Terrorists are people too

/ACLU

Law of unintended consequences- don't take prisioners!

Number one reason to vote for McCain:
At least 2 Supremes will be chosen in the next four years.

As I just said in the other thread: shoot to kill on the battlefield.

God bless our troops. The Supreme Court certainly doesn't.

Someone help explain to the family of this man why Khalid Sheikh Muhammad
should be given the same rights as American Citizens.

Could we expect any less!

so Jury trials for terrorists?

Why not have them all in Seattle

How many more must die?

The Left sees Islamist terrorists as their footsoldiers for bringing about the "revolution"... Of course they want them made legally equal to us and free, if possible.

In other words, the Supreme Court just sent a message to the troops, "TAKE NO PRISONERS!"

re: #9 little boomer

How many more must die?

All of Them...

I am reminded of Commander Riker's exasperation upon learning that the Enterprise was malfunctioning during a standoff with the Romulans: "do we have any sticks and stones that we can throw at them?"

If the world wants our constitutional protections, the world has got to start paying our taxes. Those rights don't come without obligation.

Liberals really are working damn hard to destroy America.

re: #10 Pyrocles

The Left sees Islamist terrorists as their footsoldiers for bringing about the "revolution"... Of course they want them made legally equal to us and free, if possible.

The liberals would find just like their cowardly brethren in every revolution they would be the first lined up against the wall and executed.

Let's hope that when the terrorists have their day in court, the US isn't held to the same standards of as in a criminal case.
"Sorry for your arrest, Mr. Terrorist, but the military didn't read you your Miranda warnings in Pashtun, and made sure you understood them. You get to go free."

At the risk of repeating myself:

Hey, Supreme Court: Just exactly what kind of "crime" would WAGING WAR AGAINST THE UNITED STATES be considered? A Class "C" felony maybe? Or perhaps it should just be a misdemeanor, you know like spitting in the subway. Speaking of which....

/*SPIT!*

Sometimes, a Predator is a better source of justice than the court machinery.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens joined Kennedy to form the majority.

Assholes.

As I just heard Rush say, the MSM calls this a defeat for the Bush Administration when in reality is a defeat for the USA.

Love the enemy of thy enemy.

/MSM

Kill 'em

Souter's concurrence: because the military has not managed to have trials in six years.

He has a point, yet, this does not change what is constitutional.

re: #15 pegcity

With breathtaking speed the idiocy of the left overwhelms us.

Can they vote, too, now?

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens joined Kennedy to form the majority.

The axis of stupidity.

re: #26 Loren42

Can they vote, too, now?

Only if they register as Democrats.

Can't vote for the Old Man? Just think what Barry can do for the court, with just a couple of more Ruth Ginsburgs.

The more I think about it Ol Billy was right, let's kill all the lawyers, kill em tonight -Don Henley from "Get Over It"

The law is an ass- Charles Dickens from "Oliver Twist"

re: #26 Loren42

Can they vote, too, now?

Shhhh. DOn't give Snooter and Ginsburg any ideas!

Souter is easily the dumbest man to be on the Supreme Court in years.

re: #19 ORD neighbor

Sometimes, a Predator is a better source of justice than the court machinery.

A tempting solution, but oftentimes there is valuable intelligence locked up in those little jihadi skulls. Guess we need to be more creative somehow...

Gitmo was a nice experiment but it's over with. Terrorists need to be held in secret military prisons and permanently "disappeared" when necessary.

Does this mean the liberal lawyers will put the Bush administration on trial by using terrorists in civilian courts?

If it does, goodbye to justice in America.

I... I'm at a loss for words. I mean, what does one say in the face of such breathtaking stupidity?

I can`t believe Ginsburg didn`t make the gov. pay child support to their children while they are being incarcerated.

This also demonstrates why Bin Laden needs to be killed, not captured.

re: #30 redheadredstate

The more I think about it Ol Billy was right, let's kill all the lawyers, kill em tonight -Don Henley from "Get Over It"

The law is an ass- Charles Dickens from "Oliver Twist"

"The world must construe from it's wits - this court must construe from the law"
-St. Thomas More

They want to make it impossible to actually conduct a war on terror. Put enough roadblocks in the way and we will just have to give up. That's what the Left wants; that's what the Left will get. Of course, their heads will get lopped off with all the others. No wait. They will gladly convert. They have no core values to cling to. They will screw everybody else and then take the easy way out.

Worthless garbage

It's an effort to make the prosecution of war more difficult.

Boy, talk about tying the hands of soldiers and our military. I can see the 'take no prisoners' sentiment being an unintended consequence.

Is the United States of America a "serious" country?

Why do people who are captured while trying to kill American troops on the battlefield deserve a civil trial? And the majority of these people were purposefully violating the Geneva Convention mandate of "uniformed military". Based on this alone, many of the Gitmo detainees could have been summarily executed by order of the ranking American commander on scene at time of capture.

And we're giving them -- a trial?

.

So I guess this brings the clock down from 8 to 7 on the countdown until our next big homeland terrorist attack.

but...but...Rosie O'Donnell said they were mothers and fathers just like us? no?

I find it rather amazing that military tribunals are good enough for our servicemen but not for those who murder and main innocent civilians by design.

re: #34 CIA Reject

A tempting solution, but oftentimes there is valuable intelligence locked up in those little jihadi skulls. Guess we need to be more creative somehow...

Its risk versus reward. Does the potential for possibly extracting some useful info from the target outweigh the benefits from killing him?

I would say 99% of the time, killing them outright would be the right answer.

OK.

But when they are still found guilty in US Courts, they'll find some other reason to claim they are being treated unfairly.

The rumor is that Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid want to move the terrorists to Washington (preferably into nice hotels - hey, it's complimentary!) and move all elected Republicans to Guantanamo.

/

re: #29 maddogg

Can't vote for the Old Man? Just think what Barry can do for the court, with just a couple of more Ruth Ginsburgs.

Yeah, that's about as scary as what Johnny boy can do for the court with a couple of more Souters, too.

We just gave them a huge advantage - We've opened the door to them not being able to be punished for this kind of crime. Shame on us.

The headline is a gross distortion of the Court's holding. Simply put, we are not a country that holds people incommunicado for years on end.

If the prisoners are terrorists, they should be tried, convicted and punished. Nothing more American than that.

re: #49 Ben Hur

OK.

But when they are still found guilty in US Courts, they'll find some other reason to claim they are being treated unfairly.

They will demand to be tried in the Hague.

re: #51 Kreuzueber Halbmond

Yeah, that's about as scary as what Johnny boy can do for the court with a couple of more Souters, too.

Are you willing to take the risk of the alternative?

I'm not.

Another "brilliant" decision from SCOTUS reminds me of the Dred Scott Decision- This is why McCain must be elected- at least conservatives will have some voice on who the nominees for SCOTUS will be-with obama we have no voice whatsoever.

If McCain is considered too old, how about retiring some of these lefty geezers on the Supreme Court.

Oh, they're mostly democrat geezers from the 1960s, so their ideas are considered so "1968 is great" current & timeless.

Sigh...... when & where do we draw the line against those who would take away our right to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness.

re: #44 Dad O' Blondes

You don't understand. To the left, they were not captured on a battlefield; they were arrested by the World Police (whom they despise). In order to stick it to The Man (tm), they got the court to rule that such an incarceration is a violation of these terrorists' non-existent Constitutional rights. Never mind that they're not even American citizens, nor are they under our protection, which gives them NO rights whatsoever; that's an entirely irrelevant point to these useless idiots.

re: #14 jaunte

If the world wants our constitutional protections, the world has got to start paying our taxes. Those rights don't come without obligation.

can we have a revolution with the battle cry being "No representation without taxation!"?

re: #51 Kreuzueber Halbmond

Yeah, that's about as scary as what Johnny boy can do for the court with a couple of more Souters, too.

That is a chance you will have to take, as with Obammy, it is not a matter of chance.

re: #40 Killgore Trout

This also demonstrates why Bin Laden needs to be killed, not captured.

No. You had it right the first time - secret prisons. Bin Laden, oh yeah, we got him! Dead as doornail. Dead I tell you.
Secret prisons.

Try them under Sharia.

If Obama is elected, we won't have to worry about this. No more terrorism. We'll all sing kumbaya together. Well, those of us who don't get our heads chopped off.re: #50 rwmofo

The rumor is that Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid want to move the terrorists to Washington (preferably into nice hotels - hey, it's complimentary!) and move all elected Republicans to Guantanamo.

/

I thought that was what Obama planned for the Bush administration. Show trials, and then line them up against the wall. Or are they still opposed to the death penalty?

I heart Scalia:

Dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia warns that the ruling “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed” and concludes “The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent.”

re: #42 dgax65

That's what the Left wants; that's what the Left will get. Of course, their heads will get lopped off with all the others. No wait. They will gladly convert. They have no core values to cling to.

But, but ... I thought the Left supported women's rights and gay rights and sexual freedom. Surely they'll be able to support those causes under the Religion of Peace?

Whoever thought that terrorism would turn out to be just another welfare program for lawyers? May they be blessed with ill health and infested with parasites for the rest of their days.

re: #58 see bs

Sigh...... when & where do we draw the line against those who would take away our right to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness.

I'd say... right after the words "take away our right".

Moral of the story: A president Obama will appoint only liberals to the high court while a president McCain has promised to appoint moderate to conservative justices.

No matter how we may disagree with McCain, four years of Obama could be a distaster.

re: #58 see bs

Sigh...... when & where do we draw the line against those who would take away our right to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness.

I think we are seeing bottom now.

What do we have to do to defeat Terrorism? Establish the Imperium Americanus?

re: #26 Loren42

Can they vote, too, now?

Might as well them drivers licenses too

re: #47 maddogg

I find it rather amazing that military tribunals are good enough for our servicemen but not for those who murder and main innocent civilians by design.

* * *
Democrats have said only dumb people join our military, so US military justice is for dummies, WHEREAS, foreign & domestic enemy combatants have more rights than our military.

and Roberts:

Chief Justice John Roberts says the rule of law and the American people have lost out–and with this ruling, we “lose a bit more control over the conduct of this Nation’s foreign policy to unelected, politically unaccountable judges.”

OT

Gaza house explodes. Work accident?

Even if it isn't a work accident, the response was disproportionate - Hamas fired a salco of 15 rockets into Israel and wounded a woman.

Don't human rights campaigners decry disproportionate responses? Where are they?

He claimed that ties with many European countries were improving. "Not a week passes without a meeting between us and European officials and representatives from European international organizations," he said, adding that talks between Hamas and European officials were taking place in Gaza, the West Bank and overseas.

[Link: www.jpost.com...]

re: #63 Ben Hur

Try them under Sharia.

That's an automatic acquittal for them.

re: #59 thedopefishlives

You don't understand. To the left, they were not captured on a battlefield; they were arrested by the World Police (whom they despise). In order to stick it to The Man (tm), they got the court to rule that such an incarceration is a violation of these terrorists' non-existent Constitutional rights.

Knowing a couple of these moonbats I can attest they really really do think this. It's mind boggling.

Just wait until Barack Hussein is President. Then we can have war crimes trials...

For US soldiers. And members of the Bush Administration. After all, they are the real bad guys here.

[/*spit*]

re: #75 karmic_inquisitor

pimf "salvo"

Arent' we like waaaayyyy overdue for another wake-up call?

Let's hope they point the planes in the direction of some ACLU offices this time...

re: #48 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Its risk versus reward. Does the potential for possibly extracting some useful info from the target outweigh the benefits from killing him?

I would say 99% of the time, killing them outright would be the right answer.

Probably true, but I would prefer "de-briefing" them and then releasing them to their brothers after we had done something to make sure their brothers will want to kill them. It's a tough trick to pull off, but it has been done with great success elsewhere - particularly by MI-5 against the provisional IRA.

For all I know we may already be doing it - I hope so.

So if we free these terrorists, do we have to fly them home?
On a commercial airliner?

Or better, in a military aircraft that has a mechanical problem, but fortunately, the crew were able to bail out. They weren't able to rescue the passengers, though.

Here's the MSNBC poll: Do you agree that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

(via Rogue198's spinoff link)

re: #72 IgofAntioch

Might as well them drivers licenses too

And American Birth Certificates! Then they can run for president!

re: #55 loppyd

Are you willing to take the risk of the alternative?

I'm not.

No, but it's doubtful we'll see another Thomas or Scalia for many moons.

re: #75 karmic_inquisitor

OT

Gaza house explodes. Work accident?

Even if it isn't a work accident, the response was disproportionate - Hamas fired a salco of 15 rockets into Israel and wounded a woman.

Don't human rights campaigners decry disproportionate responses? Where are they?

The "human rights campaigners" make an exception for the death and injury of jews.

re: #72 IgofAntioch

Might as well them drivers licenses too

Pilot's licenses.
/do I need to?

re: #62 unrealizedviewpoint

No. You had it right the first time - secret prisons.

The problem is that both Obama and McCain are opposed to the detention of prisoners. If Bin Laden is held in a secret prison the next president (no matter who) will give him access to civilian courts and high powered lawyers. It's disgraceful.

re: #69 Golem Akbar

Moral of the story: A president Obama will appoint only liberals to the high court while a president McCain has promised to appoint moderate to conservative justices.

No matter how we may disagree with McCain, four years of Obama could be a distaster.

Think You Know John McCain?
He promises to appoint ultraconservative Supreme Court justices.

re: #88 SpartanWoman

The "human rights campaigners" make an exception for the death and injury of jews.

Got that right.

Catholic boy, 8, told he can't be a Cub Scout - because he refuses to pledge allegiance to the Queen

Why do I get the feeling that exceptions would be made for others.

Take no prisoners!

re: #85 Ringo the Gringo

thankie :D

re: #83 CIA Reject

Probably true, but I would prefer "de-briefing" them and then releasing them to their brothers after we had done something to make sure their brothers will want to kill them. It's a tough trick to pull off, but it has been done with great success elsewhere - particularly by MI-5 against the provisional IRA.

For all I know we may already be doing it - I hope so.

I'd find that acceptable

re: #84 Kosh's Shadow

So if we free these terrorists, do we have to fly them home?
On a commercial airliner?

Or better, in a military aircraft that has a mechanical problem, but fortunately, the crew were able to bail out. They weren't able to rescue the passengers, though.

Nope, they won't be leaving the US. They will be suing the government for wrongful imprisonment and civil rights violations.

re: #85 Ringo the Gringo

Here's the MSNBC poll: Do you agree that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

(via Rogue198's spinoff link)

56 v. 43 Yes.

re: #53 snowtravel

The headline is a gross distortion of the Court's holding. Simply put, we are not a country that holds people incommunicado for years on end.

If the prisoners are terrorists, they should be tried, convicted and punished. Nothing more American than that.

Tried, convicted and punished. Interesting concepts. How exactly do you collect evidence on the battlefield while bullets, IEDs, mortars, and bombs are going off? Mirandize those who are captured? Lawyers stationed with every unit to ensure that the captured terrorists have their rights preserved? What about national intelligence means that help lead to the capture of terrorists - are we supposed to provide that as evidence?

Never in the history of warfare has such a concept held sway. Never in the history of this country has constitutional protections been given to our enemies anywhere in the world - at any time - and for any purpose.

There are reasons that these people are being detained - for national security. And that they are likely to be detained indefinitely is no fault other than those who are detained. They chose to go to war against the US under the flag of jihad. They engage in acts of war and do so without the protection being in uniform. As such, they are not entitled to Geneva Convention rights, but now the 5 liberal justices have determined they are entitled to habeas rights under the US Constitution.

I guess that means that POWs will now claim the same down the road if the US gets into another war and has to take prisoners. Or is the military going to think twice about that - and simply shoot every enemy soldier or enemy combatant it comes across because the legal lawfare has become too harsh.

It strains credulity that the Court's decision will ever be practical in the field. Yet, that's exactly what the Court envisions. More to the point, the Court has found that the Legislature and Executive's vision for humane treatment of detainees was insufficient, despite providing them tribunal access (which itself was far more than any other US government in history had every provided such individuals). The Court substituted the judgment of the elected representatives of the People for its own. And the divided decision reflects just how far off the 5 justices were.

Any body know... did they cite foreign law to reach this asinine conclusion, or was this an entirely home-grown betrayal?

Apparently the Constitution IS a suicide pact, after all.

Does this entitle each prisioner his own press agent?

re: #75 karmic_inquisitor

Actually, it was more like 50 rockets and mortars at Israel - as a "goodwill" gesture. The Palestinians had an own-goal.

A terrible ruling which now grants US citizen rights to all held by the US under all circumstances everywhere in the world. They ruled technically the US isn't being invaded right now so it was unconstitutional for the Congress and Executive branches to suspend habeas. Of course since this area isn't clear in the constitution the ruling amounts to five justices claiming their opinion is more valid than the collective opinions of the other two (not really) co-equal branches and substituting the opinion of the 5 unelected for the opinions of elected officials. The practical effects of this ruling are hard to ponder. Under this ruling each and every one of enemy POWs held by the US during WWII regardless of the circumstances of his capture or the location of his detention would have the right to a US civil court hearing during the war. And certainly, if prisoners held outside of the USA have these rights then now under this ruling there is no question each and every one of the more than 400,000 POWs held in the USA during WWII would be entitled to US civil court hearings. Will the US military now have to meet all the rules of the US Constitution as the military takes prisoners during actual combat, yes. Miranda rights, criminal charges, witness testimony, evidence, maintaining the chain of evidence, translators and attorneys on the battlefield, soldiers required to stop fighting and document the battle evidence and on and on. This is an awful ruling.

Tragically, it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner. The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done.

re: #91 unrealizedviewpoint

McCain has also promised to form a Justice Advisory Committee to help him make his judicial appointments, and has invited Solicitor General Ted Olson and Sen. Sam Brownback—two men on the far right of the Republican Party—to help him make his picks.

I say he should have a representative from the NRA on that committee too.

re: #46 LionFromzion

but...but...Rosie O'Donnell said they were mothers and fathers just like us? no?

To be Mothers and Fathers like us, they would have to love their children, not use them as bombs.

WASHINGTON
In a further development, the Supreme Court today decided in a 5-4 vote that the detainees must be treated with dignity and respect. Judge Ginsberg (D-MB) stated in her majority opinion, "How come everybody keeps calling these poor people terrorists? Huh!? How come!?" With astounding clarity and insight, Justice Breyer added, "Yeh! How come!?"

re: #75 karmic_inquisitor
Yahoo pic

Palestinian medics tend to a wounded boy after an explosion in the northern Gaza town of Beit Lahiya June 12, 2008. An explosion destroyed a Hamas bomb-maker's house in the Gaza Strip on Thursday, killing at least four people, including a baby, in what Hamas called an Israeli air strike and Israel described as an internal blast.

Work accident.

Do the terrorists get to sue for back pay and the return of their weapons?

Someone pointed out if UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS now get legal rights, that ALL POWs probably will, too.

God Save the Republic.

I also fear, now, that the 2nd Amendment ruling coming this month, is going to not be in favor of law biding firearms owners.

This country is in real trouble folks, you can call me a doom and gloomer all you want, I'm just looking at what is actually going on.

re: #97 zmdavid

Nope, they won't be leaving the US. They will be suing the government for wrongful imprisonment and civil rights violations.

And they'll get jobs teaching at a school in Northern Virginia.

re: #98 MandyManners

56 v. 43 Yes.

horrifying response

This isn't exactly news, but the KosKids are celebrating this as "HOPE for democracy."

What a bunch of useful retards.

[Link: www.dailykos.com...]

That's a rather extraordinary rendition of our Constitution if you ask me.

re: #90 Killgore Trout

The problem is that both Obama and McCain are opposed to the detention of prisoners. If Bin Laden is held in a secret prison the next president (no matter who) will give him access to civilian courts and high powered lawyers. It's disgraceful.

I really do not believe that about McCain. He never said he is not in favor of secret prisons. He's had a problem with Gitmo, and that problem has been the American peoples problem with Gitmo. Secret prisons are just that, secret. If the folks don't know, they can't bitch.

It's a sad day for our Country when foreign fighters from a foreign land in a foreign land are accorded more rights than our own Marines.

Wow, it was a pretty big bomb he was working on....
Yahoo pic

It took out a whole block.

re: #99 lawhawk

Tried, convicted and punished. Interesting concepts. How exactly do you collect evidence on the battlefield while bullets, IEDs, mortars, and bombs are going off? Mirandize those who are captured? Lawyers stationed with every unit to ensure that the captured terrorists have their rights preserved? What about national intelligence means that help lead to the capture of terrorists - are we supposed to provide that as evidence?

Never in the history of warfare has such a concept held sway. Never in the history of this country has constitutional protections been given to our enemies anywhere in the world - at any time - and for any purpose.

There are reasons that these people are being detained - for national security. And that they are likely to be detained indefinitely is no fault other than those who are detained. They chose to go to war against the US under the flag of jihad. They engage in acts of war and do so without the protection being in uniform. As such, they are not entitled to Geneva Convention rights, but now the 5 liberal justices have determined they are entitled to habeas rights under the US Constitution.

I guess that means that POWs will now claim the same down the road if the US gets into another war and has to take prisoners. Or is the military going to think twice about that - and simply shoot every enemy soldier or enemy combatant it comes across because the legal lawfare has become too harsh.

It strains credulity that the Court's decision will ever be practical in the field. Yet, that's exactly what the Court envisions. More to the point, the Court has found that the Legislature and Executive's vision for humane treatment of detainees was insufficient, despite providing them tribunal access (which itself was far more than any other US government in history had every provided such individuals). The Court substituted the judgment of the elected representatives of the People for its own. And the divided decision reflects just how far off the 5 justices were.

It just shows that the leftist Justices use the rule of foreign law, instead of the U.S. Constitution, which has already ruled that prisoners of war held outside the USA have no Constitutional rights, until, today, I guess.

The ruling is ridiculous, and should simply be ignored by the Bush administration. Probably will be, or they'll start some log-rolling, nothing will happen before January.

Unfortunately, McCain probably agrees with the ruling, so no matter which of the presumptive nominees is elected, they will probably try to follow the ruling.

Frankly, it really is unforegivable that no trials have been held, and probably half the prisoners executed. But I think the only valid means of forcing the issue should be Congressional, not the courts. Yes impeachment, if necessary. But I think if it were simply discussed seriously, Bush could kick someone awake over at the Pentagon and things could have gotten done.

Re #41 Cia Reject

re: #30 redheadredstate

The more I think about it Ol Billy was right, let's kill all the lawyers, kill em tonight -Don Henley from "Get Over It"

The law is an ass- Charles Dickens from "Oliver Twist"

"The world must construe from it's wits - this court must construe from the law"
-St. Thomas More

Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne.
Jesus
The Bible, Luke 11. 46

re: #2 IgofAntioch

Not to mention that there is going to be a spate of "suicides" and "heart attacks" very soon at Gitmo. Also, look for a lot of POW's to be interned in foreign detention centers--ones that will make Eli Roth's "Hostel" look like the Ritz-Carlton.

There is no way that those men will ever set foot in a US civilian criminal court.

re: #53 snowtravel

They are not citizens. They are unlawful enemy combatants. They are not entitled to civilian courts. The Geneva Convention allows for military tribunals.It also allows prisoners to be held for the duration.

The Islamo killers forfeit rights under the Geneva convention when they attack and kill civilians and make war in civilian cloths(while hiding amongst civilians.

Lawyer for bin Laden driver wants charges dismissed

It begins.

re: #114 SpartanWoman

horrifying response

I'm actually encouraged by it. Remember this is MSNBC here...home of Ubermoron. The fact that it's that close gives me more faith in the populous of this nation than I've had for the past two years.

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) -- Osama bin Laden's former driver may not go on trial this summer at Guantanamo after all. The military lawyer for Salim Hamdan says the Supreme Court ruling on the rights of Guantanamo prisoners is likely to at least delay the Yemeni's war crimes trial.

Navy Lt. Cmdr. Brian Mizer told The Associated Press he will file a motion to dismiss the war crimes charges against Hamdan based on the court's finding that Guantanamo prisoners have constitutional rights.

re: #3 Typicalwhitey

Don't count on "conservative" Supreme Court picks to rule how you want them to. High court judges have a surprising way of applying the law independently of their own predilections or perceived political biases.

Consider the majority here: Of the five, three were appointed by Republican presidents: Kennedy (Reagan), Stevens (Ford) and Souter (Bush I).

(Liberal judges. Heh.)

re: #18 CIA Reject

Hey, Supreme Court: Just exactly what kind of "crime" would WAGING WAR AGAINST THE UNITED STATES be considered?

No crime at all! - Prisoner of waging War against the United States are protected by International Humanitarian law A.K.A. the Geneva Conventions. Civilians protected by the normal protections of the law and it doesn't matter if they are citizens of America. If there is a third status will someone please tell me what it is?

The US Government waited so long to decide what is the status of the prisoners that eventually the court stepped in. Still, I always thought that the Supreme Court in 2006 decided the prisoners were protected under the Geneva Convention i.e. don't have the civilian right to a trial.

Respect for the rule of law is one of the things that makes America great. If there is a case that an individual (e.g. for security reasons) can't exercise his right to trial it's up to the Department of Justice and/or the Department of Defense to make that claim in court.

re: #125 Ben Hur

Won't happen. Too many moving violations--not to mention the hundreds of parking tickets.

re: #67 gymnast

Whoever thought that terrorism would turn out to be just another welfare program for lawyers? May they be blessed with ill health and infested with parasites for the rest of their days.

The terrorists or the lawyers?

re: #65 loppyd

Those as strong a condemnation as you'll ever hear a Supreme Court Justice make.

re: #124 Endangered in MASS

They are not citizens. They are unlawful enemy combatants. They are not entitled to civilian courts. The Geneva Convention allows for military tribunals.It also allows prisoners to be held for the duration.

The Islamo killers forfeit rights under the Geneva convention when they attack and kill civilians and make war in civilian cloths(while hiding amongst civilians.

The left does not like the U.S. Constitution, including the leftist Justices of the SCOTUS.

They want to legislate using foreign law.

re: #133 republic

The left does not like the U.S. Constitution, including the leftist Justices of the SCOTUS.

They want to legislate using foreign law.

Sharia law is foreign, I guess that is a-ok with these imbeciles.

re: #120 republic

It just shows that the leftist Justices use the rule of foreign law, instead of the U.S. Constitution, which has already ruled that prisoners of war held outside the USA have no Constitutional rights, until, today, I guess.

A terrible ruling which will force the US military to choose between just holding and releasing POWs or devoting huge amounts of resources to the civil judicial requirements in effect with this ruling. The military will have to go with the catch and release to devote soldiers to gathering evidence will cost lives.

re: #128 snowtravel

Don't count on "conservative" Supreme Court picks to rule how you want them to. High court judges have a surprising way of applying the law independently of their own predilections or perceived political biases.

Consider the majority here: Of the five, three were appointed by Republican presidents: Kennedy (Reagan), Stevens (Ford) and Souter (Bush I).

(Liberal judges. Heh.)

This why it is true, if a person is not a conservative, then they must become a leftist, no matter how "moderate" they may try to be.

Yet another defeat for us. Left is racking up win, after win, after win...

So what is everyone going to do about it? Debate in circles on the internet? Try to win the wittiest comments contest? Yeah, that is what I thought...spare me your outrage that does not extend past your keyboard.

re: #133 republic

The left does not like the U.S. Constitution, including the leftist Justices of the SCOTUS.

They want to legislate using foreign law.

But even according to the Geneva Convention, these terrorists don't have any rights. They are categorized as "unlawful combatants" and are not entitled to any rights whatsoever. The only rights these yokels have are the ones that the liberal bleeding-hearts invented to assuage their white guilt over the poor souls languishing in the air-conditioned comfort of Guantanamo.

re: #137 southernfriedchickenhawk

Yet another defeat for us. Left is racking up win, after win, after win...

So what is everyone going to do about it? Debate in circles on the internet? Try to win the wittiest comments contest? Yeah, that is what I thought...spare me your outrage that does not extend past your keyboard.

Oh and just how far does your outrage extend?

re: #137 southernfriedchickenhawk

Yet another defeat for us. Left is racking up win, after win, after win...

So what is everyone going to do about it? Debate in circles on the internet? Try to win the wittiest comments contest? Yeah, that is what I thought...spare me your outrage that does not extend past your keyboard.

Great point!

This stupid ruling should have the opposite effect.

Take NO prisoners.

.

re: #137 southernfriedchickenhawk

Yet another defeat for us. Left is racking up win, after win, after win...

So what is everyone going to do about it? Debate in circles on the internet? Try to win the wittiest comments contest? Yeah, that is what I thought...spare me your outrage that does not extend past your keyboard.

Out of simple curiosity, what do you propose to do about it? Burn the constitution and storm the Supreme Court with pitchforks and torches?

/I thought so.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaah crap! This makes it nearly impossible to vote for Obama. What a bunch of dicks these liberal justices are. Ewwwww, it is gonna hurt to pull that lever for McCain. If that Rino puts in liberal judges my head will explode. Assuming he wins. @#%@#*�@ That about sums up my feelings. Now for my thoughts. @#$**&@!

After a California jury lets them off, they can all go look for the real terrorists.

re: #137 southernfriedchickenhawk

re: #140 republic

And what exactly are we supposed to do? Our standard bearer would seem to agree with this decision, the media openly roots for our enemies, Congress is controlled by traitors and the President is a wimp against everyone except the Islamofacists.

re: #142 BGOH

Out of simple curiosity, what do you propose to do about it? Burn the constitution and storm the Supreme Court with pitchforks and torches?

/I thought so.

The U.S. Constitution, from a much previous ruling, states that no prisoners of war held outside the USA have any U.S. Constitutionl rights.

re: #141 Dad O' Blondes

This stupid ruling should have the opposite effect.

Take NO prisoners.

.

Think that won't happen? It will definitely change the underlying mindset on the battlefield. Self preservation is a powerful motivator.

I only read the Scalia dissenting opion, but it is scathing. My esteemed colleagues made up their opionion from whole cloth, disregarding centuries of legal precendent. I think it's implied that he would invoke the pimp hand if it were not for decorum:

Today the Court warps our Constitution in a way that
goes beyond the narrow issue of the reach of the Suspension
Clause, invoking judicially brainstormed separationof-
powers principles to establish a manipulable “functional”
test for the extraterritorial reach of habeas corpus
(and, no doubt, for the extraterritorial reach of other
constitutional protections as well). It blatantly misdescribes
important precedents, most conspicuously Justice
Jackson’s opinion for the Court in Johnson v. Eisentrager.
It breaks a chain of precedent as old as the common law
that prohibits judicial inquiry into detentions of aliens
abroad absent statutory authorization. And, most tragically,
it sets our military commanders the impossible task
of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards
this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports
the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner.
The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done
today. I dissent.

The court just said it was the most supremest, and we should just shut up and listen.

The Libs will kill more enemies with this ruling (The Military will just kill instead of taking prisoners). Way to go, Lib Judges!

re: #129 deegee

No crime at all! - Prisoner of waging War against the United States are protected by International Humanitarian law A.K.A. the Geneva Conventions. Civilians protected by the normal protections of the law and it doesn't matter if they are citizens of America. If there is a third status will someone please tell me what it is?

The US Government waited so long to decide what is the status of the prisoners that eventually the court stepped in. Still, I always thought that the Supreme Court in 2006 decided the prisoners were protected under the Geneva Convention i.e. don't have the civilian right to a trial.

Respect for the rule of law is one of the things that makes America great. If there is a case that an individual (e.g. for security reasons) can't exercise his right to trial it's up to the Department of Justice and/or the Department of Defense to make that claim in court.

These aren't regular combatants, unless they were in uniform. If they weren't in uniform, they are spies and subject to immediate execution.

re: #142 BGOH

Out of simple curiosity, what do you propose to do about it? Burn the constitution and storm the Supreme Court with pitchforks and torches?

/I thought so.

I propose that the right use the same tactics as the left. But thanks for your childish reply. Hmm...lets see sit on a computer and debate with people that think the same as me or burn the constitution. Nah, there could not be any other options between those two extremes.

re: #40 Killgore Trout

Amen.

re: #145 Rogue198

re: #140 republic

And what exactly are we supposed to do? Our standard bearer would seem to agree with this decision, the media openly roots for our enemies, Congress is controlled by traitors and the President is a wimp against everyone except the Islamofacists.

The U.S. Constitution already says that prisoners of war outside the USA have no Constitutional rights.

So, what I think I hear some people saying here is, that no matter what the SCOTUS does, regardless of how unconstitutional a ruling is, Americans can do nothing about it?

If that is what is actually happening, the USA, based on the U.S. Constitution, is done, period.

re: #142 BGOH:

Burn the constitution and storm the Supreme Court with pitchforks and torches?

No but trying a few Justices for treason and hanging them might set a good example to be followed in the future.

Francois Marie Arouet (1694 - 1778, "Voltaire") had his fictional character Candide witness such a hanging in the eponymous novel and remark:

"Dans ce pay-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres."
"In this country it is good to kill an admiral from time to time, to encourage the others."

re: #74 loppyd

That guy is good.

The USA is in serious trouble folks.

If any want to dispute that, go ahead, while the U.S. Constitution gets stripped by those sworn to protect it.

And the ruling on the 2nd Amendment comes this month.

re: #119 Killgore Trout

Wow, it was a pretty big bomb he was working on....
Yahoo pic

It took out a whole block.

SplodeyDOPES!

re: #155 formercorpsman

That guy is good.

We need two more like just like him.

They don't get trials in U.S. coursts, they get to challenge their detention in U.S. courts. There's a big difference.

/so stop getting hysterical

Welcome back to June 12, 2000.

This damn pessimism meter of mine is pegged on 'totally screwed'.

re: #142 BGOH

Out of simple curiosity, what do you propose to do about it? Burn the constitution and storm the Supreme Court with pitchforks and torches?

/I thought so.

Burn the Constitution?

We just want it adhered to, that's all.

It's never been rocket science.

If these justices can conveniently ignore precedent so blithely, as Scalia says, then it's already being burnt. The justice system has been a way of over riding the public for a while, but at least they acted within the bounds of the law; it looks like they're not even pretending any more.

I wish I took more than 2 semesters of law, 20 years ago - I wish I truly got how out of bounds this was. Maybe I don't, it may be too much.

Has anyone on the Court thought ahead, as to the meaning of "a trial of their peers"?

/ spit

re: #132 Endangered in MASS

Those as strong a condemnation as you'll ever hear a Supreme Court Justice make.

Justifiably so.

re: #153 republic

The U.S. Constitution already says that prisoners of war outside the USA have no Constitutional rights.

So, what I think I hear some people saying here is, that no matter what the SCOTUS does, regardless of how unconstitutional a ruling is, Americans can do nothing about it?

If that is what is actually happening, the USA, based on the U.S. Constitution, is done, period.

On your first point, agreed, however from far longer than anyone here has been around, the Supreme Court has decided what's in the Constitution and what isn't.

On your second point, my question to you is...What do we do?

The usual response would be: Elect people who will fix this.

Problem with that is: Congress tried and the Court just gave them the finger. So that leaves us with President and as I said, McCain probably agrees with this!

We're SCREWED!

As for your third comment...I fear you are right.

Too bad, I always loved this country...

re: #159 Killian Bundy

They don't get trials in U.S. coursts, they get to challenge their detention in U.S. courts. There's a big difference.

/so stop getting hysterical

From Scalia,

Today the Court warps our Constitution in a way that
goes beyond the narrow issue of the reach of the Suspension
Clause, invoking judicially brainstormed separationof-
powers principles to establish a manipulable “functional”
test for the extraterritorial reach of habeas corpus
(and, no doubt, for the extraterritorial reach of other
constitutional protections as well). It blatantly misdescribes
important precedents, most conspicuously Justice
Jackson’s opinion for the Court in Johnson v. Eisentrager.
It breaks a chain of precedent as old as the common law
that prohibits judicial inquiry into detentions of aliens
abroad absent statutory authorization. And, most tragically,
it sets our military commanders the impossible task
of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards
this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports
the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner.
The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done
today. I dissent.

Yea, don't worry, everythings cool!

/

PIMF: Jury of their peers.

I got jumped on for posting story as OT in the previous thread. Charles, good on you for picking this up.

They don't get trials in U.S. coursts, they get to challenge their detention in U.S. courts. There's a big difference.

The supreme court just deemed themselves to be above the constitution and the law - why should we not get hysterical? What good is the courts in that world?

I would love to see a patriotic march in a major city. And not a pretty Leave It To Beaver one that conservatives always do. I want to see pissed off conservative thugs. I want to see enough camo to make the MSM question if there is a private army in the US that no one is aware of. I want to see the American Eagle ripping guts banners. I want to see other countries flags burned. Tired of the sissy, be nice, "don't stoop to thier level" crap.

I want to see so-called Conservative leaders like Rush, Coulter, Newt put up some of thier millions and fund a right wing version of MoveOn to disrupt the media as much as possible.

Instructions For The Government Of Armies Of The United States In The Field
Prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Orders No. 100 by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863.

Art. 82
Men, or squads of men, who commit hostilities, whether by fighting, or inroads for destruction or plunder, or by raids of any kind, without commission, without being part and portion of the organized hostile army, and without sharing continuously in the war, but who do so with intermitting returns to their homes and avocations, or with the occasional assumption of the semblance of peaceful pursuits, divesting themselves of the character or appearance of soldiers - such men, or squads of men, are not public enemies and therefore, if captured, are not entitled to the privileges of prisoners of war, but shall be treated SUMMARILY as highway robbers or pirates

One thing I think we're all forgetting is that the major check to the judicial system is, in fact, the executive. The Supreme Court can rule from the bench all they like, but it is not in their power to enforce their own rulings; the only one who can do that is the President of the United States. If he chooses to ignore them, then it would fall to Congress to compel him (via legislation) if they felt so inclined, and since both the President and the Congress theoretically derive their powers from the consent of the governed, that would give us the opportunity to put an end to the madness. But this is all just legal theory; in this topsy-turvy world, nobody can say for certain if events will play out in America's favor, or if the Court's ruling truly has doomed us to fighting another Bill Clinton-esque "war on terror" instead of a War on Terror.

re: #163 abolitionist

Has anyone on the Court thought ahead, as to the meaning of "a trial of their peers"?

/ spit

/THEY DON'T GET TRIALS IN U.S. COURTS!

re: #170 SouthernFriedChickenHawk

I would love to see a patriotic march in a major city. And not a pretty Leave It To Beaver one that conservatives always do. I want to see pissed off conservative thugs. I want to see enough camo to make the MSM question if there is a private army in the US that no one is aware of. I want to see the American Eagle ripping guts banners. I want to see other countries flags burned. Tired of the sissy, be nice, "don't stoop to thier level" crap.

I want to see so-called Conservative leaders like Rush, Coulter, Newt put up some of thier millions and fund a right wing version of MoveOn to disrupt the media as much as possible.

We'd all "love to see" and "want to see", but what are you planning to do as you suggested we are a bunch of keyboard cowards?

re: #169 brent

The supreme court just deemed themselves to be above the constitution and the law

The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the ultimate power to interpret the Constitution and Federal law.

/try law school

RAAAAAAGE
THIS MAKES ME SICK.
What has happened to us?
Where are our spines?
What's next, will they be allowed to appeal when they are convicted in our courts?
Why do enemy combatants deserve constitutional rights?

re: #171 Victrola

Instructions For The Government Of Armies Of The United States In The Field
Prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Orders No. 100 by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863.

Art. 82
Men, or squads of men, who commit hostilities, whether by fighting, or inroads for destruction or plunder, or by raids of any kind, without commission, without being part and portion of the organized hostile army, and without sharing continuously in the war, but who do so with intermitting returns to their homes and avocations, or with the occasional assumption of the semblance of peaceful pursuits, divesting themselves of the character or appearance of soldiers - such men, or squads of men, are not public enemies and therefore, if captured, are not entitled to the privileges of prisoners of war, but shall be treated SUMMARILY as highway robbers or pirates

Here here!

Bravo!

re: #173 Killian Bundy

/THEY DON'T GET TRIALS IN U.S. COURTS!

Based on the pattern of how these things have been going, they will, soon.

re: #175 Killian Bundy

The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the ultimate power to interpret the Constitution and Federal law.

/try law school

So they have the "authority" to be above the Constitution?

Unreal.

re: #178 republic

Based on the pattern of how these things have been going, they will, soon.

/when that actually happens, then feel free to get hysterical

re: #179 republic

So they have the "authority" to be above the Constitution?

Unreal.

/they're the final authority, yes

re: #19 ORD neighbor

They should not even hear it coming.

re: #175 Killian Bundy

The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the ultimate power to interpret the Constitution and Federal law.

/try law school

K.B. do you agree with Scalia's dissent?

Just curious, right ,wrong or indifferent.

re: #168 joncelli

Posting THIS story...PIMF. And I'm still a little angry. Yes, KB is right, they only get to appeal their detention in US court, not get a trial; but this point ignores the fact that lawyers for the detainees are going to argue that all proceedings against the detainees should be thrown out as violations of write of habeus corpus. Illegal combatants DON'T GET A RIGHT to WRIT of HABEUS CORPUS -- or if they do, we shouldn't take prisoners at all. You can jump on me for this too if you want, but it all boils down to INTERROGATE AND EXECUTE.

Neil Roberts never was given access to our enemies court system.

re: #180 Killian Bundy

/when that actually happens, then feel free to get hysterical

So the Constitution gives "we the people" the right to protect ourselves from any rogue government, but that discludes the SCOTUS?

No appeal.

I want a world where it is safe for children to play anywhere.

The US Military, in response to this ruling, will probably stop reporting that they capture these people. They'll either shoot them on sight or they'll put them in secret prisons. And I can't say I blame the US military for doing either. Hell spies/saboteurs were hung/shot on sight from time immemorial up to about WWII.

Frankly CJ Roberts was right - you don't even give the tribunal system created with the courts' objections (some of them valid) in mind, but instead throw the baby and the bathwater out and create a radical new precedent that HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BY ANY OTHER COUNTRY AT ANY POINT IN HISTORY!

Washington is killing us, slowly but surely.

They are not US citizens and therefore the rights outlined in the US Constitution do not apply to them.

It's that simple. How could the Supreme Court F that up?

this isn't just the "third rebuke of pres. bush".,
it's the third rebuke of all citizens in our country who have been victimized by these killers.
they do not deserve rights under our constitution.

re: #184 republic

K.B. do you agree with Scalia's dissent?

Just curious, right ,wrong or indifferent.

I haven't read it, just what I've been hearing from news reports. I know what it doesn't do, it doesn't give them the right to trials in civilian courts, only the right to dispute their custody.

/if they win, they go free, if they lose, they still get tried under military law, at least that's where things stand today

re: #78 buzzsawmonkey

Check your facts buzz. These are "enemy combatants:" the thorny procedural issues in dispute here arose precisely because the administration has refused to label them as you have. (Remember the Hamdi case?)

Furthermore, serving military officers typically represent defendants in such cases. If you have any evidence that counsel are liberals—or that a lawyer's politics matter to the legal outcome—please post it. Otherwise, you dishonor men and women in uniform, officers who are doing their job defending our Constitution.

(And doing it damn well.)

The administration's wrong-headed effort to keep these prisoners in limbo hasn't served well at all.

This is now at least the third time the US Supreme Court has taken to itself the power to decide who is a "person" for purposes of being able to enjoy the benefits and protections of the US Constitution.

- Dred Scott: decided that escaped negro slaves were not persons but the property of their masters.

- Roe V Wade: decided that an unborn child was not a person but the property of its mother to dispose of only as she pleased;

- Now enemy combatants captured on or near the battlefield, outside of US Territory, are "persons" more than the unborn are "persons".

God Bless our troops!

The leftist Supreme Court Justices don't, the leftist Democrats don't, leftist activist Federal Judges don't, but I support our brave troops, 100%!

God please Bless our troops and hold them all in Your Hands

Try law school. Funny. Read Scalia's dissenting opinion, he basically called them out for throwing out two countries' legal histories for something they just made up. They contradicted their own ruling of 2006.

I understand that they spit on relevant precedent to come up with an answer they liked. What in that decision makes trials in US courts out of the question? They've most certainly opened the door to it.

re: #192 nyc redneck

this isn't just the "third rebuke of pres. bush".,
it's the third rebuke of all citizens in our country who have been victimized by these killers.
they do not deserve rights under our constitution.

The Constitution already said they don't have Constitutional rights if held outside the USA.

Can't you just envision it now? U.S. troops being subpoenaed from the battlefield to testify as to the circumstances of terrorists' detention on the battlefield. Troops attending CSI training on top of everything else they have to train for. Special CSI army units deployed to the battlefield to gather evidence for trials. Troops broadcasting to terrorist their "rights" over load speakers before firing a shot or launching an assault on an enemy position. JAG officers dispatched to the front to provide legal services/defense strategy to terrorists. Hey, can I get the lucrative defense contract to provide bail-bondsman services to terrorists arrested on the battlefield? God help us!

re: #187 republic

So the Constitution gives "we the people" the right to protect ourselves from any rogue government, but that discludes the SCOTUS?

/if you're going to take the time to overthrow the government, I'm not sure why that wouldn't include the judicial branch

everyone's reaction to this ruling.

re: #91 unrealizedviewpoint

Think You Know John McCain?
He promises to appoint ultraconservative Supreme Court justices.

Dinged down because the story is moonbat porn.

re: #150 Kosh's Shadow

These aren't regular combatants, unless they were in uniform. If they weren't in uniform, they are spies and subject to immediate execution.

Problematic, I agree. But considering they weren't immediately executed but were arrested and transferred to GITMO they either have the rights of POW's or civies. I shudder to think that there is anybody on American soil without any rights.

re: #195 theBuckWheat

In addition this is the third time (you might claim Roe doesn't fit in this, and there's an argument for that but I won't get into it) the USSC has simply decided that the precedents made over the last 50+ years do not apply.

In WWII we captured dozens of spies/saboteurs operating behind our lines or in the homeland without a uniform on. We changed policy here where we didn't just SHOOT THEM, instead we tried them in military tribunals. Even the famed Nuremburg prosecutor (Justice Jackson) and Mr. "Wall between Church and State" (Hugo Black) stated that people like that have no right to use American civilian courts.

Today the court says that rule does not apply and basically any person captured anywhere by American forces get the same rights that American citizens do.

God Help Us ALL!

re: #199 Theseus

they won't, they'll just shoot them or hide them. If anything tribunals would ahve been more open.

re: #123 calcajun

Not to mention that there is going to be a spate of "suicides" and "heart attacks" very soon at Gitmo. Also, look for a lot of POW's to be interned in foreign detention centers--ones that will make Eli Roth's "Hostel" look like the Ritz-Carlton.

There is no way that those men will ever set foot in a US civilian criminal court.

Yup, we'll just start killing them, cos that's how we roll.

What an asshole.

re: #199 Theseus

Unfortunately, I can envision it.

G-d help us all.

I can only believe this is a recipe for Vietnam II.

Sources affirm McCain dissed Alito

Posted: January 31, 2008
5:00 pm Eastern

Sen. John McCain has denied a report that he privately suggested Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was too conservative, but columnist Robert Novak writes today that multiple sources confirm the presidential candidate made negative comments about Alito nine months ago.

re: #198 republic

The Constitution already said they don't have Constitutional rights if held outside the USA.

If they were to be held outside the USA we would the the whinging about "extraordinary extradition" and overreaching executive power.

Your headline is not accurate. It isn't that terrorists are getting rights, it is people being accused of terrorism. Voicing your opinion is fine, but please be factual.

re: #211 justiceforall

Your headline is not accurate. It isn't that terrorists are getting rights, it is people being accused of terrorism. Voicing your opinion is fine, but please be factual.

You wouldn't know a fact if it jumped out of the bushes at you.

re: #197 brent

Try law school. Funny. Read Scalia's dissenting opinion, he basically called them out for throwing out two countries' legal histories for something they just made up. They contradicted their own ruling of 2006.

Welcome to the world of Supreme Court jurisprudence, it's been like this for centuries.

What in that decision makes trials in US courts out of the question? They've most certainly opened the door to it.

/if they ever walk through that door, let me know

The majority actually points out that the enemy combatants are not from any nation presently at war with the U.S. - as if this supports their argument that these precious innocents deserve constitutional protections normally reserved for U.S. citizens in U.S. territory! Newsflash: the entire point is that terrorists are not officially in the armed forces of any nation state and are not operating pursuant to an official declaration of war. This is why the Hague Convention doesn't apply to them, and they are in the grey area of being "enemy combatants" rather than "prisoners of war". The law clerks must have been drunk when drafting up this section.

If you read any part of the decision, read Scalia's dissent. I've never read a more scathing dissent at any appellate level. The only thing missing is a big photocopy of his middle finger at the end.

Goodbye Sweet America!

re: #200 Killian Bundy

/if you're going to take the time to overthrow the government, I'm not sure why that wouldn't include the judicial branch

Thanks for your legal insight Killian.

I still agree with Scalia's dissent.

Lawyer for Bin Laden Driver Wants Charges Dismissed

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — Osama bin Laden’s former driver may not go on trial this summer at Guantanamo after all. The military lawyer for Salim Hamdan says the Supreme Court ruling on the rights of Guantanamo prisoners is likely to at least delay the Yemeni’s war crimes trial.

Navy Lt. Cmdr. Brian Mizer told The Associated Press he will file a motion to dismiss the war crimes charges against Hamdan based on the court’s finding that Guantanamo prisoners have constitutional rights.

The defense lawyer said Wednesday he will argue that Hamdan was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. The Pentagon declined immediate comment.

———————& mdash;————-

Thank you Leftist Lunatics!
We are screwed.
The enemy will perceive us as weak and soft just as they did when Clinton was in office.
They will be released to return to the jihad.
Liberals will get to feel good about themselves.
Americans will die.

What is truly sad is these egghead justices dont understand the lawyers before them are fiinanced by Saudi Arabia and the UAE. So the biggest financiers of world terrorism managed thru petrodollars to buy US lawyers such as in the Center for Constitutional Rights who will help them get their terrorists out of POW camps. God save our country. As for Geroge Bush, if he was any kind of a war time leader this would not have happened. Hes too busy retraingng the Israelis and buying guns for the Palestinian terrorists with our tax dollars. Were losing, folks...

restraining...

re: #219 TheHussar

come on, let it out brother

Our friend was in a battle in AFghanistan. They took pictures of the dead terrorists. One guy looked familiar. They had already captured him 2 months earlier, and turned him into the US authorities who let the guy go since sending him to Gitmo was Pointless.

And there he was months later shooting at US soldiers.

re: #216 republic

I still agree with Scalia's dissent.

I'm sure I will too.

/all I'm saying is the ruling today is on a specific legal issue, the terrorists aren't coming to a courthouse near you for trial anytime soon

re: #99 lawhawk

Tried, convicted and punished. Interesting concepts. How exactly do you collect evidence on the battlefield while bullets, IEDs, mortars, and bombs are going off? Mirandize those who are captured? Lawyers stationed with every unit to ensure that the captured terrorists have their rights preserved? What about national intelligence means that help lead to the capture of terrorists - are we supposed to provide that as evidence?

Never in the history of warfare has such a concept held sway. Never in the history of this country has constitutional protections been given to our enemies anywhere in the world - at any time - and for any purpose.

There are reasons that these people are being detained - for national security. And that they are likely to be detained indefinitely is no fault other than those who are detained. They chose to go to war against the US under the flag of jihad. They engage in acts of war and do so without the protection being in uniform. As such, they are not entitled to Geneva Convention rights, but now the 5 liberal justices have determined they are entitled to habeas rights under the US Constitution.

I guess that means that POWs will now claim the same down the road if the US gets into another war and has to take prisoners. Or is the military going to think twice about that - and simply shoot every enemy soldier or enemy combatant it comes across because the legal lawfare has become too harsh.

It strains credulity that the Court's decision will ever be practical in the field. Yet, that's exactly what the Court envisions. More to the point, the Court has found that the Legislature and Executive's vision for humane treatment of detainees was insufficient, despite providing them tribunal access (which itself was far more than any other US government in history had every provided such individuals). The Court substituted the judgment of the elected representatives of the People for its own. And the divided decision reflects just how far off the 5 justices were.

Nonsense.

Anyone bothering to read these cases (or even the stories about them) knows these aren't POWs. That's been administration policy from the beginning, and that alone is the reason why this is such a mess now.

Our military knows how to deal with enemy prisoners. In military justice, the "parade of horribles" you imagine doesn't exist.

The administration's approach to this has been anything but conservative, making this comeuppance inevitable.

re: #212 Charles

You wouldn't know a fact if it jumped out of the bushes at you.

People caught on the battlefield shooting at US soldiers are enemy combatants. They weren't just moseying through the countryside - and now they have to prove they're innocent of terrorism. Jihadi's look different smell different -and when captured have no problem identifying themselves as enemies of the US.

re: #212 Charles

You wouldn't know a fact if it jumped out of the bushes at you.

That's funny for some reason =)

Doesent McCain support this? He wants Gitmo closed anyway. Does this mean that our troops will have to read miranda rights? How will this play out in a future conflict with a nation state with legit POWs in the tens-of-thousands?

These bastards distort and defame the Constitution to the extent that they go ahead and grant terrorists habeas corpus. Just watch the same bastards rule against an individual US CITIZEN'S right to bear arms, a right spelled out in none to ambiguous terms.

...and yes, I would wager that the morons who comprise at least 50% of the current US population would think that such a decision was just.

Does anyone here actually feel that Americans are safer because of this ruling? We have got to finally admit to ourselves that people who think like this are our ENEMY. The gov't is supposed to protect us. This is another example of when government becomes motivated to dispense "social justice" ( whatever that is) that it automatically get out of its constitutionally mandated function of dispensing real justice. So much for leftist situational constitutionalism. Again, I say, God help us all!

re: #221 DistantThunder

Our friend was in a battle in AFghanistan. They took pictures of the dead terrorists. One guy looked familiar. They had already captured him 2 months earlier, and turned him into the US authorities who let the guy go since sending him to Gitmo was Pointless.

And there he was months later shooting at US soldiers.

/they should be dealt with on the battlefield, period, even the Geneva Conventions allow for the summary execution of illegal combatants, if you need intelligence, KEEP THEM ON FOREIGN SOIL!

re: #105 rollingdivision

"A terrible ruling which now grants US citizen rights to all held by the US under all circumstances everywhere in the world."

Whatever.

re: #65 loppyd

I heart Scalia:

I had the honor to meet him when I worked at the same law firm as his son. The phrase "the smartest man in the room" doesn't even come close.

re: #226 BGB!

Doesent McCain support this? He wants Gitmo closed anyway. Does this mean that our troops will have to read miranda rights? How will this play out in a future conflict with a nation state with legit POWs in the tens-of-thousands?

re: #229 Killian Bundy

/they should be dealt with on the battlefield, period, even the Geneva Conventions allow for the summary execution of illegal combatants, if you need intelligence, KEEP THEM ON FOREIGN SOIL!

Exactly.

re: #230 snowtravel

"A terrible ruling which now grants US citizen rights to all held by the US under all circumstances everywhere in the world."

Whatever.

Your compelling argument has swayed me.

re: #229 Killian Bundy

/they should be dealt with on the battlefield, period, even the Geneva Conventions allow for the summary execution of illegal combatants, if you need intelligence, KEEP THEM ON FOREIGN SOIL!

And guess what the US is building now, on foreign soil.....

re: #224 DistantThunder

People caught on the battlefield shooting at US soldiers are enemy combatants.

Only if they're wearing the uniform of an organized force.

/otherwise, they're illegal combatants, there's a huge difference between the required treatment of the two classifications

re: #223 snowtravel

Grow up. If you recognize them as POWs, you recognize them as legal combatants from an internationally recognized entity. That legitimizes the Taliban and al Qaeda. Do you suppose some actual lawyers maybe put some thought into this? Maybe?

re: #173 Killian Bundy

/THEY DON'T GET TRIALS IN U.S. COURTS!

Yet.

Expecting an ACLU pamphlet soon " Every Terrorist's Guide: Knowing Your Rights With the Infidels"

re: #222 Killian Bundy

I'm sure I will too.

/all I'm saying is the ruling today is on a specific legal issue, the terrorists aren't coming to a courthouse near you for trial anytime soon

That may be true, but Scalia is simply upset of what was ruled on, regardless of what it does or doesn't allow.

re: #238 offendi

to be followed by the Islamic World's # 3 seller - "What to do with your evil, infidelic Zionist ACLU lawyer after the infidel gets you off the hook"

230. SnowJob

Look, clown. These "enemy combatants" differ from POW's in that they 1., Do not fight under a recognized flag or banner, 2., Do not wear uniforms indicating which country's armed forces they are fighting for, 3., DO intentionally target civilian populations, 4., Do not follow orders handed down from a recognized chain of command.

