't know the details, but I think it is yes. We have plenty of evidence for all of them detained. The problem is that not all of them are caught by evidence the military wishes to share, and some of it is even classified as to the means of knowing they are guilty.



Two attorneys that represent one of the Gitmo detainees put a profile together of all the detainees using government documents.

I saw one of these guys speak at a function and was surprised by what he had to say.




http://law.shu.edu/aaafinal.pdf

This Report is the first effort to provide a more detailed picture of who the Guantanamo detainees are, how they ended up there, and the purported bases for their enemy combatant designation. The data in this Report is based entirely upon the United States Government’s own documents.1 This Report provides a window into the Government’s success detaining only those that the President has called “the worst of the worst.”

Among the data revealed by this Report:

1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.

2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.

3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably.

Eight percent are detained because they are deemed “fighters for;” 30% considered “members of;” a large majority – 60% -- are detained merely because they are “associated with” a group or groups the Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist
group is unidentified.

4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody.

This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies.

5. Finally, the population of persons deemed not to be enemy combatants – mostly Uighers – are in fact accused of more serious allegations than a great many persons still deemed to be enemy combatants.

[Wild Cobra]

There are ways to deal with this on a federal court. Sealed documents et all.
The FBI goes through the same problem as far as having to hide surveillance and tactical methods when dealing with gangs/mafia. This is really no different.
That information gets leaked all the time and people die.

[ElNono]

That information gets leaked all the time and people die.

So we should just stick with an unconstitutional system?
You define your ideology as a 'Libertarian conservatism' but you seem to abide to the constitution only whenever it fits your beliefs.

[Wild Cobra]

Two attorneys that represent one of the Gitmo detainees put a profile together of all the detainees using government documents.

I saw one of these guys speak at a function and was surprised by what he had to say.
That was an interesting report, but it misses a few things. First of all, they would not have access to classified documents that didn't apply to their ONE client.

Now look at the wording.


Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies

so what. That is far from saying 55% are innocent, and it doesn't say there is no evidence against them. Just because they didn't commit hostile acts does not bean they didn't do something like manufacture IED's, do planning, finance, or something else.


Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.

So, are we to believe the only people that should be detained are either al Qaeda or Taliban?

Give me a break. That's absolute idiocy.


This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies.

Now payment may be relevant. However, could they be the ones already let go? Did you look at appendix A? It isn't as simple as just capturing someone and claiming they are the enemy. Besides, that statement in the executive summary doesn't match what is said in the report. That should automatically raise red flags of accuracy. On page 14:


Figure 12 explains who captured the detainees. Pakistan was the source of at least 36% of all detainees, and the Afghanistan Northern Alliance was the source of at least 11% more.

That's just 47% or more. These two entities are 86% of the detainees where the captor is identified. Not 86% of the detainees. The authors were not given information on who captured 44% of the detainees, yet they conclude no more than 7% by the USA.

Reality check please...

[Wild Cobra]

So we should just stick with an unconstitutional system?
You define your ideology as a 'Libertarian conservatism' but you seem to abide to the constitution only whenever it fits your beliefs.
We are talking about people found on the battlefield, or taken from elsewhere involved in the war, outside of the USA. The courts should have no right to them as long as the battles continue. They are war prisoners. They have no right to our constitutional protections.

[ElNono]

We are talking about people found on the battlefield, or taken from elsewhere involved in the war, outside of the USA. The courts should have no right to them as long as the battles continue. They are war prisoners. They have no right to our constitutional protections.

That's exactly the problem. This government do not want to classify them as POW. If they would, they wouldn't have this problem (but would have others). They also don't want to classify them as regular criminals. They want this made up thing in the middle.
I actually don't have a problem with them being declared POW. But then the US needs to abide to the Hague and Geneva Conventions.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't know the details, but I think it is yes.The let's put them all on trial.

[Wild Cobra]

That's exactly the problem. This government do not want to classify them as POW. If they would, they wouldn't have this problem (but would have others). They also don't want to classify them as regular criminals. They want this made up thing in the middle.
I actually don't have a problem with them being declared POW. But then the US needs to abide to the Hague and Geneva Conventions.

Now you have a point there, but also keep in mind the USA doesn't want to treat then with the respect under the Geneva Convention, because they are criminals of that treaty also! The don't wear uniforms, then when the dead are left, propaganda says we killed innocent civilians. They don't deserve the Geneva Convention, and are not a memeber of the agreements.

[Wild Cobra]

Let me add that under Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution:


To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court

This has been done, and now it's not good enough?

[PixelPusher]

From noted America hating, left-wing commie radical George Will.


Contempt Of Courts (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/16/AR2008061602041.html)
McCain's Posturing On Guantanamo

By George F. Will
Tuesday, June 17, 2008; Page A17

The day after the Supreme Court ruled that detainees imprisoned at Guantanamo are entitled to seek habeas corpus hearings, John McCain called it "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." Well.

Does it rank with Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), which concocted a constitutional right, unmentioned in the document, to own slaves and held that black people have no rights that white people are bound to respect? With Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which affirmed the constitutionality of legally enforced racial segregation? With Korematsu v. United States (1944), which affirmed the wartime right to sweep American citizens of Japanese ancestry into concentration camps?

Did McCain's extravagant condemnation of the court's habeas ruling result from his reading the 126 pages of opinions and dissents? More likely, some clever ignoramus convinced him that this decision could make the Supreme Court -- meaning, which candidate would select the best judicial nominees -- a campaign issue.

The decision, however, was 5 to 4. The nine justices are of varying quality, but there are not five fools or knaves. The question of the detainees' -- and the government's -- rights is a matter about which intelligent people of good will can differ.

The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to cause a government to release a prisoner or show through due process why the prisoner should be held. Of Guantanamo's approximately 270 detainees, many certainly are dangerous "enemy combatants." Some probably are not. None will be released by the court's decision, which does not even guarantee a right to a hearing. Rather, it guarantees only a right to request a hearing. Courts retain considerable discretion regarding such requests.

As such, the Supreme Court's ruling only begins marking a boundary against government's otherwise boundless power to detain people indefinitely, treating Guantanamo as (in Barack Obama's characterization) "a legal black hole." And public habeas hearings might benefit the Bush administration by reminding Americans how bad its worst enemies are.

Critics, including Chief Justice John Roberts in dissent, are correct that the court's decision clouds more things than it clarifies. Is the "complete and total" U.S. control of Guantanamo a solid-enough criterion to prevent the habeas right from being extended to other U.S. facilities around the world where enemy combatants are or might be held? Are habeas rights the only constitutional protections that prevail at Guantanamo? If there are others, how many? All of them? If so, can there be trials by military commissions, which permit hearsay evidence and evidence produced by coercion?
ad_icon

Roberts's impatience is understandable: "The majority merely replaces a review system designed by the people's representatives with a set of shapeless procedures to be defined by federal courts at some future date." Ideally, however, the defining will be by Congress, which will be graded by courts.

McCain, co-author of the McCain-Feingold law that abridges the right of free political speech, has referred disparagingly to, as he puts it, "quote 'First Amendment rights.' " Now he dismissively speaks of "so-called, quote 'habeas corpus suits.' " He who wants to reassure constitutionalist conservatives that he understands the importance of limited government should be reminded why the habeas right has long been known as "the great writ of liberty."

No state power is more fearsome than the power to imprison. Hence the habeas right has been at the heart of the centuries-long struggle to constrain governments, a struggle in which the greatest event was the writing of America's Constitution, which limits Congress's power to revoke habeas corpus to periods of rebellion or invasion. Is it, as McCain suggests, indefensible to conclude that Congress exceeded its authority when, with the Military Commissions Act (2006), it withdrew any federal court jurisdiction over the detainees' habeas claims?

As the conservative and libertarian Cato Institute argued in its amicus brief in support of the petitioning detainees, habeas, in the context of U.S. constitutional law, "is a separation of powers principle" involving the judicial and executive branches. The latter cannot be the only judge of its own judgment.

In Marbury v. Madison (1803), which launched and validated judicial supervision of America's democratic government, Chief Justice John Marshall asked: "To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?" Those are pertinent questions for McCain, who aspires to take the presidential oath to defend the Constitution.

[resistanze]

,,,

[ElNono]

Let me add that under Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution:

This has been done, and now it's not good enough?

The legality of the tribunals are not in question here. This case revolves around the fact that it's constitutional for Congress to replace the Habeas right (which they did), with one granting at the very least the most fundamental habeas rights (like the defendant actually knowing what they're accused of).
When Congress wrote it, they tought it would pass constitutional munster, but we know now that's not the case.
Thing is, Congress could still amend the provision or create a new one before any of these cases get to a federal court, but obviously with the current Congress it's not going to happen.

[Mr. Peabody]

That was an interesting report, but it misses a few things. First of all, they would not have access to classified documents that didn't apply to their ONE client.



In actuality, they probably didn't even have access to classified documents that applied to their ONE client. The attorneys representing these guys received very little information regarding the allegations against their clients.

Without expending the time to get into details, there's even more information on the detainees in the West Point study. As you did, they conclude that a higher percentage of the detainees are "demonstrated threats" by being more inclusive in their definition. It's a valid point.

http://www.ctc.usma.edu/csrt/CTC-CSRT-Report-072407.pdf

I also found this article from McClatchy interesting -



Entire article at http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/tom_lasseter/story/38773.html

America's prison for terrorists often held the wrong men

GARDEZ, Afghanistan — The militants crept up behind Mohammed Akhtiar as he squatted at the spigot to wash his hands before evening prayers at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

They shouted "Allahu Akbar" — God is great — as one of them hefted a metal mop squeezer into the air, slammed it into Akhtiar's head and sent thick streams of blood running down his face.

Akhtiar was among the more than 770 terrorism suspects imprisoned at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. They are the men the Bush administration described as "the worst of the worst."

But Akhtiar was no terrorist. American troops had dragged him out of his Afghanistan home in 2003 and held him in Guantanamo for three years in the belief that he was an insurgent involved in rocket attacks on U.S. forces. The Islamic radicals in Guantanamo's Camp Four who hissed "infidel" and spat at Akhtiar, however, knew something his captors didn't: The U.S. government had the wrong guy.

"He was not an enemy of the government, he was a friend of the government," a senior Afghan intelligence officer told McClatchy. Akhtiar was imprisoned at Guantanamo on the basis of false information that local anti-government insurgents fed to U.S. troops, he said.

An eight-month McClatchy investigation in 11 countries on three continents has found that Akhtiar was one of dozens of men — and, according to several officials, perhaps hundreds — whom the U.S. has wrongfully imprisoned in Afghanistan, Cuba and elsewhere on the basis of flimsy or fabricated evidence, old personal scores or bounty payments.

McClatchy interviewed 66 released detainees, more than a dozen local officials — primarily in Afghanistan — and U.S. officials with intimate knowledge of the detention program. The investigation also reviewed thousands of pages of U.S. military tribunal documents and other records.

This unprecedented compilation shows that most of the 66 were low-level Taliban grunts, innocent Afghan villagers or ordinary criminals. At least seven had been working for the U.S.-backed Afghan government and had no ties to militants, according to Afghan local officials. In effect, many of the detainees posed no danger to the United States or its allies.

I'm not positing that these detainees are innocent of what they are accused of, but I do think we need to make sure they are not subjected to arbitrary or unlawful restraint.

[ElNono]

Now you have a point there, but also keep in mind the USA doesn't want to treat then with the respect under the Geneva Convention, because they are criminals of that treaty also! The don't wear uniforms, then when the dead are left, propaganda says we killed innocent civilians. They don't deserve the Geneva Convention, and are not a memeber of the agreements.

I understand that they are scum and resort to the dirtiest tactics available, including complete disregard for international law. At the very heart of this debate is really a philosophical question: Do you play dirty too, and cheat on one of the pillars of the democracy (justice), or do you uphold the law, and deal with the consequences, whatever those might be.
It's a much trickier question that it seems, because there are many alternatives (ie: You could declare them POW, then not follow the conventions rights).
Perhaps this needs it's own thread.

[Supergirl]

This is very reassuring news. I'm not sure when the story came out, but I just caught it earlier today. Wish it got a little more coverage.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

But...But......

But I STILL HEART GITMO!!!!!!!!!!



/yonivore
you fucking fag

[ElNono]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A federal appeals court ruled Monday that a Chinese Muslim held by the U.S. military was improperly labeled an "enemy combatant" by the Pentagon.

It's the first time a Guantanamo Bay detainee has been given an opportunity in a civilian court to try to secure his release.

The decision throws into serious doubt the underlying reasons for keeping Hazaifa Parhat in custody for more than six years.

A brief one-page order from the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington directed military officials to either "release or transfer Parhat, or to expeditiously hold a new [military] tribunal."

The order came just 11 days after the Supreme Court ruled the approximately 270 detainees at Guantanamo have a basic constitutional right to challenge their detention in federal courts -- another setback for the Bush administration's anti-terror and war policies.

The justices moved quickly Monday to give federal judges further authority to hear an expected flood of appeals from accused terrorists and foreign fighters being held at the Guantanamo base in Cuba.

In a brief order of its own, the high court refused to get involved in a pending appeal from several detainees. That frees up federal judges in Washington to begin setting schedules to hear the cases. The chief judge at the U.S. District Court met with detainee lawyers last week and plans to meet with his fellow judges in the near future to discuss logistical and strategic questions.

Lawyers for the men have urged the federal courts to speed up the process, saying postponing a resolution "would once again, freeze judicial review of cases in which that review is years overdue... The human cost of further delay is simply too great."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia last July concluded the U.S. military could not limit what information the courts hear when foreign detainees are challenging their imprisonment.

The government had argued national security concerns gave them the discretion to decide what documents were pertinent for judicial review. Lawyers for the Justice Department also claimed the lower court decision would "impose extraordinary compliance burdens."

About 180 detainees have appealed their continued imprisonment and complain the government is unfairly restricting access to potential evidence that could clear them of wrongdoing -- evidence the men may not even know exists.

Hearings known as combatant status review tribunals determine whether a prisoner can be designated an "enemy combatant," and prosecuted by the military. Some legal and military analysts have likened them to civilian grand jury proceedings.

A federal law passed in 2006, the Detainee Treatment Act, restricts the ability of accused enemy combatants to challenge tribunal procedures and findings before the D.C. Circuit federal appeals court.

The legal issues surrounding the foreign nationals held in U.S. custody have taken on greater urgency in recent months. Many of the men are into their seventh year of detention, and several have already had pretrial hearings before the military tribunal.

The latest appeals involve eight detainees, including Parhat and Afghani Haji Bismullah.

Parhat, a Muslim of ethnic Uighur descent, is accused of attending a terror training camp in Afghanistan at the time of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Bismullah, 29, is accused of fighting with the Taliban against the United States and its Afghan allies. He is awaiting a ruling on whether his enemy combatant status was improper.

In a separate ruling, the federal appeals court in Washington refused Monday to intervene in the ongoing military prosecution of a Canadian national, who had sought immediate federal court oversight over his detention and upcoming trial.

Omar Khadr was formally charged in April 2007 with killing Sgt. Christopher James Speer, a U.S. soldier whose reconnaissance patrol was ambushed in Afghanistan in 2002. The American died nearly two weeks later. Khadr was 14 or 15 years old at the time and remains one of the youngest Guantanamo prisoners.

The three-judge federal panel in their latest ruling said it was premature to intervene with the military's criminal proceedings, but said it reserved the right to review the case later "to determine whether the [military] commission properly determined its jurisdiction and acted in conformity with the law."

The Supreme Court on three occasions since 2004 has limited the government's power to detain and prosecute foreign nationals held at Guantanamo.

The government has promised to comply with the justices' latest ruling, but President Bush said he would still consider proposing further congressional legislation limiting the power of federal courts to oversee appeals from enemy combatants.

LINK (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/23/gitmo.chinese.muslim/index.html)

[Wild Cobra]

Did you know the Chinese government cals the Uyghur nationalists terrorists?

[PixelPusher]

Did you know the Chinese government cals the Uyghur nationalists terrorists?

Are we letting the Chinese Government dictate our national security policies now? I guess we should throw the Dalai Lama into a Gitmo cell while we're at it.

[ElNono]

Did you know the Chinese government cals the Uyghur nationalists terrorists?

The Chinese government calls anybody wanting democracy a terrorist also.
What's your point?
Let me guess, the judge is some liberal political hippie. It couldn't possibly be that there's no evidence against this guy.
I thought they had really good evidence?????
I mean, they kept the dude jailed for *SIX* years!!!

[PixelPusher]

Did you know the Chinese government cals the Uyghur nationalists terrorists?

Did you know the United States government classified Nelson Mandela as a terrorist?



U.S. has Mandela on terrorist list (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-04-30-watchlist_N.htm)
By Mimi Hall, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Nobel Peace Prize winner and international symbol of freedom Nelson Mandela is flagged on U.S. terrorist watch lists and needs special permission to visit the USA. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice calls the situation "embarrassing," and some members of Congress vow to fix it.

The requirement applies to former South African leader Mandela and other members of South Africa's governing African National Congress (ANC), the once-banned anti-Apartheid organization. In the 1970s and '80s, the ANC was officially designated a terrorist group by the country's ruling white minority. Other countries, including the United States, followed suit.

Because of this, Rice told a Senate committee recently, her department has to issue waivers for ANC members to travel to the USA.

"This is a country with which we now have excellent relations, South Africa, but it's frankly a rather embarrassing matter that I still have to waive in my own counterpart, the foreign minister of South Africa, not to mention the great leader Nelson Mandela," Rice said.

Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., chairman of the House International Relations Committee, is pushing a bill that would remove current and former ANC leaders from the watch lists. Supporters hope to get it passed before Mandela's 90th birthday July 18.

"What an indignity," Berman said. "The ANC set an important example: It successfully made the change from armed struggle to peace. We should celebrate the transformation."

In 1990, Mandela was freed after 27 years in prison for crimes committed during the struggle against Apartheid, a repressive regime that subjugated black South Africans. In 1994, he was elected South Africa's first black president.

Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., called ANC members' inclusion on watch lists a "bureaucratic snafu" and pledged to fix the problem.

Members of other groups deemed a terrorist threat, such as Hamas, also are on the watch lists.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff says "common sense" suggests Mandela should be removed. He says the issue "raises a troubling and difficult debate about what groups are considered terrorists and which are not."

When ANC members apply for visas to the USA, they are flagged for questioning and need a waiver to be allowed in the country. In 2002, former ANC chairman Tokyo Sexwale was denied a visa. In 2007, Barbara Masekela, South Africa's ambassador to the United States from 2002 to 2006, was denied a visa to visit her ailing cousin and didn't get a waiver until after the cousin had died, Berman's legislation says.

