McCain: Guantanamo Ruling One of the ‘Worst Decisions’ in History

Iriemon · 06-13-08, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harshaw

[
Sure it does. Because now we'll have grant every single POW we ever take access to domestic civilian courts. That ain't never happened before, and no other country has that restriction.

So what? All it means is that the process and procedures for detaining people will be reviewed by the Courts to determine if they are in accordance with US and international law to which the US has joined. Once the process is approved, 99% of them will be summarily dismissed just like other habeus petitions.

If not the courts, who should review the process and procedures for these detensions? The excecutive branch? The legislature? It has historically and always been the courts that make these determines. What's so outrageous about it?

Quote:

This decision struck down two such legal frameworks, as passed by Congress: the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Which were enacted, by the way, because these same justices said that it needed to be done. As Justice Scalia said, "turns out they were only kidding."

I think it only struck them down to the extent they tried to prohibit habeas..

Our decision today holds only that the petitioners before us are entitled to seek the writ; that the DTA review procedures are an inadequate substitute for habeas corpus; and that the petitioners in these cases need not exhaust the review procedures in the Court of Appeals before proceeding with their habeas actions in the District Court. The only law we identify as unconstitutional is MCA §7, 28 U. S. C. A. §2241(e) (Supp. 2007). Accordingly, both the DTA and the CSRT process remain intact. Sec VIA.

Quote:

It also specifically, by its terms, reached no decision concerning the powers of the President to make these detentions.

But at no time in the past have war prisoners ever been granted habeas corpus or access to civilian courts. This is completely, utterly new (sui generis).

Ex parte Quirin -- the court allowed unlawful combatant access to the court, though it deny the habeas petitions on the grounds their was an adqueate military court martial procedure.

Iriemon · 06-13-08, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harshaw

Never to war prisoners. But we've already gone through that in a different thread.

I think whether they are war prisoners is one of the questions that has not (according to the court) been adequately determined.

Harshaw · 06-13-08, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

Ex parte Quirin -- the court allowed unlawful combatant access to the court, though it deny the habeas petitions on the grounds their was an adqueate military court martial procedure.

And so was the tribunal framework laid out in the Military Commissions Act, a framework which, I point out again, was what four of the Justices deciding this case said was needed in their Hamdan concurrence.

You defeat your own point -- in Quirin, they weren't granted habeas. War prisoners have never been.

Harshaw · 06-13-08, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

I think whether they are war prisoners is one of the questions that has not (according to the court) been adequately determined.

It does not take access to civilian courts to determine that.

ryandre · 06-13-08, 07:14 PM

This is nuts, the very people who are pointing guns at our soldiers. They throw feces and urine at the guards at gitmo plainly saying there going to kill us, if it was the other way around they would torture and behead us, but yes these people have rights. This most certainly will result in more loss of US lives.

Iriemon · 06-13-08, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harshaw

And so was the tribunal framework laid out in the Military Commissions Act, a framework which, I point out again, was what four of the Justices deciding this case said was needed in their Hamdan concurrence.

But was the frameword laid on in the MCA approved as constitutional and legally valid, or was it just that the court in Hamdan said congressional approval of the tribunals was necessary?

Quote:

You defeat your own point -- in Quirin, they weren't granted habeas. War prisoners have never been.

Not being an expert in habeas -- how was it the Court rendered a decision? It appears they accepted the application for habeas, tho' denied the motions, not because there was no habeas right but because it wasn't necessary.

Has the court ever held that POWs on US territories do not have habeas rights?

Iriemon · 06-13-08, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryandre

This is nuts, the very people who are pointing guns at our soldiers. They throw feces and urine at the guards at gitmo plainly saying there going to kill us, if it was the other way around they would torture and behead us, but yes these people have rights. This most certainly will result in more loss of US lives.

Then it should be no problem to try them in a fair process, prove they are guilty, and hang them.

Iriemon · 06-13-08, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harshaw

It does not take access to civilian courts to determine that.

Then what courts would? Military courts? I perceive that part of the problem the SCt is having with Gitmo is that the established court martial system is not being employed. Maybe military court martial does not normal deal with POW issues?

DeeJayH · 06-13-08, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

Yeah.

The United States of America, shining city on the hill, the hope of liberty for all mankind, and founded upon the principal that all men have certain inalienable rights, does not nab people off the street in secret, lock them away indefinitely, incommunicado, in torture dungeons with no charges, no hearings, no representation, no access to courts, no communication with the outside world, no visition, no trials, and no proof of their guilt.

If someone described a nation that did that, what would come to your mind? For me it would be places like Cuba, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and other states like that we despise for their feckless disregard of human liberty.

one problem with that
if you were a woman or a black or a ........ fill in the blank
secondly that phrase has never been applied to peole captured in a war

Iriemon · 06-13-08, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeeJayH

one problem with that
if you were a woman or a black or a ........ fill in the blank
secondly that phrase has never been applied to peole captured in a war

I certainly agree the ideal was not always put into practice by our country. But it is the ideal

And IMO, the inalienable rights with which all men were created does not accept arbitrary exceptions such as whether one is given a label by the governmet.

06-13-08, 07:14 PM	#45
ryandre User Join Date: May 2008 Last Seen: 11-07-08 10:18 PM Location: Melbourne, FL Posts: 15 Thanks: 0 Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts Lean: Libertarian Gender:	Re: McCain: Guantanamo Ruling One of the ‘Worst Decisions’ in History This is nuts, the very people who are pointing guns at our soldiers. They throw feces and urine at the guards at gitmo plainly saying there going to kill us, if it was the other way around they would torture and behead us, but yes these people have rights. This most certainly will result in more loss of US lives.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode