Back by popular demand: habeas corpus!

I was so relieved. I am all for keeping us safe even from ourselves.

What's this in reference to?

whew! oh, good - then i wasn't the only one who was confused!

If it helps to weed out the actual terrorists then fine. The ones who are terrorists should never see the light of day again, or breathe for that matter. No sympathy from me towards them. The others they can let go for all I care.

Under the Geneva Convention, unlawful combatants have no lawful status. The Geneva Conventions also state that war is between two (or more) states. Afghanistan was a failed state, the Taliban isn't/wasn't recognized as a legitimate government. Terrorist groups don't fall under the category of a state nor do they qualify as being part of a state's uniformed military. Civilians who actively take up arms in a conflict are known as unlawful combatants and can be prosecuted by the detaining state for their actions. In military terms a "detainee" is a person who was detained by the military order. The people (and I use that term loosely for some of them) at Gitmo who were captured fighting for the Taliban, Osama's not so merry bunch of cowards and insurgents aren't part of the uniformed military of a nation/state. They are unlawful combatants. I believe the only things they are entitled to be treated with humanity and a right to consul. Uniformed members of the former Iraqi regime's military are entitled to POW status, if any are still being held. I don't follow it all that close.

I'm not sure I agree with the Supremes on this one. On the one hand, the Gitmo detainees are "unlawful combatants" with respect to the Geneva Convention. On the other hand, there's got to be some in there that don't deserve to be there under that definition. On the one hand (this would be the hand on my third arm) they don't have any rights as per the U.S. Constitution. On the other hand (my fourth arm) keeping them in there without any sort of legal process to determine who's guilty and who's not for an indefinite amount of time is just plain wrong, by anyone's terms. So.......what I'm driving at is that I think they need to have their cases disposed of and settled -- the guilty sentenced and incarcerated and the innocent set free -- but that I'm not sure they have the right to habeas corpus and a trial in civilian court. My fifth arm (this is getting rather cumbersome and confusing -- all these appendages getting in the way) tells me that there's no way they'll get a trial by a jury of their peers, because their peers are also in jail or they're at large in some other country. So giving them one Constitutional right but deying them another just doesn't make any sense.

Sorry, Supremes, I think some of you are getting a little addled in your old ages.

The latest Supreme Court decision is a disgrace. Habeas corpus is for *United States citizens* guaranteed by the *US Consititution*. The framers of the Constitution never intended, and would be appalled at the decision to extend these rights to *enemies* of the United States. Incredible.

So how else can we ensure the rights of "people" whose mission in life is to kill US citizens? Will soldiers now have to Mirandize terrorists on the battlefield? Why not? They've got rights, don't they? Will those same soldiers be called into court to testify? After all, isn't there a right to face your accuser?

This a terrible decision, poorly written, which offers no guidance to district courts as to how to proceed. They can just "make it up as they go along".

I don't want terrorists on US soil. I don't want them in US prisons where they can influence inmates and recruit new members. I don't want them in a district court near me. I don't want them anywhere near 9/11 sites where they can gloat in satisfaction, and who's to say that won't happen?

Bush Derangement Syndrome continues to rage. People crow in satisfaction at this decision being a slap at the President while disregarding the middle finger the Supreme Court has just given to US citizens and their Consititution.

And that is the exact point of the ruling. There has never been proof that the majority of the people being held are actually enemy combatants. Until they are given a trial, we don't know if they are being held illegally.

Holding people in jail without the ability for a fair trail is part of what a fascist government supports. This is no different than what Hitler did as he gained power so many years ago. I think it's incredible that Bush got away with it as long as he did.

The detainees are enemy combatants encountered in battle with US troops. They weren't out picking flowers. Individual cases have indeed been reviewed through *military* hearings, which is as it should be and some detainees have in fact been released. This is strictly a *military matter*, not one for civilian courts.



It's incredible that any one would compare the detainee situation with Hitler and facism. To compare our government, no matter how much one dislikes the current administration, with true monsters like Hitler is insulting and frankly, ridiculous.

Sorry, but I think that is very naive. There has been a task force studying the effects of the U.S. War on terror on human rights in America since 2005. They have obviously spent a lot of time studying Gitmo. I encourage you to go thru this site as there is a lot of information about what has really happened there.
http://humanrights.ucdavis.edu/proje...-project/index

And in this particular article that I found on this site:
http://humanrights.ucdavis.edu/proje...-at-guantanamo
"Now, on to the assumption that Guantanamo Bay is filled with terrorists; or as Donald Rumsfeld put it, "the worst of the worst." An analysis by Seton Hall University researchers of the government's accusations reveals that only 8 percent of detainees are characterized as al-Qaida fighters, and only 5 percent of detainees were captured by U.S. forces."

Bush is no Hitler and that was not my intent. The fact that basic human rights are denied at Gitmo is still very much a fascist tactic.

I think that the points that have to be addressed with the Gitmo detainees is not who they are or what they might have done, but rather to put that aside completely and determine what Constitutional rights, if any, non-citizens have when in US jurisdiction, and also where US jurisdiction extends.

Is the Constitution only for US citizens on US soil? I know that when US citizens go to foreign countries, they're subject to the laws of that country while they're in that country, and so subject to their legal system as well. So there is some valid argument for saying that non-citizens who are in the US or its territories should have the same Constitutional rights because when they're here they're under our laws.

Does the Constitution apply at Guantanamo? It's sovereign Cuba territory under a permanent lease to the United States. So the area is under US control, but it's not US territory. I think that was the point of putting them all there in the first place. That because it was outside the US, they were ouside the US judicial system.

Yet, keeping them there forever sounds more like something a dictatorship would do.

It's a sticky situation, and frankly, even after this ruling, I still don't think it's clear. I think the Court bungled this one.

I'll tell you what I'd do: I'd release them all into the custody of the World Court at the Hague, and let them decide. Then they're off our hands and in their lap, and at the speed things work there they'll be there for the rest of their lives anyway. Seeing as how they're "unlawful combatants" in an undeclared war, they have no status as per any of the established rules dealing with wartime prisoners.

The supreme court are some of the foremost jurist in the land. They rule on law. I am quite confident that thier decision was well thought out on the premise of law. Not to give the president the "middle finger". That is an extemely insulting comment. They certainly did not give me the middle finger. Our forefathers established a government with three branches to make certain there are checks and balances. I am not sure what you are talking about Bush Derangement Syndrome. While there may be people that think this is a slap in the President. Many more consider as America going back to being a just and honorable nations to all people not just to the ones we like. I don't particularly like murders and pedophile but they deserve their day in court. If found quilty I have no problem with locking them away. By the way our forefathers fought against unlawful imprisionment, in my opinion they might be appalled by us leaving those prisioners there without trial. Personally I think the military handled this wrong, we tried Zacarias Moussaoui here in the US, why not these people. And if they are guilty again I have no problem with locking them away.

Soldiers on the battlefield abide by the Geneva Convention so that comment does not apply to this situation.

As far as I know, the U.S. doesn't accept the jurisdiction of the Hague court, at least for U.S. citizens, so that would just be "dumping" self-made problems on others.

The "task force" is a project of UC Davis. It's staffed with professors in various disciplines, all clearly with a liberal slant.

The Combating Terrorism Center at West Point has an analysis of the detainees which includes a breakdown of countries of origin as well as evidence of detainee participation in terrorist activities. Not surprisingly, it's a far different picture than that presented by two liberal universities.

http://www.michellemalkin.com/2007/0...ch-and-release

They are nothing more than lawyers in imposing black robes. Too many of them are activists who have been chipping away at the Constitution they are sworn to uphold.

In their latest "well thought out" decision, they have essentially ruled against themselves. The 1950 decision Johnson vs. Eisentrager established the principle that aliens who were detained outside the sovereign territory of the US *could not* ask federal courts to review their status.

The Eisentrager case involved 21 German nationals taken into custody in China at the end of WWII. A US military tribunal tried and convicted them of war crimes. They were then sent to a German military prison. The individuals wanted to bring their case to the US by filing a writ of habeas corpus in the US District Court of Washington, DC. The issue was whether alien combatants should have access to civilian courts.

Writing for the Supreme Court's majority, Justice Robert Jackson firmly denied aliens such access: "We are cited to no instance where a court in this or any other country where the writ of habeas corpus is known, has issued it on behalf of an alien enemy who, at no relevant time and in no stage of his captivity, has been within its territorial jurisdiction."

Further reasoning of the court was explained by Robert D. Alt, a fellow in legal and international affairs:

Proceedings by alien detainees would hamper the war effort and bring aid and comfort to the enemy. They would diminish the prestige of our commanders, not only with enemies but with wavering neutrals. *It would be difficult to devise more effective fettering of a field commander than to allow the very enemies he is ordered to reduce to submission to call him to account in his own civil courts and divert his efforts and attention from the military offensive abroad to the legal defensive at home. Nor is it unlikely that the result of such enemy litigiousness would be a conflict between judicial and military opinion highly comforting to enemies of the United States*.

To whom is the comment insulting? In effect, this is what has happened by the court's disregard of the Constitution as well as its own earlier decision in Eisentrager. *I'm* insulted by the decision to give terrorists the same rights I'm entitled to as a US citizen.

Checks and balances are great when they're actually working. The Court has made many poor decisions and run roughshod over the other two branches.

Bush Derangement Syndrome refers to the deep hatred many liberals have toward the President. The hatred is such that as long as something, in this case the latest Supreme Court decision, is perceived to hurt the President, it's all good no matter what the ramifications may be to others.

I agree that "murderers and pedophiles" deserve their day in court as long as they are US citizens. If they aren't and they are not on US soil, our system does not pertain to them - as in the case of Gitmo detainees.

William J. Haynes, general consul of the Department of Defense has specified that "the president has unquestioned authority to detain enemy combatants, including those who are US citizens, during wartime. The authority to detain them flows primarily from Article II of the Constitution in which the president is designated commander in chief. Presidents have detained enemy combatants in every major conflict in the nation's history, including the Gulf, Vietnam and Korean wars. Then, as now, the purposes of detaining enemy combatants during wartime are to gather intelligence and to ensure that detainees do not return to assist the enemy."

Terrorists are not covered by the conditions set forth in the Geneva Conventions because they are unconventional soldiers. They do not wear the uniform of a particular country's military, and hide among the civilian population. Giving them the same rights to a civilian trial as Americans is despicable.

(Sorry for the monster post -this subject gets under my skin just a little...)

I've looked at this; and looked at it; had a drink and looked a little more..

I don't envy anyone involved in this mess. We obviously cannot keep people locked up, uncharged with any crime, forever. But, if we sort them out and try the guilty, what will the sentences be for the guilty? Most of them were not caught in acts of terrorism, but bearing arms against our military. 5 years, 7 years, 10? Credit for time served?

The government knows, and the Justices know, and most Americans know that once those men serve their time, they will get out, go home, get a gun, a few grenades and a couple of snickers bars and come right back.

I don't have an answer at all, and I'm not sure that anyone that has an answer has a good one.

And this isn't a total republican slant? Let's go buy the "Democrats: For freeing jihadists faster" bumper sticker as it suggests. The article offers no proof, just lists countries or origin and some unsupported statistics on what the prisoners were supposed to be involved in. Without a trial, how can those statistics ever be proven true? Particularly when 86% of the prisoners were picked up by non-U.S. countries and dumped on us. If you think that the countries on the list are an indication of terrorist related, why is it that the U.S. accepted prisoners from some of those countries?

Prove to me that UC Davis and all of the contributing articles on that site are clearly liberal and I will listen to you.

EXACTLY what I had in mind!!

As far as running roughshod goes, the Supremes are rank amateurs compared to the Executive branch.

Well, if the World Court doesn't want them, maybe we can send them to China. They'll put them to work in a prison shoe factory and your next pair of sneakers will come as a pre-assembled shoe-bomb.

The purpose of habeas corpus -- if I'm understanding any of this -- is to decide if there is just reason to hold and try the prisoners. The assumption that many of you are making is that they are terrorists. Isn't that the purpose of the habeas corpus hearing to decide if there is enough evidence to try them?

They have already been held for six years -- without ever having charges brought. That's guilty until proven......no that's just guilty. There has to be a way to resolve their situation.

Does that mean that if your son or daughter went overseas, and was accused of a crime, and was not charged, and was held in a very high security prison for several years without charge and without trial, and probably starved and tortured, you would be ok with it, because after all, they are no longer on US soil, and therefore their rights are no longer valid? They are not only not subject to the laws of their own land, they are also not subject to the laws of the land in which they are being held.

Don't forget - the government holding them doesn't need any proof. Being suspected of a crime is enough.

I'm sure you'd be just fine with that.

And who made, "Seton Hall University researchers" experts on Gitmo.
I heard on the news about one of these gitmo detainees being released, he promptly went to Iraq and became a suicide bomber and blew up a bunch of people. It is disgusting we are giving these monsters our constitutional rights.

Why don't we just let them all go and let them go back to what they were doing? Hey, but for all the "Hate Bush no matter what" people I'm sure it is a victory. Wait until they are on OUR soil blowing themselves and innocent American civilians up, people will think differently then, I'm sure. It will happen, get ready.

Oh, please, we all know that SCOTUS makes hideous decisions.
Remember their latest on Eminent Domain? That was a real goodie.

This latest decision was 5-4. not a landslide by any means.

I would have to say that any organization that has been studying this for 3 years has to be far better experts than anyone on this site. If you go thru their website, they are relying on experience from people from all over the spectrum, not just their internal researchers.

So these researchers are working out of Gitmo, is that what you are saying?

I don't believe those inmates at Gitmo are being "starved" (that is ridiculous)
or abused.

Just because a prisoner says he is being "abuses", doesn't mean he is telling the truth.

And from the one link you posted about how all the poor people that needed money badly threw their friends under the bus and turned them in as terrorists, to get some cash. Well, seeing as how the biggest bounty is on Osama, one would think if $$$$ is so enticing to these people that someone would have ratted out old Osama. What's his bounty? 12 million or 25 million?

I think you are trying to put words into my mouth. If you read thru the site enough, there are people interviewed from Gitmo, and not just detainees.

Did the source of this news follow the released detainee and witness the suicide bombing?

The question here is the reliability of what we hear and read from various sources. If you can easily challenge a research group, why aren't you challenging the news? I sense the flip side of the "Hate Bush no matter what" working here.

Face it, no amount of debate on this site is going to change opinions. I simply challenge people to find out more facts before coming to their conclusions.