Oh, but U.S. government never makes mistakes...

[xrayzebra]

Did you know the United States government classified Nelson Mandela as a terrorist?

He isn't one. I didn't know that. What did they call those burning tires around peoples neck?

[Wild Cobra]

The Chinese government calls anybody wanting democracy a terrorist also.
What's your point?
Let me guess, the judge is some liberal political hippie. It couldn't possibly be that there's no evidence against this guy.
I thought they had really good evidence?????
I mean, they kept the dude jailed for *SIX* years!!!

I agree that this is not always true because of the way the Chinese treat people. Still, the USA also considers the group Parhat beloongs to as a terrorist organization. Not just because the Chinese say so. It should be asked, what was he doing in the training camp. Maybe he is no threat to us, maybe we should turn him over to the Chinese. What do you think they would do to him if they assume as I do that he was learning terrorist tactics against he Chinese govenment?

Should we give him asylum because he tells us he was there to harm the Chinese government?

Who would take him in?

I find it ironic that the article didn't say what he was doing there, or did I miss it? Shouldn't the reported at least tell us why he is improperly detained? There are those who can easily claim otherwise.

Also, don't forget that this is a war on terrorism. Not just against USA terrorism.

As more and more come out about this case, I think we have the right man detained. Consider this:

U.S. defends detention of Chinese Muslim (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-04-04-gitmo-detainee_N.htm)

US Defends Detention of Chinese Muslim (http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2008/04/04/1409812-us-defends-detention-of-chinese-muslim)

[ElNono]

I agree that this is not always true because of the way the Chinese treat people. Still, the USA also considers the group Parhat beloongs to as a terrorist organization. Not just because the Chinese say so. It should be asked, what was he doing in the training camp. Maybe he is no threat to us, maybe we should turn him over to the Chinese. What do you think they would do to him if they assume as I do that he was learning terrorist tactics against he Chinese govenment?

Should we give him asylum because he tells us he was there to harm the Chinese government?

Who would take him in?

I find it ironic that the article didn't say what he was doing there, or did I miss it? Shouldn't the reported at least tell us why he is improperly detained? There are those who can easily claim otherwise.

Also, don't forget that this is a war on terrorism. Not just against USA terrorism.

As more and more come out about this case, I think we have the right man detained. Consider this:

U.S. defends detention of Chinese Muslim (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-04-04-gitmo-detainee_N.htm)

US Defends Detention of Chinese Muslim (http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2008/04/04/1409812-us-defends-detention-of-chinese-muslim)

That they detained him in Afghanistan doesn't mean he was in any training camp. I mean, where's the evidence of that, other than the government claiming he was? Also, where is the evidence of ties with Al-Qaida?
What's next? We put the Dalai Lama in Guantanamo? You know, if he didn't hate the United States before this, sure as heck does now.


And did you read the second article you posted? Let me highlight some of the goodies there:

The case hinges on Parhat's connection to the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, a militant group that demands separation from China. The United States named it a terrorist groups in 2002, a move that some international affairs analysts say was made to appease China and ensure it would not oppose the invasion of Iraq.

"Lots of people go on China's terrorism list. Just ask the Dalai Lama," attorney P. Sabin Willett told the court. "Congress never authorized war against this group."

The military says Parhat trained in an ETIM camp to prepare to fight against China. The Chinese government blames the separatist group for hundreds of attacks, while human rights groups say Beijing represses religious freedom and uses anti-terrorism laws to crack down on legitimate protests.

Justice Department attorney Gregory G. Katsas told a three-judge panel that the U.S. has classified intelligence that ETIM is affiliated with al-Qaida, though officials did not identify the source of that intelligence either to the judges or to the military reviewers. China has made similar claims but has offered no evidence.

The U.S. acknowledges it has no evidence that Parhat joined that group. His "affiliation" alone, the military said, justified his detention as an enemy combatant. Judge Thomas B. Griffith questioned that logic. He said the law explicitly says there must be a connection to the Sept. 11 attacks.

[Wild Cobra]

The military says Parhat trained in an ETIM camp to prepare to fight against China. The Chinese government blames the separatist group for hundreds of attacks, while human rights groups say Beijing represses religious freedom and uses anti-terrorism laws to crack down on legitimate protests.
"The Chinese government blames the separatist group for hundreds of attacks"

Does it look like we are detaining those just for religious freedom?

Again, this group is on the USA terrorist list. Not just China's. As a member, do we really need any other cause?

[ElNono]

"The Chinese government blames the separatist group for hundreds of attacks"

Does it look like we are detaining those just for religious freedom?

Again, this group is on the USA terrorist list. Not just China's. As a member, do we really need any other cause?

'The United States named it a terrorist groups in 2002, a move that some international affairs analysts say was made to appease China and ensure it would not oppose the invasion of Iraq'

What else do you need to know?
Freaking Nelson Mandela is on the US terrorist list.
BTW, the US already got rid of some of these guys in '06, again, from the article you linked to:

Judge Merrick B. Garland suggested Friday that the Bush administration could resolve the same way it did in 2006, when, faced with a court order that some Uighurs were being held illegally, it arranged for five detainees to be sent to Albania.

[Wild Cobra]

'The United States named it a terrorist groups in 2002, a move that some international affairs analysts say was made to appease China and ensure it would not oppose the invasion of Iraq'

What else do you need to know?
Freaking Nelson Mandela is on the US terrorist list.
"Some international affairs analysts" is less than 50%, and could be a punditry point of view. It is also possible the 2002 timeframe is coincidental rather than due to 9/11.

To extrapolate naming them as terrorists to appease the Chinese? That doesn't make sense to me.

Bottom line is we will believe what we want without all the evidence. Unless you can persuade me he had no ties with the Taliban, I will believe those who say he did. For several reasons. No sense in bringing them up because they are individually weak arguments. There are quite a few though.

If you wish to convince me we have the wrong man, then what was his reason for being where he was. He was at least in the wrong place at the wrong time. Did he have friend or family there? Why was he there rather than a less tyrannical place for him to practice his religious freedom unless his religious freedom included killing the infidel?

[possessed]

This isn't about trying them in civil courts, it's about Habeas Corpus; the right to be brought before a court (civil or military) and hear what charges are being brought against you. Many of those detainees are just random guys who got turned in by some Afghan goat herder for the bounty promised by fliers we dropped.

But doesn't that go against Obama's plan of bombing Bin Laden in Pakistan? Doesn't Bin Laden deserve Habeas Corpus before we go bombing him to smithereens?

[possessed]

Let's not forget that the detainees aren't citizens. Now we're one step closer to providing Habeas Corpus to illegal aliens or any intruders into our country, as now the argument is made that those who aren't Americans are entitled to the same rights that Americans are. And who gets to pay for all this?

Thank you, liberal douche bags. How did this country ever survive a few hundred years without you? :lol

And to think the socialist countries in Europe are starting to move closer to the right. Turns out the Utopian paradise is a wet dream. Who'd a thunk it?

Oh, wait...

[ElNono]

"Some international affairs analysts" is less than 50%, and could be a punditry point of view. It is also possible the 2002 timeframe is coincidental rather than due to 9/11.

To extrapolate naming them as terrorists to appease the Chinese? That doesn't make sense to me.

Bottom line is we will believe what we want without all the evidence. Unless you can persuade me he had no ties with the Taliban, I will believe those who say he did. For several reasons. No sense in bringing them up because they are individually weak arguments. There are quite a few though.

If you wish to convince me we have the wrong man, then what was his reason for being where he was. He was at least in the wrong place at the wrong time. Did he have friend or family there? Why was he there rather than a less tyrannical place for him to practice his religious freedom unless his religious freedom included killing the infidel?

The government doesn't even have evidence the guy is a member of the group!!!
The guy is basically a terrorist by proxy. Amazing.
These guys are such a threat, we flew 5 of them out of the country and drpped them in Europe. I mean, we haven't even heard his reasoning for being in Afghanistan (being in a country is not a crime,BTW), but you already concluded he was professing to kill the infidels. Talk about jumping the gun.

What we did find out today, however, is that under existing law, this guy cannot possibly be an 'enemy combatant', meaning he's been illegally detained for six years. And BTW, I don't need to convince you of anything. I told you we were going to find cases like this. Even if we end up finding out that 95% of the imprisoned are actually rightfully detained, this is a whole lot more transparent than the completely arbitrary system we had in place. I somehow think this is not the last case of unsubstantiated detention we'll hear about.

[PixelPusher]

But doesn't that go against Obama's plan of bombing Bin Laden in Pakistan? Doesn't Bin Laden deserve Habeas Corpus before we go bombing him to smithereens?

If he were taken prisoner, yes. Then if he wants to challenge his detention, he'll be brought before a judge who'll ask what evidence there is to charge him, in which case the prosecution will pop in a vhs from the pile of OBL's greatest hits. Hearing over, back to your cell.

Habeas Corpus doesn't "help" terrorists or give them "extra rights" or free cable in their cell, it helps the wrongly accused to publicly establish their identity, so they aren't lost in a dark hole the rest of their lives because of some shitty 3rd-hand hearsay that passes for "evidence".

[PixelPusher]

Let's not forget that the detainees aren't citizens. Now we're one step closer to providing Habeas Corpus to illegal aliens or any intruders into our country, as now the argument is made that those who aren't Americans are entitled to the same rights that Americans are. And who gets to pay for all this?

Thank you, liberal douche bags. How did this country ever survive a few hundred years without you? :lol


We don't throw illegal aliens into Gitmo cells and throw away the key; we deport them. There is no detention to challenge.

...and thank you, conservative ogres for making the United States look like liars and hypocrites to the rest of the world when we talk about freedom, justice, human rights, democracy, etc. How could we win over hearts and minds without you?

[ElNono]

Let's not forget that the detainees aren't citizens. Now we're one step closer to providing Habeas Corpus to illegal aliens or any intruders into our country, as now the argument is made that those who aren't Americans are entitled to the same rights that Americans are. And who gets to pay for all this?

Thank you, liberal douche bags. How did this country ever survive a few hundred years without you? :lol

And to think the socialist countries in Europe are starting to move closer to the right. Turns out the Utopian paradise is a wet dream. Who'd a thunk it?

Oh, wait...

I'm sure you can find a country whose laws can be easily bent in order to satisfy your xenophobia.
In this country, we respect the Constitution. If you don't like it, you can always move to Europe.

And FWIW, the conservatives had complete control of Congress and the White House for years, yet completely failed to pass any immigration reform. So I guess is not just the liberals after all.

[possessed]

We don't throw illegal aliens into Gitmo cells and throw away the key; we deport them. There is no detention to challenge.
I was stating this opens a door. If you don't think there are ACLU lawyers ready to jump on all this, then.... I dunno, I guess you don't know much about ACLU lawyers.


And thank you conservative ogres for making the United States look like liars and hypocrites to the rest of the world when we talk about freedom, justice, human rights, democracy, etc.
I thought we did that when we (Clinton) ignored the genocide in Rwanda.

Lookee! An interesting perspective on Clinton and the genocide from a "person of color"!

http://www.black-collegian.com/extracurricular/entertainment/2rwanda405.shtml

Yeah, preach on with the human rights BS.

[possessed]

I'm sure you can find a country whose laws can be easily bent in order to satisfy your xenophobia.
In this country, we respect the Constitution. If you don't like it, you can always move to Europe.

And FWIW, the conservatives had complete control of Congress and the White House for years, yet completely failed to pass any immigration reform. So I guess is not just the liberals after all.

Liberalism doesn't work anywhere in the world, It's been proven time and again. We can use our very own United States of America as an example.

Look at the safest cities in the United States. A very large majority of them are run by conservative Republicans due to the majority Republican voting demographic. The most dangerous? A large majority are run by liberal Democrats. Coincidence? No. States with poor air and water quality. Again, largely Democrat, Cleaner states are red states.

Why in the fuck would I need to move anywhere? There are plenty of places in this country that liberals haven't infested with their slime where the quality of living is above standard. I'm living in one.

[PixelPusher]

I was stating this opens a door. If you don't think there are ACLU lawyers ready to jump on all this, then.... I dunno, I guess you don't know much about ACLU lawyers.
If you don't understand the difference between being locked up in a cell and being deported, then...I dunno, I guess you don't understand anything at all.


I thought we did that when we (Clinton) ignored the genocide in Rwanda.

Lookee! An interesting perspective on Clinton and the genocide from a "person of color"!

http://www.black-collegian.com/extracurricular/entertainment/2rwanda405.shtml

Yeah, preach on with the human rights BS.
I'm sure you were among the throngs of conservatives who at the time were angered at Clinton's refusal to intervene in Rwanda...oh, wait...

[possessed]

If you don't understand the difference between being locked up in a cell and being deported, then...I dunno, I guess you don't understand anything at all.
Again, tell it to the ACLU lawyers. I'm saying there is a difference, I'm also stating that it won't be long before civil rights attorneys state that there isn't one. You don't seem to be grasping that at all.


I'm sure you were among the throngs of
conservatives who at the time were angered at Clinton's refusal to intervene in Rwanda...oh, wait...
Maybe if I was a "conservative", I would be.

[ElNono]

Liberalism doesn't work anywhere in the world, It's been proven time and again. We can use our very own United States of America as an example.

Look at the safest cities in the United States. A very large majority of them are run by conservative Republicans due to the majority Republican voting demographic. The most dangerous? A large majority are run by liberal Democrats. Coincidence? No. States with poor air and water quality. Again, largely Democrat, Cleaner states are red states.

Why in the fuck would I need to move anywhere? There are plenty of places in this country that liberals haven't infested with their slime where the quality of living is above standard. I'm living in one.

Can you back up your claims with any info, links, anything?
Actually don't bother, I just checked the most polluted cities in America ranking and California has 3 in the top 10. And BTW, you might be shocked to hear this, but the Constitution applies in Idaho too.

[PixelPusher]

Again, tell it to the ACLU lawyers. I'm saying there is a difference, I'm also stating that it won't be long before civil rights attorneys state that there isn't one. You don't seem to be grasping that at all.

Do you have nightmares about ACLU zombies at when you sleep? You do know what the writ of Habeas Corpus means right? (hint: it's not free cable tv for terrorists)


habeas corpus (http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm)

Lat. "you have the body" Prisoners often seek release by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another's detention or imprisonment. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error. Habeas corpus petitions are usually filed by persons serving prison sentences. In family law, a parent who has been denied custody of his child by a trial court may file a habeas corpus petition. Also, a party may file a habeas corpus petition if a judge declares her in contempt of court and jails or threatens to jail her.

In Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 1164, 1166 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1778 (1992), the court observed that the Supreme Court has "recognized the fact that`[t]he writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.' Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 290-91 (1969). " Therefore, the writ must be "administered with the initiative and flexibility essential to insure that miscarriages of justice within its reach are surfaced and corrected." Harris, 394 U.S. at 291.

Hypothetically, if the United States completely overturned it's immigration policies and started locking up every illegal immigrant instead of deporting them, you'd have a point. Then, ACLU laywers would line up to file Habeas Corpus for illegal aliens DETAINED in U.S. prisons. You can't file for Hapeus Corpus if you been dropped off over the border and told to take a hike because, well, YOU ARE NOT BEING DETAINED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. You can't say "Get me outta jail!" if you're not in jail.

Of course, in this hypothetical, the billions in taxpayer dollars spent on building and manning new prisons to detain illegal immigrants would dwarf whatever the the taxpayer would spend on any of these theoretical Habeus Corpus hearings. But then again, it's all academic because, we DEPORT illegal immigrants. Habeas Corpus has nothing to do with deportation.

[ElNono]

Do you have nightmares about ACLU zombies at when you sleep? You do know what the writ of Habeas Corpus means right? (hint: it's not free cable tv for terrorists)


Hypothetically, if the United States completely overturned it's immigration policies and started locking up every illegal immigrant instead of deporting them, you'd have a point. Then, ACLU laywers would line up to file Habeas Corpus for illegal aliens DETAINED in U.S. prisons. You can't file for Hapeus Corpus if you been dropped off over the border and told to take a hike because, well, YOU ARE NOT BEING DETAINED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. You can't say "Get me outta jail!" if you're not in jail.

Of course, in this hypothetical, the billions in taxpayer dollars spent on building and manning new prisons to detain illegal immigrants would dwarf whatever the the taxpayer would spend on any of these theoretical Habeus Corpus hearings. But then again, it's all academic because, we DEPORT illegal immigrants. Habeas Corpus has nothing to do with deportation.

Actually, illegal immigrants have been imprisoned for considerable amounts of time while deportation proceedings and appeals are in progress. I can't look it up right now, but there was a featured case in the NY Times not long ago about a dude that died while being held in one of these detention centers. I'll try to look it up tomorrow.

[PixelPusher]

Actually, illegal immigrants have been imprisoned for considerable amounts of time while deportation proceedings and appeals are in progress. I can't look it up right now, but there was a featured case in the NY Times not long ago about a dude that died while being held in one of these detention centers. I'll try to look it up tomorrow.

Uh, oh. Deportation proceedings? Appeals? Due Process? Possessed isn't gonna like that one bit.

[ElNono]

Uh, oh. Deportation proceedings? Appeals? Due Process? Possessed isn't gonna like that one bit.

Here's the article: LINK (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/nyregion/05detain.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

Sorry, it's too long to post inline.

[RandomGuy]

"The Chinese government blames the separatist group for hundreds of attacks"

Does it look like we are detaining those just for religious freedom?

Again, this group is on the USA terrorist list. Not just China's. As a member, do we really need any other cause?

Seriously?

You're taking the Chinese government at its word now? :lmao

[RandomGuy]

So let me see if I get this straight.


The Bush administration has no political motives.

The Chinese government is credible.

Ann Coulter is credible.

The hits just keep comin'

But what would I know. I am a rabid propagandist... ;)

[Wild Cobra]

So Random.

How often do you misquote people?

That's a form of a lie you know!

[RandomGuy]

So Random.

How often do you misquote people?

That's a form of a lie you know!

oooor... a form of humor, in the guise of satire. ;)

It was a bit unfair, but you never did acknowledge that the administration might have political motives. A lie of omission.

You imply that the Chinese government is to be trusted when you quote them without caveat.

Ann Coulter... meh. I really have better things to do than to show how full of shit she is. If you want to loan her some shred of credibility, that is your business.

[possessed]

Can you back up your claims with any info, links, anything?
Actually don't bother, I just checked the most polluted cities in America ranking and California has 3 in the top 10. And BTW, you might be shocked to hear this, but the Constitution applies in Idaho too.
Do your own research, sparky. Really, it's not hard.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0921299.html

Safest-Mission Viejo, Calif http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Viejo,_California


Of the 56,286 registered voters in the city, 31,090 (55.2%) are Republicans, 14,319 (25.4%) are Democrats, 8,790 (15.6%) declined to state political affiliation, and the remaining 2,087 (3.8%) are registered with a minor party.

Most Dangerous-Detroit, Mich. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Detroit


Detroit consistently supports the Democratic Party in local and national elections. Elected first in 2001, Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, son of Democratic congresswoman Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, has been dubbed as "America's hip-hop mayor" because of his fondness for youth culture, flashy dress (fur coat) and a diamond stud earring as well as his sponsorship of a "hip-hop" summit.[3] Since taking office, the mayor has been dogged by accusations of impropriety although in 2005 he was re-elected to a second four-year term.

You'll find that the safest cities are largely conservative, the most dangerous are largely liberal, if you take the time to research.

I'd like to know what liberals attribute this to? And what might a liberals' opinion be on the fact that cities with gun rights inhabitants generally live safer than cities with gun control inhabitants. Hmmm... It does make one wonder, doesn't it?

[possessed]

Uh, oh. Deportation proceedings? Appeals? Due Process? Possessed isn't gonna like that one bit.

WTF, you're the bufoon claiming that deportees are never incarcerated in the first place. :lol

Where in the Hell do you think they keep these people before they send them home? The YMCA?

[ElNono]

Do your own research, sparky. Really, it's not hard.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0921299.html

Safest-Mission Viejo, Calif http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Viejo,_California


Most Dangerous-Detroit, Mich. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Detroit


Do you have some kind of reading comprehension problem? From the link you provided, 6 of the top 10 safest cities are in Democrat states. Only 4 are on Republican states. From the most dangerous top 10, only 3 cities are in Democrat states, while 7 are in Republican states.


You'll find that the safest cities are largely conservative, the most dangerous are largely liberal, if you take the time to research.

I actually thank you for taking the time to point me to your research, but again, the numbers don't support your bias.


I'd like to know what liberals attribute this to? And what might a liberals' opinion be on the fact that cities with gun rights inhabitants generally live safer than cities with gun control inhabitants. Hmmm... It does make one wonder, doesn't it?

They probably attribute it to retards like you being unable to read.

As pointed earlier, the pollution statistics don't support your case either.

[PixelPusher]

WTF, you're the bufoon claiming that deportees are never incarcerated in the first place. :lol

Where in the Hell do you think they keep these people before they send them home? The YMCA?

If they're already being processed, they don't need Habeas Corpus; they're already getting their day in court. So relax, the ACLU boogie man ain't gonna getcha!

[possessed]

Do you have some kind of reading comprehension problem? From the link you provided, 6 of the top 10 safest cities are in Democrat states. Only 4 are on Republican states. From the most dangerous top 10, only 3 cities are in Democrat states, while 7 are in Republican states.



I actually thank you for taking the time to point me to your research, but again, the numbers don't support your bias.



They probably attribute it to retards like you being unable to read.

As pointed earlier, the pollution statistics don't support your case either.
Who has reading comprehension problems? We're talking cities, you buffoon. The folks who live within these cities are largely Republican, retard, they vote Republican you worthless shitbag. We're talking cities... C-I-T-I-E-S. You learn how to read! Unfortunately, these people's votes usually get canceled out in statewide and national elections by people who live in urban, poverty-stricken areas, the same way a democrats vote would get canceled out in a red state like the one I live in. But you don't really need a retard like me pointing that out to you and making you look like a dumbass in front of everyone, do you?

Oh, wait. Yes you do.

Are you really this fuckin stupid?

Don't bother responding unless you can refrain from making an ass of yourself.

[possessed]

BTW... This means these cities have Republican mayors and Republican seats on the state Senate.

Sorry, for some reason I feel compelled to point that out as I don't think ElNumbskull would catch on otherwise.

[ElNono]

BTW... This means these cities have Republican mayors and Republican seats on the state Senate.

Sorry, for some reason I feel compelled to point that out as I don't think ElNumbskull would catch on otherwise.



Top 10 safest C-I-T-I-E-S:

Mission Viejo, Calif. - Mayor: Patricia Kelley, Republican
Clarkstown, N.Y. - Supervisor: Alexander J. Gromack, Democrat
Brick, N.J. - Mayor in 2007: Daniel J. Kelly, Democrat
Amherst, N.Y. - Supervisor: Dr. Satish Mohan, Republican
Sugar Land, Texas - Mayor: David Wallace, Republican
Colonie, N.Y. - Supervisor in 2007: Mary Brizzell, Republican
Thousand Oaks, Calif. - Mayor: Jacqui V. Irwin, Democrat
Newton, Mass. - Mayor: David B. Cohen, Democrat
Toms River, N.J. - Mayor in 2007: Paul C. Brush, Democrat
Lake Forest, Calif. - Mayor: Richard Dixon, Republican

Republican: 5 CITIES
Democrat: 5 CITIES



I added a little coloring and formatting so a sixth-grader like you can understand it. Now, I don't know if I'm pushing my luck here, but maybe... MAYBE, safety in a city has little to do with political parties, and more on factors like education, wealth, etc. Can you understand that? or should I explain it after you're done sucking on your thumb?

[boutons_]

Scalia, in dissent, practicing extreme radical right-wing judicial activism, faith/agenda-based, not evidence-based:

"To bolster his argument that the Guantanamo detainees should be denied the right to prove their innocence in federal courts, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissent in Boumediene v. Bush: "At least 30 of those prisoners hitherto released from Guantanamo have returned to the battlefield." It turns out that statement is false.

According to a new report (http://law.shu.edu/center_policyresearch/reports/urban_legend_final_61608.pdf) by Seton Hall Law Center for Policy and Research, "The statistic was endorsed by a Senate Minority Report issued June 26, 2007, which cites a media outlet, CNN. CNN, in turn, named the DoD [Department of Defense] as its source. The '30' number, however, was corrected in a DoD press release issued in July 2007, and a DoD document submitted to the House Foreign Relations Committee on May 20, 2008, abandons the claim entirely."

The largest possible number of detainees who could have "returned to the fight" is 12; however, the Department of Defense has no system for tracking the whereabouts of released detainees."

http://www.truthout.org/article/scalia-cites-false-information-habeas-corpus-dissent?print

==============

oops!! :lol

[Wild Cobra]

Top 10 safest C-I-T-I-E-S:

Mission Viejo, Calif. - Mayor: Patricia Kelley, Republican
Clarkstown, N.Y. - Supervisor: Alexander J. Gromack, Democrat
Brick, N.J. - Mayor in 2007: Daniel J. Kelly, Democrat
Amherst, N.Y. - Supervisor: Dr. Satish Mohan, Republican
Sugar Land, Texas - Mayor: David Wallace, Republican
Colonie, N.Y. - Supervisor in 2007: Mary Brizzell, Republican
Thousand Oaks, Calif. - Mayor: Jacqui V. Irwin, Democrat
Newton, Mass. - Mayor: David B. Cohen, Democrat
Toms River, N.J. - Mayor in 2007: Paul C. Brush, Democrat
Lake Forest, Calif. - Mayor: Richard Dixon, Republican

Republican: 5 CITIES
Democrat: 5 CITIES



I added a little coloring and formatting so a sixth-grader like you can understand it. Now, I don't know if I'm pushing my luck here, but maybe... MAYBE, safety in a city has little to do with political parties, and more on factors like education, wealth, etc. Can you understand that? or should I explain it after you're done sucking on your thumb?

I'm going to agree with you and add that rather than democrat or republican, it matters more about the last several years of power between liberal and conservative. Not just the present political power.

As a general rule, I'll bet if you take those blue cities, you'll find they are primarily republican over the last decade or so. Include the city councils, or what ever governing setup they have that determines zones and laws. Not just the mayor. It takes time for things to change. It's not who is currently in power.

[ElNono]

I'm going to agree with you and add that rather than democrat or republican, it matters more about the last several years of power between liberal and conservative. Not just the present political power.

As a general rule, I'll bet if you take those blue cities, you'll find they are primarily republican over the last decade or so. Include the city councils, or what ever governing setup they have that determines zones and laws. Not just the mayor. It takes time for things to change. It's not who is currently in power.

Actually it cuts both ways. Some of them just recently moved from a long democrat period to republican. I went back all the way to the safest city rankings for 2001, and roughly 60% of the cities are the same as in 2007, even though some changed parties after every term, while others stayed with the same people. That observation applies to both parties. I just think the equation is much more complicated.

[possessed]

Top 10 safest C-I-T-I-E-S:

Mission Viejo, Calif. - Mayor: Patricia Kelley, Republican
Clarkstown, N.Y. - Supervisor: Alexander J. Gromack, Democrat
Brick, N.J. - Mayor in 2007: Daniel J. Kelly, Democrat
Amherst, N.Y. - Supervisor: Dr. Satish Mohan, Republican
Sugar Land, Texas - Mayor: David Wallace, Republican
Colonie, N.Y. - Supervisor in 2007: Mary Brizzell, Republican
Thousand Oaks, Calif. - Mayor: Jacqui V. Irwin, Democrat
Newton, Mass. - Mayor: David B. Cohen, Democrat
Toms River, N.J. - Mayor in 2007: Paul C. Brush, Democrat
Lake Forest, Calif. - Mayor: Richard Dixon, Republican

Republican: 5 CITIES
Democrat: 5 CITIES



I added a little coloring and formatting so a sixth-grader like you can understand it. Now, I don't know if I'm pushing my luck here, but maybe... MAYBE, safety in a city has little to do with political parties, and more on factors like education, wealth, etc. Can you understand that? or should I explain it after you're done sucking on your thumb?
Yeah...


The Mayor of Toms River is Thomas P. Kelaher (Republican Party (United States), term expires December 31, 2011). Council members are the three Councilmembers-at-Large — John "Sevas" Sevastakis (R, 2011), Peter V. Cassano (R, 2011) and Melanie S. Donohue (R, 2011) - and Maria Maruca (Councilwoman Ward 1; R, 2009), Brian S. Kubiel (Councilman Ward 2; R, 2009), Maurice "Mo" B. Hill (Councilman Ward 3; R, 2009) and Council President Gregory P. McGuckin (Councilman Ward 4; R, 2009).[
Wow, looks like a Democrat stronghold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toms_River,_New_Jersey

As for Brick, NJ, the mayor elected is one Stephen C. Acropolis, also a Republican. Oh and...


As of 2008, members of the Brick Township Council are President Ruthanne Scaturro (R; term ends December 31, 2011), Vice President Joseph Sangiovanni (R; 2009), Brian DeLuca (R; 2011), Anthony Matthews (R; 2011), Kathy M. Russell (D; 2009), Michael A. Thulen, Sr. (R; 2011) and Dan Toth (R; 2009).[18][19]

Daniel Kelly was never elected. He was appointed and then lost an election to the current Republican Mayor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toms_River,_New_Jersey

Sorry, not going to score that one for the Dems either.

The score is officially Republican-7
Democrat-3

Thank you for playing.

[ElNono]

Yeah...

Wow, looks like a Democrat stronghold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toms_River,_New_Jersey

As for Brick, NJ, the mayor elected is one Stephen C. Acropolis, also a Republican. Oh and...


Daniel Kelly was never elected. He was appointed and then lost an election to the current Republican Mayor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toms_River,_New_Jersey

Sorry, not going to score that one for the Dems either.

The score is officially Republican-7
Democrat-3

Thank you for playing.

I'm gonna explain it slowly, so you can follow...
The listing of safest cities YOU posted was for calendar year 2007.
Both Kelaher and Acropolis were elected on November 16, 2007 (thus the reason why their terms expire in 2011)
Fact is both Kelly and Brush were the Mayors for 11 of the 12 months of 2007.
And how Kelly got to be a Mayor is entirely irrelevant. Again, fact is he was the Mayor from January to November of 2007, when the survey was conducted.

It's pretty evident when you look at the wikipedia pages you pointed to.

[boutons_]

Obama will increase the number of justices to 11 and appoint 2 middle/progressive justices.

[ElNono]

As more and more come out about this case, I think we have the right man detained.

Here's the complete Court's decision:

LINK (http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200806/06-1397-1124487.pdf)

I thought the reference to Lewis Carroll in there was funny.
The decision was unanimous, and the panel is conformed of 3 judges: One appointed by Bill Clinton, one appointed by Reagan, and the last one appointed by current president Bush.

More information at this link (registration might be required): LINK (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/washington/01gitmo.html?hp)