Court Sides with Radical Islamists

[ClydeR]

The Supreme Court has ruled (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/06/12/scotus/) that violent Islamist terrorists have the right to have their cases heard in civilian courts in the United States, regardless of how that might affect our ongoing war.

Judge Scalia was rightly outraged. Below is the good part of what he said (http://supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1195.pdf).


America is at war with radical Islamists. The enemy began by killing Americans and American allies abroad: 241 at the Marine barracks in Lebanon, 19 at the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, 224 at our embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, and 17 on the USS Cole in Yemen. See National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report, pp. 60–61, 70, 190 (2004). On September 11, 2001, the enemy brought the battle to American soil, killing 2,749 at the Twin Towers in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon in Washington, D. C., and 40 in Pennsylvania. See id., at 552, n. 9. It has threatened further attacks against our homeland; one need only walk about buttressed and barricaded Washington, or board a plane anywhere in the country, to know that the threat is a serious one. Our Armed Forces are now in the field against the enemy, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Last week, 13 of our countrymen in arms were killed.

The game of bait-and-switch that today's opinion plays upon the Nation's Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed. That consequence would be tolerable if necessary to preserve a time-honored legal principle vital to our constitutional Republic. But it is this Court's blatant abandonment of such a principle that produces the decision today.

This may be the first time that the country has had to have a judge explain to us who we are at war with.

[TheEschaton]

Funny, even with a "conservative" court, you can't get them to throw out habeas corpus. That should probably indicate something to you: It's a core part of our democracy.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

Funny, even with a "conservative" court, you can't get them to throw out habeas corpus. That should probably indicate something to you: It's a core part of our democracy.

-TheE-

Indeed... I've bolded the important part. We're now using the rights of US Citizens and applying them to anyone. Good luck enforcing any sovereign rights of the US.

[g++]

Unfortunately the current administrations definition of terrorist is anyone the CIA abducts. This whole thing has been shameful and Im glad its over. The idea that our country will be hurt because we cant detain people indefinately for being a terrorist without first showing they are a terrorist is insane.

[oldanforgotten]

The Supreme Court has ruled (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/06/12/scotus/) that violent Islamist terrorists have the right to have their cases heard in civilian courts in the United States, regardless of how that might affect our ongoing war.

Judge Scalia was rightly outraged. Below is the good part of what he said (http://supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1195.pdf).



This may be the first time that the country has had to have a judge explain to us who we are at war with.

How very odd that our constitution held up in the supreme court. Last I checked, we are in a war of aggression with Iraq, and are now in peacekeeping mode, and not actively at war with anyone. I mean, should we begin denying Islamic Fundamentalists the right to trial, we should also eliminate the right to trial for:

1) Abortion clinic bombers - these are also terrorists who murder people in cold blood.
2) KKK members and all of their sympathizers, as they are domestic terrorists, and part of the right wing evangelical violent Jesus movement.
3) Gay bashers, as they are hate criminals and domestic terrorists as well.

would you agree to those as well ClydeR?

[Gan]

The idea that our country will be hurt because we cant detain people indefinately for being a terrorist without first showing they are a terrorist is insane.

One country's terrorist is another country's freedom fighter, revolutionary hero, or religious warrior.

Too bad the definition of terrorist isnt static between states or cultures, or this might not be the case.

[TheEschaton]

Not anyone, PB, but anyone we detain or somehow put under our power.

Generally, the extent of the rights of the Constitution apply to anyone who: 1) is a citizen, 2) is on U.S. or U.S. territory soil, and now, 3) is actively confined or detained or otherwise hindered by U.S. power.

-TheE-

[ClydeR]

Funny, even with a "conservative" court, you can't get them to throw out habeas corpus. That should probably indicate something to you: It's a core part of our democracy.

-TheE-

It indicates to me that we need more of the conservative judges on the court. The conservative judges (Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas) all voted in favor of our national security. The liberal judges voted in favor of the terrorists.

One of the most liberal members of the court, Judge Stevens, is nearly 90 years old. He will almost certainly resign during the next presidential administration. When that happens, 5/4 decisions like the one today will go the other way if we have a conservative president to appoint his replacement. A change of one vote will end decisions like the one today and also put an end what Mike Huckabee calls the "holocaust of liberalized abortion."

There is nothing in the constitution that says we have to give a trial to suspected terrorists. The judges were being activist.

[Gan]

Not anyone, PB, but anyone we detain or somehow put under our power.

Generally, the extent of the rights of the Constitution apply to anyone who: 1) is a citizen, 2) is on U.S. or U.S. territory soil, and now, 3) is actively confined or detained or otherwise hindered by U.S. power.

-TheE-

So it would be easier if we just shot them all?

Afterall, dead men have no rights. (unfortunately they also tell no tales)

[ClydeR]

would you agree to those as well ClydeR?

If they are not United States residents and are doing those things in the United States, then yes I would.

[TheEschaton]

They didn't vote in FAVOR OF TERRORISTS, they voted in favor of THE CONSTITUTION.

The Constitution cannot, and should not, be suspended no matter how dire the circumstances. From Scalia's dissent you have there, he seems to be implying "OMGZ PPL R DYING!!!!111!" as a reason to suspend the Constitution.

Judge Stevens is also a Republican, considers himself moderate, and was appointed by a Republican President. Insane, when the "most liberal" member of the court is actually just a Republican with common sense.

And the whole Constitution says EVERYONE who is subject to the Constitution is afforded the right to trial in criminal matters. The question at hand here is who the Constitution applies to. And in the past three years, SCOTUS has declared it applies to everyone detained by the U.S., no matter where, because if we have the "legal authority" to detain them, then they should be afforded the same legal rights of anyone we legally have authority to detain here in the States.

-TheE-

[g++]

One country's terrorist is another country's freedom fighter, revolutionary hero, or religious warrior.

Too bad the definition of terrorist isnt static between states or cultures, or this might not be the case.


We could at least prove it to our own definition. The idea that the definition of terrorist is to abstract to apply legally only shows that we should not be labeling people as such to begin with. If you want to detain a foreigner indefinately there should be a provable reason otherwise your just a kidnapper.

[oldanforgotten]

It indicates to me that we need more of the conservative judges on the court. The conservative judges (Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas) all voted in favor of our national security. The liberal judges voted in favor of the terrorists.

One of the most liberal members of the court, Judge Stevens, is nearly 90 years old. He will almost certainly resign during the next presidential administration. When that happens, 5/4 decisions like the one today will go the other way if we have a conservative president to appoint his replacement. A change of one vote will end decisions like the one today and also put an end what Mike Huckabee calls the "holocaust of liberalized abortion."

There is nothing in the constitution that says we have to give a trial to suspected terrorists. The judges were being activist.


You're right. Abortion clinic bombers, KKK members and sympathists, religious hate crime commiters, people who terrorize fudgepackers, and other radical terrorist branches of the church need to be shot without trial as well. All are equally dangerous terrorists, don't you agree ClydeR?

[Gan]

We could at least prove it to our own definition. The idea that the definition of terrorist is to abstract to apply legally only shows that we should not be labeling people as such to begin with. If you want to detain a foreigner indefinately there should be a provable reason otherwise your just a kidnapper.

I've yet to see an official definition that all Americans agree upon (or any legal entity) of what a terrorist is.

Whats the official definition and what authority makes it official? And is that definition being questioned or disputed by any other authority?

[g++]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,437087,00.html

5 YEARS before he was released, hes just some friggin german guy. Do you know how wrong that is?

[oldanforgotten]

If they are not United States residents and are doing those things in the United States, then yes I would.


Any person who is detained and brought to the U.S is afforded certain rights in the constitution. If they are terrorizing us abroad and we shoot them, so be it. If they surrender abroad, we can probably still shoot them, but if we bring them here for questioning, they have those certain rights, which includes a trial by peers, unless the government can prove during detention that the person continues to be a military target once confined.

[ClydeR]

This whole thing has been shameful and Im glad its over.

It's not nearly over. Every one of the detainees gets a chance to go to a civil court and make a case. The military was ready to start the military tribunals in September for those accused of being involved in 9/11, which would be the first set of trials. Now it will take them who knows how many years just to get to the point of beginning a trial.

[g++]

It's not nearly over. Every one of the detainees gets a chance to go to a civil court and make a case. The military was ready to start the military tribunals in September for those accused of being involved in 9/11, which would be the first set of trials. Now it will take them who knows how many years just to get to the point of beginning a trial.

Good

[Parkbandit]

Not anyone, PB, but anyone we detain or somehow put under our power.

Generally, the extent of the rights of the Constitution apply to anyone who: 1) is a citizen, 2) is on U.S. or U.S. territory soil, and now, 3) is actively confined or detained or otherwise hindered by U.S. power.

-TheE-

So you agree, this is a new interpretation. You keep saying that they are just abiding by the Constitution, but today's ruling is actually a new interpretation. This will change everything in every war we are ever in from this day forward.

To be honest, I don't know what the answer is. I don't think we should be able to hold them indefinitely.. but I also don't think we should just let them all go. As Ganalon eluded to.. it'll be far easier to just kill enemy combatants on the battlefield, than to gather the evidence needed to prove their guilt and get them to America and give them new rights.

[TheEschaton]

Funny, in an earlier ruling, the SCOTUS said military tribunals were not good enough, and demanded that prisoners have access to federal court. On that ground, tribunal judges refused to hear cases and sent them to the D.C. Circuit.

yet the Administration, in direct defiance of a SCOTUS ruling, continued to push for military tribunals. Defying a direct order of the SCOTUS could be seen by some as treason - I'm just saying.

-TheE-

[oldanforgotten]

One country's terrorist is another country's freedom fighter, revolutionary hero, or religious warrior.

QFT. George Bush, to the rest of the world, is an evangelical religious Christian world terrorist. By UN law, he is a war criminal. By ClydeR christian logic, he's a freedom fighter, a revolutionary hero, and a religious warrior in the name of Jesus.

[Parkbandit]

You're right. Abortion clinic bombers, KKK members and sympathists, religious hate crime commiters, people who terrorize fudgepackers, and other radical terrorist branches of the church need to be shot without trial as well. All are equally dangerous terrorists, don't you agree ClydeR?

You are an idiot Tamral. The examples you give are already American citizens and already have rights under the US Constitution.

Go terrorize a kitten.

[TheEschaton]

So you agree, this is a new interpretation. You keep saying that they are just abiding by the Constitution, but today's ruling is actually a new interpretation. This will change everything in every war we are ever in from this day forward.

To be honest, I don't know what the answer is. I don't think we should be able to hold them indefinitely.. but I also don't think we should just let them all go. As Ganalon eluded to.. it'll be far easier to just kill enemy combatants on the battlefield, than to gather the evidence needed to prove their guilt and get them to America and give them new rights.

Not a new ruling as of today, but certainly since 2001 when the War on Terror started, yes. I believe there was a decision as early as 2004 affording rights to non-citizens held by the U.S. on foreign soil. Namely, they couldn't be declared enemy combatants while detained as they had lost their military target significance, and had to be deemed "prisoners of war", which is an international legal term that has its own consequences.

-TheE-

[oldanforgotten]

You are an idiot Tamral. The examples you give are already American citizens and already have rights under the US Constitution.

Go terrorize a kitten.


So do prisoners of war. Go help ClydeR bomb an abortion clinic Falgrin.

[ClydeR]

This will change everything in every war we are ever in from this day forward.

It means that we will never again bring prisoners from overseas to territory under United States control. We'll hold them in other countries or ship them off to friendly countries to hold where they will probably not be treated as well as they have been in our custody.

[oldanforgotten]

It means that we will never again bring prisoners from overseas to territory under United States control. We'll hold them in other countries or ship them off to friendly countries to hold where they will probably not be treated as well as they have been in our custody.

You are a moron. Stick to bombing abortion clinics and gay bashing.

Once they are in custody of the military, they are on U.S soil, and anyone held in a U.S detention center is considered to be on U.S soil. You cannot hand them over to a country and hold them there unless that country has specifically requested extradition of that person under indictment of a crime committed in that country, AND that country has a valid extradition treaty with the United States.

[TheEschaton]

Probably true. The problem is people will always find a way to make an end-around run at the Constitution.

[Gan]

Probably true. The problem is people will always find a way to make an end-around run at the Constitution.

At any laws, if you want to be frightfully honest. Thats what lawyers do!

Thought you knew.

[TheEschaton]

Fair enough. That's another problem with the adversarial system - everyone's attempting to dodge the laws that apply to them, instead of apply them.

[Parkbandit]

So do prisoners of war. Go help ClydeR bomb an abortion clinic Falgrin.

You are clearly confused... probably too many kittens around bothering you while you read. The examples you posted previously are ALREADY US citizens and thus ALREADY have all the rights granted to them by the US Constitution. This is the first time in the history of this country that now gives those same rights to prisoners of war. Your examples are as retarded as threatening a defenseless cat.

And I've never had a problem with abortion, as long as it's done early. There are a few people who post here who's parent's should have taken that route.

[oldanforgotten]

Probably true. The problem is people will always find a way to make an end-around run at the Constitution.

