Gitmo Ruling: 5-3 Overrules White House

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Another perfect example of an activsit court userping power and taking another chunk out of the Constitution.

In effect the Supreme court has written, ratified and signed a treaty with Al Queda

Must....fight.....overwhelming.....urge.....for.......giant....personal....attack....

Are you fucking kidding me? Activist court? PLEASE tell me this is a joke. If so, it's brilliant.

The truth hurts huh?

So, I guess Rush Limpballs called them out as activist judges on the announcement?

And no, the truth does not hurt, but evidently the law does. Just ask dubya, because the POTUS just got bitchslapped by the SCOTUS.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Another perfect example of an activsit court userping power and taking another chunk out of the Constitution.

I agree that there was some degree of activism in this decision, in that: 1) the court decided contrary to some existing caselaw or held that existing caselaw did not apply; and 2) the court used what is considered by many to be an "activist" method of statutory construction, which is to redefine a statute or insert meanings not on its face (which I believe is the role of the legislators).

However, the argument that they've "taken a chunk out of the Constitution" is pretty lacking. This case is one of statutory construction. That is all. The court didn't even comment on "due process" because the case could be handled by their interpretation of the statute.

I'll put it this way - the statute stripped the powers of the courts to grant habeus relief. The court said, "Wait. You can't just do that without playing by some rules." In effect, the courts took back some power they had taken from them.

Power grab by the court? Yeah, sorta. But they only took back power that was taken from them.

Mind you, I do see some Constitutional issues with the way the court interpreted the statute via examining the "legislative history" to decide what the legislators meant to say as opposed to what they actually said. Any statement about eating away at the Constitution that goes beyond that is not well-founded.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

I have noticed your posting style and I now believe you and Amazon must be trainging together seeing how you must create names for those with whom you do not believe.

Speaks volumes don't you think?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Another perfect example of an activsit court userping power and taking another chunk out of the Constitution.

I agree that there was some degree of activism in this decision, in that: 1) the court decided contrary to some existing caselaw or held that existing caselaw did not apply; and 2) the court used what is considered by many to be an "activist" method of statutory construction, which is to redefine a statute or insert meanings not on its face (which I believe is the role of the legislators).

However, the argument that they've "taken a chunk out of the Constitution" is pretty lacking. This case is one of statutory construction. That is all. The court didn't even comment on "due process" because the case could be handled by their interpretation of the statute.

I'll put it this way - the statute stripped the powers of the courts to grant habeus relief. The court said, "Wait. You can't just do that without playing by some rules." In effect, the courts took back some power they had taken from them.

Power grab by the court? Yeah, sorta. But they only took back power that was taken from them.

Mind you, I do see some Constitutional issues with the way the court interpreted the statute via examining the "legislative history" to decide what the legislators meant to say as opposed to what they actually said. Any statement about eating away at the Constitution that goes beyond that is not well-founded.

Nice post and I may have gotten carried away some. In any event, you have the ability to clearly post your thoughts and arguments. I am envious

Well put again and thanks

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

It is a little too arly to claim that. Not until the administration (Bush) has reacted can a conclusion be drawn.

Good observation. Ever thought of following your own advice?

. . =(_8^(1)

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

I have noticed your posting style and I now believe you and Amazon must be trainging together seeing how you must create names for those with whom you do not believe.

Speaks volumes don't you think?

What in the name of God are you talking about?

Seriously - help me understand. Was that a troll?

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[Amazon 7]

That is what happens when you sniff too much Corn Pollen.

[wmw999 2,560]

Quote

It basically makes it so that they can do what they want under arguments that any rules of laws don't apply to what they are doing by their characterizations. That is, to me, the essence of danger. They are arguing that zero procedural safeguards apply.

The whole post was great and worth copying and pasting. But that paragraph was why.

Thanks

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 3,090]

>I know the ruling makes many of you "feel good" but it is another
>dangerous step toward the destruction on the Constitution.

It is a reaffirmation of the rights laid down in the Bill of Rights. Specifically:

-----------------
Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

------------------

I'm glad the US supreme court today reaffirmed the power of that document, and prevented the administration from violating some pretty clear protections it provides. Those are some important amendments; we are all better off when they are protected.

[mikkey 0]

Quote

Quote

It basically makes it so that they can do what they want under arguments that any rules of laws don't apply to what they are doing by their characterizations. That is, to me, the essence of danger. They are arguing that zero procedural safeguards apply.

The whole post was great and worth copying and pasting. But that paragraph was why.

Thanks

Wendy W.

What is disturbing is that people buy the "line": they are all terrorists and need to be kept off the street.

If people cared to read up on some of the reports regarding some of the released prisoners - how and why they were detained - they would understand not many were arrested on the "battlefield" and many have been arrested on flimsy information and evidence. The thought that one relies on some bureaucrats to decide who should be detained indefinite or not with no recourse is abhorrent to me.

And to say that people will be detained until "the war on terror is over" when there always has been terrorism and always be some level of terrorism is not even funny.

Even under the now "illegal" military tribunal system, which was so heavily stacked against any accused detainee that their US military lawyers were outraged - only 10 out of over 600 (400+ now and over 200 now released Gitmo detainees) ever were charged.

No doubt that many of the detainees are terrorists – but we don’t know how many and we don’t know how many are “small fish” who would have received lesser sentences if trialled under a normal system. It makes me wonder why the US administration does not have more evidence that they actually can charge the detainees. If you have no evidence how can you say without doubt somebody has committed crimes?

One thing is to take somebody’s freedom without due process, it is much worse to do so indefinite and with no legal recourse. Any convicted criminal is treated better then that.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[mpohl 1]

Unless you spersonally spent the last five years at Guantanomo Bay...

I call BS on this: the system is not working !!! It is utterly broken. All these years without access to a trial or judicial process? And the system is working? You cannot be serious.

Quote

>Checks and balances, people.

Yes indeed. Good to see the system working as designed.

[billvon 3,090]

>the system is not working !!! It is utterly broken.

The system does indeed have problems. But the courts are a backup; part of the system of checks and balances that are intended to prevent one man, or one branch of government, from seizing power. In this case, they are reversing some of the abuses of power over the past few years. Let's hope the trend continues.

[rushmc 23]

They are not US citizens, they are enemy combatants. This has more to do with the powers the branches have.

It is the loose interpetations like yours that make the justices dangerous .....but I am not surprised you posted this...........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I was being sarcastic.

What's your opinion on this?

Quote

If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President's unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority.

I hope he does it.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mikkey 0]

Quote

They are not US citizens, they are enemy combatants. This has more to do the powers the branches have.

It is the loose interpetations like yours that make the justices dangerous .....but I am not surprised you posted this...........

What constitutes an "enemy combatant"? It is a term "created" to do what ever they want with people detained. The whole set-up has already been deemed to in conflict with international law and the Geneva convention and now also US statues.


How do you know they all are "enemy combatants"? Have you any idea how they were arrested and on which grounds? (again most were NOT detained on a "battle field") but arrested post Afghanistan conflict.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[billvon 3,090]

>They are not US citizens, they are enemy combatants.

See if you can find the phrase "US citizen" in the following text:

----------------------
Amendment V:

No PERSON shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI:

In ALL criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article 3 section 1 of the Constitution:

The Trial of ALL CRIMES, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
------------------------------

You may disagree with what the US constitution says. If you do, then start a drive to amend it so that it affords protections to only US citizens. But until it is amended, it affords protection to PEOPLE, not to citizens. I am glad its protections were reaffirmed today.

>This has more to do with the powers the branches have.

The powers of the president are called out in the Constitution. They do not include alteration of the justice system or creation of a new system of courts outside the constitutionally-defined court system.

[Michele 1]

Bill, Rushmc has a point, and it's a valid one.

The Constitution of the United States protects it's citizens and legal aliens. If I were to go to France, I would be subject to their laws, their trial system, and their rules and regulations. I would have little standing as a US citizen claiming my constitutional rights. If I were to run drugs in Hong Kong, I'd be subject to their laws...not the US's. Et cetera. I remember when I was an exchange student in Belgium getting a brief from staffers at the American Embassy about the difference in laws, and the fact that what I was used to as an American may not apply; and to understand that if I got into trouble there, it might be very, very different than the way I'd be treated at home. No, I didn't test the system...but it was an eye-opener.

So Rush's point is valid...the Constitution was written to protect Americans' rights, not anyone else's. That being said, it has become the standard to which all are held, and we are trying to set the example and live up to the promise in our Constitution.

The Geneva Convention(1-4) set out the rules by which wars are conducted - including how to handle prisoners of war and other "detainees." The decision handed down today spoke only to the military tribunal aspect, not the rights of detainess/POWs, and not to the future of Gitmo.

If the Geneva Convention needs to be changed to reflect the new threats we encounter 80sih years (not sure of the date) after they were enacted, then let's change those. Let's include assymetrical warfare, and the proper identification of non-uniformed combatants. Let's include a system where these folks can be tried if necessary - the Hague hasn't been doing a great job the last few decades.

Can the argument be made that once they're in American custody they must get those rights? Sure...and it's an admirable goal. But I don't think the Constitution says everyone everywhere must abide by our constitution...and it can only be enforced on American soil...thus, Gitmo... and so on.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[narcimund 0]

Michelle, who I used to think had sense, said,

Quote

...and it can only be enforced on American soil...thus, Gitmo... and so on.

Which reminds me of an earlier poster who said,

Quote

the reason we hold the captives on Gitmo is expressly for the purpose of circumventing American law.

Michelle seems to approve of circumventing American law.

But that's no surprise. 51% of american voters seemed to agree in 2004.

Very sad.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Michele 1]

Narcimund, knock it off. Stop with the personal bullshit, all right?

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[warpedskydiver 0]

why do you even care? since you don't even live in the US

[billvon 3,090]

>The Constitution of the United States protects it's citizens and legal
>aliens.

Nope. It protects the _people_ in the US. If an illegal alien is arrested for stealing, he gets the same protections any other criminal gets. If a cop beats the crap out of him and almost kills him, the cop loses his job/goes to jail whether the criminal is a US citizen or not - because the laws of the US (and its protections) apply as much to him as to anyone else.

Now, some parts of the US constitution apply only to citizens or to people born here. (See the part on who can become president.) But the rest of the constitution is pretty clear about referring to ANYONE, not just citizens.

> If I were to go to France, I would be subject to their laws, their trial
>system, and their rules and regulations.

Exactly! Because the US constitution protects people under the control of the US; the French government protects the rights of the people in France (and enforces the laws of France.)

>and to understand that if I got into trouble there, it might be very, very
>different than the way I'd be treated at home. No, I didn't test the
>system...but it was an eye-opener.

That's exactly right. And if a foreigner gets in trouble in the US, he is NOT subject to the laws and protections of his home country - he is subject to the laws and the protections of the US, which are based on the US Constitution.

>The Geneva Convention(1-4) set out the rules by which wars are
>conducted - including how to handle prisoners of war and other
>"detainees." The decision handed down today spoke only to the
> military tribunal aspect, not the rights of detainess/POWs, and not to
>the future of Gitmo.

Right. The decision said only that there could not be a 'separate system of justice' for detainees/illegal combatants/POW's or whatever we are calling them nowadays. Basically, the requirements for treatment of criminals as called out in the US constitution are still the law of the land.

>If the Geneva Convention needs to be changed to reflect the new
>threats we encounter 80sih years (not sure of the date) after they were
>enacted, then let's change those.

Hey, I'd be all for that. Heck, amend the constitution if it's that important. But until that happens, we follow the treaties we signed and the documents that are the basis of all law in this country.

>Let's include assymetrical warfare . . .

So we have a better way to defend ourselves from vicious prisoners who hang themselves en masse?

[billvon 3,090]

> Michelle, who I used to think had sense . . .

Enough with the sniping. Your one warning.

[Michele 1]

Quote

It protects the _people_ in the US. If an illegal alien is arrested for stealing, he gets the same protections any other criminal gets.

That was the example I was thinking of. It's been my experience that about 50% of those illegal alien arrests get deported, and don't stand trial here. I didn't make myself clear...but that is indeed what I was trying to convey.

I think what I'm saying (inelegantly, I'll agree), is that once you're on US soil, it's US rules (with the above exception). But does that include military personnel in a foreign country? I don't know...and that's the difficulty in the entire situation.

Quote

Hey, I'd be all for that. Heck, amend the constitution if it's that important. But until that happens, we follow the treaties we signed and the documents that are the basis of all law in this country.

Doesn't the Geneva Convention require that someone be tried in a pre-existing system? I'm not as familiar with the GC, but I could've sworn that was the case. I'm no legal eagle - not even a legal beagle, but I think that's the way it's supposed to go.

Quote

So we have a better way to defend ourselves from vicious prisoners who hang themselves en masse?

The ME released a report which said that there had been no history of depression, and that some of the restrictions made by the Red Cross prevented noticing the hangees until too late (I think it had to do with the darkness of the cells during the night time hours, but I don't know). The ME's conclusion was that the hanging was not because of depression or suicidality; rather, it was indeed some sort of statement against the US.

Do I agree with that? Not really. As someone who has depression, I can promise you that it can be experienced without people noticing, and without treatment. But do I think it's coincidence that three people hung themselves on the same night? No again. Likely, as with most things, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. But with the left shrieking one thing and the right shrieking the other, the middle voice is rarely - if ever - heard.

Back to the Gitmo thing; again, the checks and balances of the system worked. It will be interesting to see what direction the White House will go, and what Congress will do. It will be even more interesting to see how long Gitmo remains operational. And it will be enormously interesting to see what happens to the Gitmo detainees in all this.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[narcimund 0]

Quote

why do you even care? since you don't even live in the US

Because the US is an aggressive monster raging around the world getting its frustrations and hungers out on the backs of everyone else.

If I had another planet to live on, I'd be less concerned.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

why do you even care? since you don't even live in the US

Because the US is an aggressive monster raging around the world getting its frustrations and hungers out on the backs of everyone else.

If I had another planet to live on, I'd be less concerned.

BBBBBbbbbbwwwwwwwaahhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaa


Keeping looking over your shoulder cause the US is coming for you next

Thanks for the laugh though

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln