Supreme Court Will Hear Case on Detainees

26 X World Champs · 06-29-07, 04:56 PM

It looks like there's another major leak in the Bush Administrations plans to protect America. This burst in the damn comes from the very same Supreme Court that that Bush has molded in his image....ironic that even they can see that he's $hitting all over the Constitution!

No one I know of has ever said that the people being detained at Gitmo deserve to go free. What I and many others have said all along is that they have the right to have their day in court.

Bush and his evil monkeys have tried for 6.5 years to destroy the Constitution and America and they've accomplished quite a lot towards that end so much so that even a heavily biased pro-Bush court is taking extraordianry measures to stop them and their conspiracy to destroy the Constitution...

Quote:

Supreme Court Will Hear Case on Detainees

By WILLIAM GLABERSON - The New York Times
Published: June 29, 2007

The United States Supreme Court reversed course today and agreed to hear claims of Guantanamo detainees that they have a right to challenge their detentions in American federal courts.

The decision, announced in a brief order released this morning, set the stage for a historic legal battle that appeared likely to shape debates in the Bush administration about when and how to close the detention center that has become a lightening rod for international criticism.

The exceptionally unusual order, which required votes from five of the nine justices, gave lawyers for detainees more than they had requested in a motion asking the justices to reconsider an April decision declining to review the same case. Lawyers for detainees had asked only that the court hold the case open for future consideration. Today’s order meant that the court would hear the case in its next term, perhaps by December.

Experts on the Supreme Court said the justices so rarely grant such motions for reconsideration that the order itself was significant. They said it signaled that the justices had determined they needed to resolve a new politically and legally significant Guantanamo issue, after two earlier Supreme Court decisions that have been sweeping setbacks for the administration’s detention policies.

Lawyers for many of the 375 men now held at the naval station on a scrubby corner of Cuba greeted the unexpected news with euphoria. They said it appeared the court was headed toward a ruling on one of the central principles of the administration’s detention policies: the claim that the government can hold “enemy combatants” without allowing them to use the ancient legal tool of the writ of habeas corpus, a legal action used in English law for centuries to challenge the legality of detentions.

“Finally, after nearly six years, the Supreme Court is going to rule on the ultimate question: does the Constitution protect the people detained at Guantanamo Bay?” said Neal Kaytal, a Georgetown University law professor who argued the last Supreme Court case involving the Guantanamo detainees. In that case, decided last June, the justices struck down the administration’s planned system for war crimes trials of detainees.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/wa...e3OTyKxAazjpiQ

Iriemon · 06-29-07, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 26 X World Champs

It looks like there's another major leak in the Bush Administrations plans to protect America. This burst in the damn comes from the very same Supreme Court that that Bush has molded in his image....ironic that even they can see that he's $hitting all over the Constitution!

No one I know of has ever said that the people being detained at Gitmo deserve to go free. What I and many others have said all along is that they have the right to have their day in court.

Bush and his evil monkeys have tried for 6.5 years to destroy the Constitution and America and they've accomplished quite a lot towards that end so much so that even a heavily biased pro-Bush court is taking extraordianry measures to stop them and their conspiracy to destroy the Constitution...

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/wa...e3OTyKxAazjpiQ

I was a little surprised to hear this, given the conservative bent the Supremes now have.

Harshaw · 06-29-07, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 26 X World Champs

It looks like there's another major leak in the Bush Administrations plans to protect America. This burst in the damn comes from the very same Supreme Court that that Bush has molded in his image....ironic that even they can see that he's $hitting all over the Constitution!

No one I know of has ever said that the people being detained at Gitmo deserve to go free. What I and many others have said all along is that they have the right to have their day in court.

Bush and his evil monkeys have tried for 6.5 years to destroy the Constitution and America and they've accomplished quite a lot towards that end so much so that even a heavily biased pro-Bush court is taking extraordianry measures to stop them and their conspiracy to destroy the Constitution...

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/wa...e3OTyKxAazjpiQ

You're assuming quite a bit. You make the classic mistake of thinking that because the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case, it plans to rule against the currently-prevailing rule or case or policy.

Alas, if that were true, no case would ever be affirmed.

There is no legal or Constitutional principle or precedent which which would lead the Court to decide that enemy combatants taken prisoner in battle on foreign soil have a right to domestic civilian courts. If they ruled that they do, then it would be novel law and a complete departure not only from literally a thousand years of custom, but from sanity.

If it were to rule the way you appear to want it to, then POWs during any war could always demand to be heard in domestic courts.

There's a word for that -- suicide.

The ONLY thing that they could rule against the Administration which would make any legal or customary sense would be that there are no hostilities, therefore, all prisoners should be released. But that's far from the same thing.

I simply do not understand why so many people hate Bush so much that they're willing to rip great, destructive holes in our traditional legal fabric just to "get" him (while at the same time accusing HIM of shredding the Constitution). If every President were constrained by the insane limitations some of you want to impose, not out of principle, but out of Bush hatred, no President would ever be able to do his job.

26 X World Champs · 06-29-07, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harshaw

You're assuming quite a bit. You make the classic mistake of thinking that because the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case, it plans to rule against the currently-prevailing rule or case or policy.

Alas, if that were true, no case would ever be affirmed.

There is no legal or Constitutional principle or precedent which which would lead the Court to decide that enemy combatants taken prisoner in battle on foreign soil have a right to domestic civilian courts. If they ruled that they do, then it would be novel law and a complete departure not only from literally a thousand years of custom, but from sanity.

If it were to rule the way you appear to want it to, then POWs during any war could always demand to be heard in domestic courts.

There's a word for that -- suicide.

The ONLY thing that they could rule against the Administration which would make any legal or customary sense would be that there are no hostilities, therefore, all prisoners should be released. But that's far from the same thing.

I simply do not understand why so many people hate Bush so much that they're willing to rip great, destructive holes in our traditional legal fabric just to "get" him (while at the same time accusing HIM of shredding the Constitution). If every President were constrained by the insane limitations some of you want to impose, not out of principle, but out of Bush hatred, no President would ever be able to do his job.

I've not assumed anything at all. I wrote my OPINION of today's action and the potential it creates and how I hoped it would end....with trials for those being held at Gitmo.

The few times that Bush's what I consider to be un-Constitutional actions re the prisoners at Gitmo have come in front of the Supreme Court he's been defeated which is another reason I am optimistic that another one of his failed policies will be ruled wrong...

For you to "not understand" why so many people "hate Bush" is an interesting statement to make. What's not to understand about his record?

I can't think of how anyone cannot "understand why people hate Bush so much"? You might not agree with the prevailing strong majority that does hate him but you should be able to understand it....

Harshaw · 06-29-07, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 26 X World Champs

I've not assumed anything at all. I wrote my OPINION of today's action and the potential it creates and how I hoped it would end....with trials for those being held at Gitmo.

The few times that Bush's what I consider to be un-Constitutional actions re the prisoners at Gitmo have come in front of the Supreme Court he's been defeated which is another reason I am optimistic that another one of his failed policies will be ruled wrong...

For you to "not understand" why so many people "hate Bush" is an interesting statement to make. What's not to understand about his record?

I can't think of how anyone cannot "understand why people hate Bush so much"? You might not agree with the prevailing strong majority that does hate him but you should be able to understand it....

Quote me in context. What I said was that I can't understand why people hate Bush SO MUCH that they're willing to rip great, destructive holes in our traditional legal fabric just to "get" him. Scorched Earth. At all costs. No matter what the consequences.

I take it, then, that you think enemy combatants taken on the field of battle SHOULD have access to domestic civilian courts?

26 X World Champs · 06-29-07, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harshaw

Quote me in context. What I said was that I can't understand why people hate Bush SO MUCH that they're willing to rip great, destructive holes in our traditional legal fabric just to "get" him. Scorched Earth. At all costs. No matter what the consequences.

I take it, then, that you think enemy combatants taken on the field of battle SHOULD have access to domestic civilian courts?

I think that they deserved to have the right of habeas corpus....it appears that you do not....What are you afraid of if they were tried?

Doesn't it bother you that we. the USA are detaining people for many years without a trial or the right to a lawyer?

Where I come from you're innocent until proven guilty....how about where you come from?

I think it's bull**** to call them all enemy combatants without their having any rights whatsoever for as long as Bush deems necessary?

That is crapping all over what makes America great....

dixon76710 · 06-29-07, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 26 X World Champs

The few times that Bush's what I consider to be un-Constitutional actions re the prisoners at Gitmo have come in front of the Supreme Court he's been defeated which is another reason I am optimistic that another one of his failed policies will be ruled wrong...
For you to "not understand" why so many people "hate Bush" is an interesting statement to make. What's not to understand about his record?

I can't think of how anyone cannot "understand why people hate Bush so much"? You might not agree with the prevailing strong majority that does hate him but you should be able to understand it....

Well, since

Quote:

The issue in the case the court agreed to hear today is whether the Congress can strip the federal courts of the power to hear habeas corpus cases filed by Guantanamo detainees

one might wonder why your hatred is directed at Bush, instead of the Congress.

dixon76710 · 06-29-07, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 26 X World Champs

Where I come from you're innocent until proven guilty....how about where you come from?

Through out history, through out the world, combatants have been either killed or captured. Never given access to civilian courts. They are not all criminals, they are combatants. Even though most all of them are illegal combatants, nothing says we have to prosecute those that are as war criminals.
Prisoners captured in war have always been held until hostilities cease. Only the higher ups are prosecuted as war criminals, not the foot soldiers.

Harshaw · 06-29-07, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 26 X World Champs

I think that they deserved to have the right of habeas corpus....it appears that you do not....What are you afraid of if they were tried?

Doesn't it bother you that we. the USA are detaining people for many years without a trial or the right to a lawyer?

Where I come from you're innocent until proven guilty....how about where you come from?

I think it's bull**** to call them all enemy combatants without their having any rights whatsoever for as long as Bush deems necessary?

That is crapping all over what makes America great....

I think that no prisoner of war has ever been granted habeas corpus, that no one (until now) ever seriously thought they should be, and that to attack Bush or any President for holding war prisoners without trial is exactly the kind of derangement I'm referencing above, because POWs have NEVER been given trials, nor were any ever expected, and that the idea of granting POWs trials is insanity itself, especially in domestic civilian courts. No war could then ever be prosecuted.

Combatants are not held because they've committed crimes. They're held so as to diminish the capacity of the enemy to fight. There's nothing to "try."

You may make the argument that hostilities no longer exist and thus they should be released. And holding proceedings to determine the status of some combatants was exactly the purpose of the Military Commissions Act, so there will be trials in appropriate cases. (But no, according to many of you, the MCA was created so that Bush could throw anyone he feels like it into prison indefinitely.) There is NOTHING pertaining to the combatants held at Gitmo that any domestic civilian courts even have jurisdiction over.

I don't give a ***** about Bush, either. I DO care about the staggering, insane precedent it would set to say that these combatants are entitled to writs of habeas corpus.

And I *hope* that the Bush Derangement Syndrome crowd would agree in saner, lucid moments. If not, then I do worry for the future of this country. It may well have passed the point where it's too unserious, too silly to survive.

Befuddled_Stoner · 06-30-07, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harshaw

And I *hope* that the Bush Derangement Syndrome crowd would agree in saner, lucid moments. If not, then I do worry for the future of this country. It may well have passed the point where it's too unserious, too silly to survive.

Do you guys think that one day, decades or centuries from now, historians and archeologists will sift through archives of forums like theses and come up with elaborate theories on how so many people could claim to love their country for being great while simultaneously denigrating the people trying to preserve those very things that made their country great?