Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Guantanamo Detainee's

[southcitymom]

They are being held without charges and without the burden of proof, or even evidence. And it's still fine with you? What if one, just one of those people is innocent?

I don't understand even a little bit how anyone can be okay with this.

 

[Anita Richman]

You can't have it both ways. If they are "POWs" as Rino and others have asserted, then they should have been treated under the Geneva Convention agreement. They haven't.

If they aren't POWs, they (as "unwilling guests" of our country) deserve to have their civil & human rights observed.

The highest court in the land hath spoke. I am glad that our current president has agreed to "follow the law even if I don't agree with it." God bless our Supreme Court!

 

[Anita Richman]

I don't understand even a little bit how anyone can be okay with this.

"Well, if they have brown skin, don't speak Americun and have a culter we don't understand...they don't deserve to be treated like us evolved Americuns."



Excuse my sarcasm, as a patriotic American and proud wife of a vet, I am extremely ashamed of how our government has treated these detainees and detainees in other parts of the world.

 

[Rino]

I don't understand even a little bit how anyone can be okay with this.

Because it's false:

‘‘(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of
the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006,
has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant
by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent
tribunal established under the authority of the
President or the Secretary of Defense.

Again, drafted by the democrat run congress!!

 

[southcitymom]

Because the law means nothing to these judges. They have now gone against what the lawmakers elected to make laws have established.

LOL! They've spent their entire lives in legal careers and the law means nothing to them?! You're right - it's all a front!

Does the law mean something to the Justices you agree with?

 

[southcitymom]

Because it's false:

‘‘(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of
the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006,
has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant
by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent
tribunal established under the authority of the
President or the Secretary of Defense.

Again, drafted by the democrat run congress!!

That doesn't say a thing about charges, burden of proof and no evidence. My post stated that I don't understand even a little bit how folks can be okay with holding people in jail for years without charges, burden of proof and evidence. I still don't.

 

[southcitymom]

You can't have it both ways. If they are "POWs" as Rino and others have asserted, then they should have been treated under the Geneva Convention agreement. They haven't.

If they aren't POWs, they (as "unwilling guests" of our country) deserve to have their civil & human rights observed.

The highest court in the land hath spoke. I am glad that our current president has agreed to "follow the law even if I don't agree with it." God bless our Supreme Court!

I thought that was cute too!

 

[Anita Richman]

I thought that was cute too!

LOL, reminded me of our 2nd oldest who always had (has) to have the last word! "Well, there's a good little guy...following the laws you don't even agree with!" :high five:

 

[southcitymom]

Our laws are not static. Judges are asked to interpret them against the backdrop of various circumstances. That is the job of a Judge. It always cracks me up when folks talk about "activist Judges". They are doing their jobs - and we name call them if they issue an opinion we disagree with.

 

[BarnGoddess]

What about Major Kyndra Rotunda's book "Honor Bound":

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365482,00.html

<snip>

Fact Check
A former member of the Guantanamo Bay prosecution team says the prison is not the concentration camp that the mainstream media portrays.
Major Kyndra Rotunda writes in her new book "Honor Bound" that Guantanamo detainees get more privileges than many Americans in U.S. prisons. She says one detainee was offered his freedom but responded by saying, "No thanks. The weather will be nicer in my country next spring. I'll wait until then." And, Australian Taliban member David Hicks demanded -- and got -- an $800 Brooks Brothers suit to wear in court, paid for by U.S. taxpayers.
Rotunda writes that detainees live in open bays, eat meals together on picnic tables and serve themselves food from large pots. She adds some have a choice of soccer fields and basketball courts and are offered a selection of basketball shoes upon request.

 

[Rino]

That doesn't say a thing about charges, burden of proof and no evidence. My post stated that I don't understand even a little bit how folks can be okay with holding people in jail for years without charges, burden of proof and evidence. I still don't.

Abdallah Saleh Ali Al Ajmi through an Administrative Review Board hearing and managed to convince the members that he was a harmless individual, on his way to Pakistan to study religion.

Abdallah Saleh Ali Al Ajmi was released from Gitmo in November of 2005. He carried out a suicide bombing in Mosul, Iraq in late April, 2008. People died.

More people are going to die as a result of this ruling.

 

[DeltaDawn]

Abdallah Saleh Ali Al Ajmi through an Administrative Review Board hearing and managed to convince the members that he was a harmless individual, on his way to Pakistan to study religion.

Abdallah Saleh Ali Al Ajmi was released from Gitmo in November of 2005. He carried out a suicide bombing in Mosul, Iraq in late April, 2008. People died.

More people are going to die as a result of this ruling.

I agree..we are at war, they are the enemy. They are being held for a reason. Sorry if the results aren't fast enough for them....but put them in the public courts and the public prisons and results will be even slower..if they live. You have to look at the whole of the situation...we are at war.
We can't just release POW's because they are being held too long or not tried quickly enough. And Rino is right..let them out and hell has no fury like a POW scorned...esspecially a jahidist. You can't believe everything that you hear and only half of what you see when you are dealing with alien enemy combatants. I would think 9/11 would have taught us that.

