Guantanamo prisoners can appeal

[Matt W]

BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Guantanamo prisoners can appeal

Foreign suspects held in Guantanamo Bay have the right to challenge their detention in US civilian courts, the US Supreme Court has ruled.

This should set the cat amongst the pigeons...

[Gods_Mercenary]

I guess a move in the right direction.

[Chancellor]

Oh, sure! Give these damned foreigners the rights of citizens!

While I certainly think Guantanamo should never have happened, the detainees should be treated according to the Geneva Conventions and not treated like American citizens.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Chancellor Oh, sure! Give these damned foreigners the rights of citizens! While I certainly think Guantanamo should never have happened, the detainees should be treated according to the Geneva Conventions and not treated like American citizens.

Uh huh. Like most people, you are a Constitutional literalist when it suits you, but as soon as it doesn't, you freely "read in" whatever words suit your political tastes...

Quote by: The 5th Amendment No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

I don't see the word "citizen" in there. In fact it quite specifically says "person".

[Aussie]

Quote by: Chancellor Oh, sure! Give these damned foreigners the rights of citizens! While I certainly think Guantanamo should never have happened, the detainees should be treated according to the Geneva Conventions and not treated like American citizens.

Its your president circumventing the Geneva Conventions! This is the third ruling as well, Bush changed the laws the last two times.

[Zeebadee]

All that we've ever asked of this two-bit, tinhorn, dictator-wanna-be is that he show us some evidence of the guilt of people he's held virtually incommunicado for more than 6 years. After that period of time, there is certainly no information that would have any tactical value, so what's the problem with showing us the evidence of their guilt?? I suspect that the problem is that there is virtually no evidence to support what bush has been telling us, and he is merely trying to cover up more of his never-ending stream of lies.

You want to punish these inmates?? Show us some evidence. bush's statements alone have long ago lost even the remotest connection to credibility. The bush legacy will be lies, lies, lies.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Zeebadee All that we've ever asked of this two-bit, tinhorn, dictator-wanna-be is that he show us some evidence of the guilt of people he's held virtually incommunicado for more than 6 years. After that period of time, there is certainly no information that would have any tactical value, so what's the problem with showing us the evidence of their guilt??

Because this administration has zero concept of justice -- like plenty of past administrations. After all, America can do no wrong. "Their" guilt is implied, "ours" is not. And if evidence shows them to be mistaken, blame the evidence, not them.

Grandpa h.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Uh huh. Like most people, you are a Constitutional literalist when it suits you, but as soon as it doesn't, you freely "read in" whatever words suit your political tastes...

Wrong answer! The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the powers of the federal government, not to confer "rights" on foreigners. What you're so stupidly suggesting is that, in times of war, any prisoners we capture should be tried in our civilian courts.

I don't see the word "citizen" in there. In fact it quite specifically says "person".

So, your idiotic position is that these damned foreigners who were captured during a time of war should be tried in civilian courts instead of being considered prisoners of war? Are you saying that any damned foreigner should be allowed to just start demanding to be given the rights of American citizens even though they don't live here?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Aussie Its your president circumventing the Geneva Conventions! This is the third ruling as well, Bush changed the laws the last two times.

I have no doubt that the Bush Administration (along with the vast majority of Congress - Democrat and Republican - that voted to give the Administration these additional powers) has been circumventing the Geneva Conventions but the solution is not for the Supreme Court to give foreigners that are not legal residents of the US access to civilian courts. The people in Guantanamo are enemy combatants and are entitled to the protections of Geneva Conventions, they're not entitled to file suit in American civilian courts. The Supreme Court was definitely wrong on this one and I can see this opening up a Pandora's Box that will be very difficult to shut.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Zeebadee All that we've ever asked of this two-bit, tinhorn, dictator-wanna-be is that he show us some evidence of the guilt of people he's held virtually incommunicado for more than 6 years. After that period of time, there is certainly no information that would have any tactical value, so what's the problem with showing us the evidence of their guilt?? I suspect that the problem is that there is virtually no evidence to support what bush has been telling us, and he is merely trying to cover up more of his never-ending stream of lies. You want to punish these inmates?? Show us some evidence. bush's statements alone have long ago lost even the remotest connection to credibility. The bush legacy will be lies, lies, lies.

That's the problem: are they criminals or are they prisoners of war? The Bush Administration declared them enemy combatants, which makes them prisoners of war. Prisoners of war are not entitled to a hearing in civilian courts. They are entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

Of course, this whole "war on terror(ism)" is a crock of b.s. anyway. It's time to close Guantanamo and ship these people back to their home countries.

[Chaossaber314]

I'm kinda 50/50 on this one.

On one hand, holding people without cause or any attempt at cause is completely wrong and should be addressed. However, applying US federal law and constitutional rights to non-citizens in Guantanamo sets an unrealistic standard for the rest of the world. I would agree with Chancellor regarding the Geneva convention if it weren't for the gray area created thanks to the lack of an official declaration of war.

I don't think it's right to assure constitutional rights to non-citizens, (which saying out loud almost sounds like we're required to enforce our constitution abroad) but I'm not sure non-governmental affiliated fighters can be considered POWs. If I donned a machinegun and some explosives and went and took hostages at an office building, that would make me a terrorist but after I was caught, I wouldn't be a prisoner of war regardless of wherever I claimed citizenship.

[Apeman81]

Prisoners of War are not subject to civilian courts. And they should not be.

Should a soldier detained in a time of war be subject to the local laws of the country he is detained by? Really?

So when this precedent is followed by other, less civil nations, and they enact local laws authorizing the death penalty for "foreign entities" detained while engaged in "actual or potential hostile acts" and execute a soldier or 2, this might not seem a good idea.

The concept of a Prisoner of War in part serves to PREVENT civillian courts from doing just such things.

This is simply a bad decision

[Matt W]

That's the point, Apeman. These aren't prisoners of war, according to the current US administration - they're 'Enemy Combatants', whatever that may mean. Regardless of what you think of the decision, this 3rd strike against the administration goes a fair way to clarifying that.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Matt W That's the point, Apeman. These aren't prisoners of war, according to the current US administration - they're 'Enemy Combatants', whatever that may mean. Regardless of what you think of the decision, this 3rd strike against the administration goes a fair way to clarifying that.

Read Article 4 of of the 1949 Geneva Conventiom. The concept of "enemy combatant" is found within. They are to be treated as Prisoners of War.

[JTM45]

Besides the 'enemy combatant' designation, there's also the unlawful vs lawful aspect of it.

This isn't the first time stuff like this has happened. After WWII, Eisenhower designated a whole crapload of Germans as 'Disarmed Enemy Forces' rather than POWs in order to circumvent Geneva, and use them for forced labor and reduce their rations.

Sometimes the end does justify the means.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Chancellor Wrong answer! The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the powers of the federal government, not to confer "rights" on foreigners.

One of the limits of the powers of the federal government is to limit the power of the government to hold a person, in the case of the 5th Amendment

What you're so stupidly suggesting is that, in times of war, any prisoners we capture should be tried in our civilian courts.

What you're stupidly suggesting is that our Constitution says something different.

Your intellectual dishonesty here is staggering. You regularly argue on this message board that the Constitution should be read literally. Now, I read it literally, in a way that you happen not to agree with politically, and all of a sudden you become Mr. Living Document.

It would be hysterical if you weren't serious.

The Constitution LITERALLY says no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. No person. Not "citizen", not "national", not "except in war crimes". Person.

Explain the Constitutional justification for your reasoning. Or, as you so often recommend to others here, if you don't like what it says, push for an Amendment.

So, your idiotic position is that these damned foreigners who were captured during a time of war should be tried in civilian courts instead of being considered prisoners of war?

My position is that the Constitution requires it. Quit your hyperventilating and show me where I'm incorrect, or concede.

Are you saying that any damned foreigner should be allowed to just start demanding to be given the rights of American citizens even though they don't live here?

The Constitution is eminently clear to make differentiations between those rights granted to "persons" and those granted to "citizens" - both words are used in the document. If the framers had wanted the rights of habeus corpus and due process to be only available to citizens, they would have specified as such.

It's just hysterical that you of all people have suddenly abandoned your belief that the Constitution should be read literally just because of your blind faith in this stupid and pointless "war" on "terror".

[grandpa]

Quote by: tivodan1116 One of the limits of the powers of the federal government is to limit the power of the government to hold a person, in the case of the 5th Amendment. What you're stupidly suggesting is that our Constitution says something different.

At work is a simple principle:
If you are accused of something, evidence should be presented. This is a practical standard inside and outside a courtroom. And, speaking of courtrooms, I personally would prefer using regular courts over these military kangaro ones.

One other point: We don't get our rights by Constitutional amendment, but by asserting them in fact.

Grandpa h.

[Nono]

Quote by: apeman Read Article 4 of of the 1949 Geneva Conventiom. The concept of "enemy combatant" is found within. They are to be treated as Prisoners of War.

Which the US has failed to do.

Read also Article 3. That's the root-nut minimum for for everybody, combatant and non-combtant alike.
The US has violated Article 3 as well.

Quote by: JTM45 Sometimes the end does justify the means.

The end here being?? Certainly US security has plummeted under Bush. As Nicholas B. Kristof put it: "If the Bush administration appointed an Under Secretary of State for Antagonizing the Islamic World, with advice from a Blue Ribbon Commission for Sullying America’s Image, it couldn’t have done a more systematic job of discrediting our reputation around the globe."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/op...14kristof.html

[Lickyfingerbum]

Quote by: Nono Which the US has failed to do. As Nicholas B. Kristof put it: "If the Bush administration appointed an Under Secretary of State for Antagonizing the Islamic World, with advice from a Blue Ribbon Commission for Sullying America’s Image, it couldn’t have done a more systematic job of discrediting our reputation around the globe." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/op...14kristof.html

Its amazing how far America has drifted since the 2nd world war ( morally i mean). Collin Powell said (before the Iraq war i think) that with 9/11 america has the chance to regain its role as the moral beacon of the world but warned that the "political capital" which america inherited from 9/11 would be squandered if it was sidetracked by wars in iraq and north korea.

The whole world was willing to back america before Bush sidetracked america. Now nobody cares about 9/11, they just see an imperial US in Iraq

[Jack]

And now we have this:

The Bush administration wants to rewrite the official evidence against Guantanamo Bay detainees, allowing it to shore up its cases before they come under scrutiny by civilian judges for the first time. "It's a totally fishy maneuver that suggests that the government wants, at the 11th hour, to get its ducks in a row," said Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney representing several detainees. He was briefed on the plan. The question is part of a broader dispute over what the upcoming hearings will look like. Attorneys for the detainees want judges to review all the evidence and decide whether each prisoner should be released. The government believes the judges should look only at limited evidence prepared by officials at Guantanamo Bay. That's why defense attorneys are troubled by the idea that authorities now want to rewrite that evidence. If the court limits arguments to just the government's record, and gives the government a chance to improve that record, they believe the detainees' chances will be hurt.

APNewsBreak: US asks to rewrite detainee evidence - Yahoo! News