The military has absolutely no jurisdiction to extradite. And on U.S military compounds, they are in the United States. The courts can then make 4 choices, and only 4 choices.

1) Allow the person to remain in military detention while awaiting trial, or until the military can prove that the person remains an imminent national threat even while confined, which is almost impossible to do unless the person was a spy, or aiding in a spy operation.
2) Deport the person to their native country.
3) Extradite the person to a country where it has been formally requested in which the person is indicted for a crime.
4) Let the person go.

[TheEschaton]

And the whole run-around is on #1, where the Bush Administration has tried to change the definition of enemy combatants and prisoner status, because as soon as they are POWs, international human rights attach, as per the Geneva Convention. However, by changing the definition, they assess the person as still an imminent national threat, thus warranting "enemy combatant" status.

That definition was the first to go, throwing out the indefinite detention and endless interrogation. Then, the Administration tried to try them in secret military tribunals, which SCOTUS said did not protect their rights which automatically attached as POWs. Then, a lily-livered Congress passed a statute saying military tribunals were okay enough, and SCOTUS has again said no, and overturned the statute.

The difference between this case and the previous one was an interpretation of the extent of Executive Power, versus the constitutionality of a statute passed by Congress.

[ClydeR]

Now that I've had a chance to catch my breath and read more about it, I believe the ruling may not be as far reaching as I first thought. I will try to wait until conservative legal scholars have had a chance to review it more carefully before I start complaining, except that I will complain to say that the media needs to take time to study a court decision before announcing it.

[Gan]

Fair enough. That's another problem with the adversarial system - everyone's attempting to dodge the laws that apply to them, instead of apply them.

When you can find an infallable person to make infallable laws, then you can apply them without the option of interpretation.

[Clove]

If they are not United States residents and are doing those things in the United States, then yes I would.What if they are residents?

[ClydeR]

What if they are residents?

We are the new Romans. The constitution protects citizens (and maybe residents) of the United States no matter where they are captured.


Acts 22

24 The chief captain commanded him to be brought into the castle, and bade that he should be examined by scourging; that he might know wherefore they cried so against him.

25 And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?

26 When the centurion heard that, he went and told the chief captain, saying, Take heed what thou doest: for this man is a Roman.

27 Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea.

28 And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born.

29 Then straightway they departed from him which should have examined him: and the chief captain also was afraid, after he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him.

[Warriorbird]

So... you're arguing in favor of Abu Ghraib, Clyde.

Classy.

[TheEschaton]

You realize that Rome fell, right, when they gave up republicanism for petty dictators and divine right?

[ClydeR]

So... you're arguing in favor of Abu Ghraib, Clyde.

No. Just because the constitution does not protect nonresidents in other countries, that doesn't mean that the military has complete freedom in the way it treats its prisoners. Treaties, laws passed by Congress and military regulations give rights to prisoners and restrict the military's range of conduct.

[Warriorbird]

Having that much trust must make you happy. I'm glad for you.

[ClydeR]

You realize that Rome fell, right, when they gave up republicanism for petty dictators and divine right?

There are many reasons (and theories) for why Rome fell. I tend to think the primary reason is because they were invaded by a superior military. But I'm sure your theory is a good one too.

[longshot]

"The E," I completely understand what you're saying about the constitution. I completely agree that it's not just something you toss away or suspend when convenient.

I think that Scalia's dissent, in some way, deals with the question I have. They aren't officially soldiers from anything we recognize as a nation state. So how do you treat these people? And who exactly is a terrorist?

This is a quote from an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal written by Alan Dershowitz.

"The two basic premises of conventional warfare have long been that soldiers and civilians prefer living to dying and can thus be deterred from killing by the fear of being killed; and that combatants (soldiers) can easily be distinguished from noncombatants (women, children, the elderly, the infirm and other ordinary citizens). These premises are being challenged by women like Zahra Maladan."

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120450617910806563.html

It talks about this sliding scale of responsibility for terrorism...

This is something we haven't seen before. The beauty of our system is that it's not rigid, but dynamic, and I'm hoping that we come up with a way to address this problem. It's extremely important. But, that can't happen until people admit that a problem does indeed exist.


You are an idiot Tamral. The examples you give are already American citizens and already have rights under the US Constitution.

Go terrorize a kitten.

Is oldanforgotten Tams?

Hey old friend. Why the change of handles?

[BigWorm]

No. Just because the constitution does not protect nonresidents in other countries, that doesn't mean that the military has complete freedom in the way it treats its prisoners. Treaties, laws passed by Congress and military regulations give rights to prisoners and restrict the military's range of conduct.

Like, for example, the Geneva Convention which Pres. Bush decided the gov't didn't really have to follow.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

There are many reasons (and theories) for why Rome fell. I tend to think the primary reason is because they were invaded by a superior military. But I'm sure your theory is a good one too.

Seriously. Nero was a great Emperor.

[Parkbandit]

So... you're arguing in favor of Abu Ghraib, Clyde.

Classy.


:rofl:

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/2188/captainhyperbolelt1ui5.jpg

[Faent]

>>Judge Scalia was rightly outraged.

Nobody cares what that greek slob thinks.

[BigWorm]

U.N., you have a problem with that? You know what you should do? You should sanction me. Sanction me with your army.

Oh! Wait a minute! You don't HAVE an army.

I guess that means you need to shutthefuckup. That's why I'd do if I didn't have no army. I'd shut the fuck up. Shut! The! Fuck! Up!

That's right, Koni Annan. You think I'm gonna take orders from an African? You might be able to speak 16 languages, but you gonna need them with you in Times Square sellin' fake hats. I know Gucci when I see it. Nigga I'm rich.

[Warriorbird]

Clyde answered perfectly fine, Parkbandit. He clarified that he wanted them to have rights... just not the right to a trial. Its an important clarification when dealing with a wacko conservative... because some of y'all don't believe detainees need rights at all.

[TheEschaton]

"The E," I completely understand what you're saying about the constitution. I completely agree that it's not just something you toss away or suspend when convenient.

I think that Scalia's dissent, in some way, deals with the question I have. They aren't officially soldiers from anything we recognize as a nation state. So how do you treat these people? And who exactly is a terrorist?

This is a quote from an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal written by Alan Dershowitz.

"The two basic premises of conventional warfare have long been that soldiers and civilians prefer living to dying and can thus be deterred from killing by the fear of being killed; and that combatants (soldiers) can easily be distinguished from noncombatants (women, children, the elderly, the infirm and other ordinary citizens). These premises are being challenged by women like Zahra Maladan."

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120450617910806563.html

It talks about this sliding scale of responsibility for terrorism...

This is something we haven't seen before. The beauty of our system is that it's not rigid, but dynamic, and I'm hoping that we come up with a way to address this problem. It's extremely important. But, that can't happen until people admit that a problem does indeed exist.


I'm confused how this affects status designations after these people are in our custody. If they've been caught in fighting, then put in custody, they become POWs (after being enemy combatants, when, you know, they're fighting).

Now, if you're talking about people who are merely suspected of planning stuff, that's a different story. But there are rights which apply to suspects as well, and there are rights outlined for people suspected of enemies in the Geneva Conventions as well. The blurry line is whether they're still an "imminent danger," merely by possessing the knowledge they have, but without them actually having the ability to defend themselves, it's hard to make the case they're still "enemy combatants." In the U.S., under the Constitution, we cannot torture or hold people indefinitely on the suspicion that they know something about future criminal enterprises.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

We should just let them all go free. I mean, really, what harm could they possibly do?

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=686975&category=IRAQ&BCCode=IRQ&newsdate=6/1/2008

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

We should just let them all go free. I mean, really, what harm could they possibly do?

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=686975&category=IRAQ&BCCode=IRQ&newsdate=6/1/2008

Didn't you just post this:

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/2188/captainhyperbolelt1ui5.jpg

[Parkbandit]

Didn't you just post this:

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/2188/captainhyperbolelt1ui5.jpg

I did. Which part didn't you understand.. maybe I can dumb it down for you.

[Warriorbird]

Hilarious.

[BigWorm]

I did. Which part didn't you understand.. maybe I can dumb it down for you.

If they are such an imminent danger to the American people, shouldn't it be easy to show the court why they should be detained? I don't think you understand what a writ of habeas corpus is; it only means that they can challenge their detainment, not that they automatically get out.

[BigWorm]

We should just let them all go free. I mean, really, what harm could they possibly do?

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=686975&category=IRAQ&BCCode=IRQ&newsdate=6/1/2008

Why don't you direct your righteous indignation at the Kuwaiti court that actually freed him?

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I did. Which part didn't you understand.. maybe I can dumb it down for you.

:rofl:

Wow. That is all.

[Warriorbird]

Another one of those damn liberal Republican members of the court said it quite nicely...


The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, a part of that law.
-Justice Kennedy

[Mabus]

Let me first say I agree with the decision of the court. I believe we can handle any terrorist within the current framework of the courts, and any enemy combatant captured on a battlefield within the UCMJ. We can do so without the new system, and within the limits of our constitution.


The Constitution cannot, and should not, be suspended no matter how dire the circumstances.
Then you also agree that states should have the right to limit abortions, make medicinal marijuana legal, set their own speed limits and drinking laws, set their own gun laws and a host of other issues that are currently handled under federal law.

I would have never thought you to be a constitutionalist. I am pleasantly surprised.

[TheEschaton]

I actually do believe all those things. ;)

-TheE-

[Gan]

I actually do believe all those things. ;)

-TheE-

Here you go. Mr. Constitutionalist.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

[Stanley Burrell]

The rights that these individuals were given today have been rights that undoubtedly belonged to them and should have been mandated as such the split second we erected POW camps with a U.S. slogan years ago.

Honestly though, shipping them off to other friendlies for interrogation will be a lot less tied up in politics and law when the blood of torture isn't (directly) on our hands.

[crb]

I've yet to see an official definition that all Americans agree upon (or any legal entity) of what a terrorist is.

Whats the official definition and what authority makes it official? And is that definition being questioned or disputed by any other authority?
My definition of a terrorist is a civilian (non-uniformed, non-member of a sovereign nation's military, or otherwise official representative of any government government) who uses violence or the threat of violence, against civilians & civilian infrastructure, to promote a political agenda.

I strongly believe in the rights of the constitution, and I strongly believe in the sovereignity of the United States, and I do not agree with the court's decision to grant constitutional rights to non-us citizens. Quite frankly, applying US constitutional rights to anyone in US Military custody is very dangerous. Instead of ambulance chasing lawyers maybe we'll end up with humvee chasing lawyers in Afganistan and Iraq.

Furthermore, I do not believe the Geneva Convention applies to enemy combatants as they are not uniformed members of an opposing government's army, nor do they behave like regular army. Besides, the whole point of the geneva convention is to make sure your soldiers who are captured are treated humanely, and well, ours already get beheaded as infidels so what is the point?

Furthermore, the point of the treaty is to ensure proper behaviors of opponents in a war, such as wearing uniforms and indentifying yourself as a member of an opposing army and not, dressing as, acting as, and more importantly killing, civilians.

IF all Al-Qaeda members wanna start wearing black hats and red armbands then by all means, treat them like regular army, but with how they operate now, they deserve no such protections.

[Kembal]

I did. Which part didn't you understand.. maybe I can dumb it down for you.

This is where we all go "whoosh!"

The fact that even Mabus agrees with this court decision means you're waaaaay out there on this one, PB.

[Kembal]

My definition of a terrorist is a civilian (non-uniformed, non-member of a sovereign nation's military, or otherwise official representative of any government government) who uses violence or the threat of violence, against civilians & civilian infrastructure, to promote a political agenda.

I strongly believe in the rights of the constitution, and I strongly believe in the sovereignity of the United States, and I do not agree with the court's decision to grant constitutional rights to non-us citizens. Quite frankly, applying US constitutional rights to anyone in US Military custody is very dangerous. Instead of ambulance chasing lawyers maybe we'll end up with humvee chasing lawyers in Afganistan and Iraq.

Furthermore, I do not believe the Geneva Convention applies to enemy combatants as they are not uniformed members of an opposing government's army, nor do they behave like regular army. Besides, the whole point of the geneva convention is to make sure your soldiers who are captured are treated humanely, and well, ours already get beheaded as infidels so what is the point?

Furthermore, the point of the treaty is to ensure proper behaviors of opponents in a war, such as wearing uniforms and indentifying yourself as a member of an opposing army and not, dressing as, acting as, and more importantly killing, civilians.

IF all Al-Qaeda members wanna start wearing black hats and red armbands then by all means, treat them like regular army, but with how they operate now, they deserve no such protections.

1. This ruling does not apply to those captured while fighting in an active theater of war and imprisoned in U.S. military custody in that theater. (for a reasonable period of time, anyway. The court hinted it would frown on an end-run by doing indefinite detentions in such a manner)

2. As these individuals were not classified as prisoners of war, the Court has extended habeas rights to them. If they were classified as prisoners of war, then the UCMJ would apply and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Since the adminstration tried an end run past giving them POW status, the Court has ruled that the detainees must have the right to challenge their detainment in civilian court.

The Constitution is clear: the writ of habeas corpus only can be suspended by Congress in times of rebellion or invasion. (taking that straight from Justice Kennedy's opinion) As neither is occuring, the adminstration rightfully must be obligated to show that they have good reason to detain someone, U.S. citizen or not.

[Mabus]

The fact that even Mabus agrees with this court decision means you're waaaaay out there on this one, PB.
People can, and do, differ over the treatment of enemies captured overseas, and how they should be treated. It does not make anyone that agrees (or disagrees) with this decision "way out", it just means they hold a different opinion.

I respect Scalia, and find him to be a highly intelligent and wonderful justice. I believe he is looking at only the case before him (which is how he operates), and how it applies to the past.

I worry more for the future, and what the loss of constitutional protections will mean, not for our enemies, but for future citizens of this country. We have already seen US citizens held without charge or lawyers over this decade, and I never would have believed it possible in this country. I do not believe the "we will never use this trial method against our own citizens", as those promises fall flat for me. The pendulum swings harshly at times, and the back-swing in this case was needed (in my opinion).

People can differ, and neither be wrong. They can firmly believe their vision is the correct one and an other's incorrect, and can both have valid points.

[Clove]

The Constitution is clear: the writ of habeas corpus only can be suspended by Congress in times of rebellion or invasion. (taking that straight from Justice Kennedy's opinion) As neither is occuring, the adminstration rightfully must be obligated to show that they have good reason to detain someone, U.S. citizen or not.To sum up, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

A prisoner can be a civilian (and therefore afforded certain rights) or a POW (and therefore afforded certain rights). SCOTUS (Scalia excepted) seems to frown on a third category of prisoner whose rights we can adjust to the convenience of the moment. As much as I may despise terrorism, I am not threatened by this stance.

[Kembal]

People can, and do, differ over the treatment of enemies captured overseas, and how they should be treated. It does not make anyone that agrees (or disagrees) with this decision "way out", it just means they hold a different opinion.

I respect Scalia, and find him to be a highly intelligent and wonderful justice. I believe he is looking at only the case before him (which is how he operates), and how it applies to the past.

I worry more for the future, and what the loss of constitutional protections will mean, not for our enemies, but for future citizens of this country. We have already seen US citizens held without charge or lawyers over this decade, and I never would have believed it possible in this country. I do not believe the "we will never use this trial method against our own citizens", as those promises fall flat for me. The pendulum swings harshly at times, and the back-swing in this case was needed (in my opinion).

People can differ, and neither be wrong. They can firmly believe their vision is the correct one and an other's incorrect, and can both have valid points.

I find myself duly chastened for my second remark in that post. However, the whoosh still applies to PB.

[Parkbandit]

I find myself duly chastened for my second remark in that post. However, the whoosh still applies to PB.

I'm hurt. Really.

Unlike you, I don't let the mob du jour determine my opinion.

[Paradii]

Wait a second... Clyder is a real person?

[Gan]

My definition of a terrorist is a civilian (non-uniformed, non-member of a sovereign nation's military, or otherwise official representative of any government government) who uses violence or the threat of violence, against civilians & civilian infrastructure, to promote a political agenda.

I strongly believe in the rights of the constitution, and I strongly believe in the sovereignity of the United States, and I do not agree with the court's decision to grant constitutional rights to non-us citizens. Quite frankly, applying US constitutional rights to anyone in US Military custody is very dangerous. Instead of ambulance chasing lawyers maybe we'll end up with humvee chasing lawyers in Afganistan and Iraq.

Furthermore, I do not believe the Geneva Convention applies to enemy combatants as they are not uniformed members of an opposing government's army, nor do they behave like regular army. Besides, the whole point of the geneva convention is to make sure your soldiers who are captured are treated humanely, and well, ours already get beheaded as infidels so what is the point?

Furthermore, the point of the treaty is to ensure proper behaviors of opponents in a war, such as wearing uniforms and indentifying yourself as a member of an opposing army and not, dressing as, acting as, and more importantly killing, civilians.

IF all Al-Qaeda members wanna start wearing black hats and red armbands then by all means, treat them like regular army, but with how they operate now, they deserve no such protections.

Totally agree. And the precedence that this case sets up is concerning, with this regard, at the very least.

And I fully support the exportation of ambulance chasers to Iraq. ;)

[longshot]

My definition of a terrorist is a civilian (non-uniformed, non-member of a sovereign nation's military, or otherwise official representative of any government government) who uses violence or the threat of violence, against civilians & civilian infrastructure, to promote a political agenda.

I strongly believe in the rights of the constitution, and I strongly believe in the sovereignity of the United States, and I do not agree with the court's decision to grant constitutional rights to non-us citizens. Quite frankly, applying US constitutional rights to anyone in US Military custody is very dangerous. Instead of ambulance chasing lawyers maybe we'll end up with humvee chasing lawyers in Afganistan and Iraq.

Furthermore, I do not believe the Geneva Convention applies to enemy combatants as they are not uniformed members of an opposing government's army, nor do they behave like regular army. Besides, the whole point of the geneva convention is to make sure your soldiers who are captured are treated humanely, and well, ours already get beheaded as infidels so what is the point?

Furthermore, the point of the treaty is to ensure proper behaviors of opponents in a war, such as wearing uniforms and indentifying yourself as a member of an opposing army and not, dressing as, acting as, and more importantly killing, civilians.

IF all Al-Qaeda members wanna start wearing black hats and red armbands then by all means, treat them like regular army, but with how they operate now, they deserve no such protections.

Well said. I understand your definition of a terrorist, but I not sure I think that it's so black and white. What about people who finance terrorism? What about the clerics who recruit the terrorists? Or those that aid the travel of those people to foreign countries?

There's no black and white definition. It's a sliding scale of responsibility that will continue to pose problems for the judicial system of this country unless people actually feel the responsibility to acknowledge the reality that we are at war with people that would like nothing more than to see this country, and everything that we value, destroyed.

[Tea & Strumpets]

Wait a second... Clyder is a real person?

No. For some reason people keep replying to him, though. It's crazy.

[TheEschaton]

Well said. I understand your definition of a terrorist, but I not sure I think that it's so black and white. What about people who finance terrorism? What about the clerics who recruit the terrorists? Or those that aid the travel of those people to foreign countries?

Well, our gov't, our CIA, has both financed and recruited terrorists. I'm sure people aren't willing to expand the definition much because then that would indict us.

[landy]

Well, our gov't, our CIA, has both financed and recruited terrorists. I'm sure people aren't willing to expand the definition much because then that would indict us.

No, it wouldn't indict us, E, because I don't remember ever going to Afghanistan and recruiting terrorists, or funding their takeover of a hostile regime. Maybe you've done some legwork for the CIA in the past, but as far as the recruiting of terrorists goes, my conscience is pretty clear.

[TheEschaton]

Funny, you must be one of those types who when they cheer for sports teams, never go so far as to say "Man, we killed those stupid fucking Jets..."

-TheE-

[Daniel]

No, it wouldn't indict us, E, because I don't remember ever going to Afghanistan and recruiting terrorists, or funding their takeover of a hostile regime. Maybe you've done some legwork for the CIA in the past, but as far as the recruiting of terrorists goes, my conscience is pretty clear.

Funny. I thought that was the point of having a representative government..that is..we were responsible for its actions.

[Parkbandit]

Funny. I thought that was the point of having a representative government..that is..we were responsible for its actions.

Are you saying you are responsible for Bill getting a blowjob from Monica?

[Daniel]

Sure, because, obviously, violating the spirit of the constitution is nothing compared to getting your rocks off.

[Clove]

Sure, because, obviously, violating the spirit of the constitution is nothing compared to getting your rocks off.What if you get your rocks off by violating the spirit of the Constitution?

[Daniel]

What if you get your rocks off by violating the spirit of the Constitution?

You'd be in the Bush Administration?

*zing!

[Parkbandit]

You'd be in the Bush Administration?

*zing!

But, wouldn't you also be responsible for that as well?

[Daniel]

Yes, which is why I applaud this decision and do not support any attempts to reverse it.

[Latrinsorm]

"The E,"This made me laugh for some reason.
This is something we haven't seen before.I think this kind of position results from a severe whitewashing or romanticizing of history. There have been suicide attacks going back to the Norse and the Franks, and the problem of civilian versus combatant goes back at least to WWII. In case anyone feels just too damn cheerful today and would really like to be bummed out, a reference follows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werwolf#Allied_reaction_and_reprisals


People can differ, and neither be wrong.Notice that no one is saying that such a thing is impossible, only that it did not happen to occur in this case.
No, it wouldn't indict us, E, because I don't remember ever going to Afghanistan and recruiting terrorists, or funding their takeover of a hostile regime. Maybe you've done some legwork for the CIA in the past, but as far as the recruiting of terrorists goes, my conscience is pretty clear.Have you ever paid taxes to the federal government?

[Clove]

You'd be in the Bush Administration?

*zing!Nice one.