 

[brad]

I think we should go ahead and let them free on American soil, pay for them to go to school, have children, health care, the like. Then they can kill us all in a warm thank you....


We are at war with a real enemy...an enemy of everything that the US stands for, our values, our way of life. They hate us, they would kill you now because you are a woman and voicing an opinion. BUT GOD FORBID we treat a few people poorly in a prison....HELLO, everyday people just dont end up in prison, they are there for a reason.

 

[southcitymom]

What about Major Kyndra Rotunda's book "Honor Bound":

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365482,00.html

<snip>

Fact Check
A former member of the Guantanamo Bay prosecution team says the prison is not the concentration camp that the mainstream media portrays.
Major Kyndra Rotunda writes in her new book "Honor Bound" that Guantanamo detainees get more privileges than many Americans in U.S. prisons. She says one detainee was offered his freedom but responded by saying, "No thanks. The weather will be nicer in my country next spring. I'll wait until then." And, Australian Taliban member David Hicks demanded -- and got -- an $800 Brooks Brothers suit to wear in court, paid for by U.S. taxpayers.
Rotunda writes that detainees live in open bays, eat meals together on picnic tables and serve themselves food from large pots. She adds some have a choice of soccer fields and basketball courts and are offered a selection of basketball shoes upon request.

I'm not saying they're being held in squalor - I have no idea about the conditions and have never heard it described like a concentration camp - the closest I've ever gotten behind the walls of GB is Harold and Kumar's 2nd movie! :crazy:.

I'm just saying that people shouldn't be jailed endlessly without charges, proof, evidence - I don't think that's too much to ask.

 

[fran]

Mark Levin:

While I am still reviewing the 5-4 decision written by Anthony Kennedy, apparently giving GITMO detainees access to our civilian courts, at the outset I am left to wonder whether all POWs will now have access to our civilian courts? After all, you would think lawful enemy combatants have a better claim in this regard than unlawful enemy combatants. And if POWs have access to our civilian courts, how do our courts plan to handle the thousands, if not tens of thousands of cases, that will be brought to them in future conflicts?

It has been the objective of the left-wing bar to fight aspects of this war in our courtrooms, where it knew it would have a decent chance at victory. So complete is the Court’s disregard for the Constitution and even its own precedent now that anything is possible. And what was once considered inconceivable is now compelled by the Constitution, or so five justices have ruled. I fear for my country. I really do. And AP, among others, reports this story as a defeat for “the Bush administration.” Really? I see it as a defeat for the nation

Bin Laden said among other things, he or 'they,' would use 'our laws' against us.

From this ruling, he was right. Way to go supreme court and 'left-wing bar.' You're now the new bff of none other than,....... Bin Laden himself.

God have mercy on us all.

JMHO
fran

 

[Ntegrity]

I'm just saying that people shouldn't be jailed endlessly without charges, proof, evidence - I don't think that's too much to ask.

The problem I see is that we're taking authority away from military commanders who saw fit to put them there in the first place. Please remember, the detainees would have no problem lopping the heads off your children or blowing up their school bus. Protecting ourselves is more important to me than their rights.

 

[southcitymom]

The problem I see is that we're taking authority away from military commanders who saw fit to put them there in the first place. Please remember, the detainees would have no problem lopping the heads off your children or blowing up their school bus. Protecting ourselves is more important to me than their rights.

The types of people they may or may not be does not concern me. For me, these rights are paramount. If my children make it through school without getting their heads lopped off or blown up on their bus, I would like them to inherit a country which upholds these rights at every turn.

 

[jannuncutt]

That doesn't say a thing about charges, burden of proof and no evidence. My post stated that I don't understand even a little bit how folks can be okay with holding people in jail for years without charges, burden of proof and evidence. I still don't.

I agree with you. Quite incredible, isn't?

 

[southcitymom]

I agree with you. Quite incredible, isn't?

It is. I liked what Kennedy said about liberty and security being reconciled within the framework of the law. It's not like this ruling releases thugs onto the streets - it simply allows them to challenge their detention.

 

[DeltaDawn]

No it really doesn't..it says they do not need to come before a military tribunal at the time of war. It says that they are to be treated as citizens instead of the aliens that they are. It says that they can be tried in a normal court of law vs a court set up to try war and military crimes.

You need to review your law and history and understand our forefathers never intended for these type of people to be treated as citizens , with the same rights as citizens have , during a time of war, and under our law.

I need to know how would you treat an alien who has been Id as a war criminal, who's sole intent is the demise of our country. These are not American citizens, they are uninvited guests of our country who would do you and your children harm given half a chance. They would be willing to do whatever it takes to push their agenda forward. This is not coming from a right wing republican..I am a democrat who believes in rights...but I don't believe in dealing our freedom and country away, in order to give some jihadist, who are free to live where they want, who have chosen only to be here to perpetrate their violence on our nation.

And the next question I would ask you..if the tables were reversed, would these same jihadist, in charge of our POW's treat them in this same way?