Therefore, they are NOT POW's, the sure as shit should NOT be granted rights under the Geneva Conventions that we are signatories to (Despite that we already do grant them such rights), and CAN be held indefinitely until WE decide that the organizations which spawned these maggots have either A., surrendered, B., have been completely destroyed.

re: #227 SaneInMN

These bastards distort and defame the Constitution to the extent that they go ahead and grant terrorists habeas corpus. Just watch the same bastards rule against an individual US CITIZEN'S right to bear arms, a right spelled out in none to ambiguous terms.

...and yes, I would wager that the morons who comprise at least 50% of the current US population would think that such a decision was just.

No, nearly 70% of Americans believe the 2nd Amendment gaurentees the right to KEEP and bear arms.

re: #223 snowtravel

What are they, if not POWs?

re: #2 IgofAntioch

Law of unintended consequences- don't take prisoners!

"Ig" -

Unfortunately, true - OR - a handover to "Local Authorities." In any case, no long term "incarceration" in ANY US FACILITY. As to the detainees currently in GITMO, I will repeat myself on this thread, wish the Order contained language that they would effectively have to swim or raft to the nearest US District Court.

-S-

re: #80 Iron Fist

Fist, THAT is the single most important reason to keep B. HUSSEIN out of the White House.

Love home.

Oh. Okay, it's not a recipe for Vietnam II, but it's a hearty pinch of Vietnam II Seasoning Salt, at least.

re: #227 SaneInMN

These bastards distort and defame the Constitution to the extent that they go ahead and grant terrorists habeas corpus. Just watch the same bastards rule against an individual US CITIZEN'S right to bear arms, a right spelled out in none to ambiguous terms.

...and yes, I would wager that the morons who comprise at least 50% of the current US population would think that such a decision was just.

During the 2nd Amendment hearings, it was summarized by most there, that there was a minimum of 6-3 , and possibly 7-2 for the 2nd Amendment being the right to keep and bear arms, and the D.C. gun ban unconstitutional.

This decision finally confirms it. THE CONSTITUTION IS, IN FACT, A SUICIDE PACT.

Can someone show me where it say in the Constitution that non-Americans have the same rights as Americans?

I forgot, according to libtards it is a "living, breathing" document. I say try the justices who were for this with treason.

re: #241 SaneInMN

230. SnowJob

Look, clown. These "enemy combatants" differ from POW's in that they 1., Do not fight under a recognized flag or banner, 2., Do not wear uniforms indicating which country's armed forces they are fighting for, 3., DO intentionally target civilian populations, 4., Do not follow orders handed down from a recognized chain of command.

Therefore, they are NOT POW's, the sure as shit should NOT be granted rights under the Geneva Conventions that we are signatories to (Despite that we already do grant them such rights), and CAN be held indefinitely until WE decide that the organizations which spawned these maggots have either A., surrendered, B., have been completely destroyed.

Enemy combatants are guaranteed Geneva Convention protection, illegal combatants are entitled to summary execution, see The Law of Land Warfare.

/that's where most people get confused, these are illegal combatants, not enemy combatants

re: #243 ContraJihadi

What are they, if not POWs?

/illegal combatants

Republic...

All I can say is, I hope and pray you are correct, and that they rule as projected based on the opinions you cite.

re: #248 Theseus

This decision finally confirms it. THE CONSTITUTION IS, IN FACT, A SUICIDE PACT.

/when in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout

re: #251 Killian Bundy

/illegal combatants

Aren't they then subject to summary execution?

re: #233 incanus

Hey, I'm happy to have a conversation, but unfortunately the OP and the comments here blow this thing way out of proportion. Frankly most of what's written here consists of wild paranoid imaginings. (US grants rights to terrorists! Whoopie!). Meanwhile, the press is making a big deal of out of it because it's an embarrassment to the administration.

I've been reading the decision (something I gather no one here has bothered to do), and so far it strikes me as exceptionally narrow.
My own guess is, the government will finally relent, reclassify most of these guys as POWs, and they'll get military trials.

BFD.

re: #254 ContraJihadi

Aren't they then subject to summary execution?

/yes, absolutely, but then we sent them to Gitmo, unilaterally granted them enemy combatant status, and that's why things have gotten legally weird

re: #243 ContraJihadi

What are they, if not POWs?

Pirates?

re: #256 Killian Bundy

/yes, absolutely, but then we sent them to Gitmo, unilaterally granted them enemy combatant status, and that's why things have gotten legally weird

Sigh, Bush has the right idea toppling Saddam, but the execution of that plan has contained its share of flaws and embarrassments.

At any rate, Mandy nicely sums the whole affair up with #20

A pity Scalia could't have used that word in his opinion...

I wish I had time to read through the entire thread, but here's my two cents anyway: Deport every one of those at Gitmo--take them in planes somewhere in the middle of the whatever nowhere they called home--and let them out. No papers, no money, nothing. Close down Gitmo as a prison but keep the base. By the way, that happened to my dad, a geologist searching for oil in the 1940s. He was in the Middle East (don't know where exactly) Two local men posing as businessmen accompanied him to look at some property where he wanted to get permission to run some soil sample tests. They forced him to drive out of the town into the desert, robbed him stole his car, beat him, stripped him, took his water--and left him to die in the desert. But he didn't. He walked back to the city--and hired someone to kill the SOBs that did that to him. He told me this story the year before he died--at age 84 climbing one of the Cairngorm range mountains in our native Scotland. He was one tough fellow.

re: #253 Killian Bundy

Do you really think that this is the end of the issue. That this decision won't be used to grant more and more "rights" to illegal combatants? That before it is all over there will be a body of decisions that further erode our security? The assault never ends with liberals/leftist. They never have enough.

Like Rome we have become too liberal and prone to infighting to save ourselves from the barbarians. The AP blasts the news and Yahoo has it on their main page for hours about 2 marines in Iraq that threw a puppy off a cliff videoed it and put it on youtube (the conclusion we are supposed to make is that US bad/ the Iraq war warps people). The article notes that youtube pulled the video. Yet I just checked youtube for "US soldier killed by sniper" and I get countless insuirgent videos of US soldiers blown up by IED and some videos of US soldiers killed by snipers. A puppy thrown off a cliff! oh no yank that right off youtube. A US soldier killed...well thats just free speech.

re: #79 unrealizedviewpoint

re: #59 thedopefishlives

You don't understand. To the left, they were not captured on a battlefield; they were arrested by the World Police (whom they despise). In order to stick it to The Man (tm), they got the court to rule that such an incarceration is a violation of these terrorists' non-existent Constitutional rights.

Knowing a couple of these moonbats I can attest they really really do think this. It's mind boggling.

My own gut feeling is that, sooner or later, the rest of the citizens of the USA are going to turn on the Left, turn on all those ordinary people that have outwardly shown themselves to be openly and proudly Left-leaning, and particularly on all the moonbats. Anyone that has "Get out of Iraq" and "Impeach W!" bumper stickers plastered all over the back of their vehicles will find themselves without any friends and will be hated and despised, and God help them if they're independent business people (self-employed computer-techs that do housecalls, for instance) because they'll suddenly not have ANY business. These Left-leaning people in the general population will suddenly discover that the majority population now says "You are MY ENEMY and I will have NOTHING to do with you! GO PLAY IN TRAFFIC!"

re: #229 Killian Bundy

/they should be dealt with on the battlefield, period, even the Geneva Conventions allow for the summary execution of illegal combatants, if you need intelligence, KEEP THEM ON FOREIGN SOIL!

Guantanamo IS foreign soil. That's why they built the holding facility there. The Liberal faction on the SCOTUS has effectively ruled that illegal enemy combatants, who are not covered by the Geneva Conventions, held by the US military anywhere in the world are entitled to the full rights and protections of US citizens.

re: #264 Spiny Norman

Guantanamo IS foreign soil.

That's debatable.

/technically, we "lease" it from Cuba

The problem is that the Republican Congress under Pres Bush after 9/11 did not include a Supreme Court and/or federal court subject matter jurisdiction stripping provision, and require all cases to be decided by military courts. And further provided that it would be an impeachable offense and a felony requiring disbarment for any Judge to rule that enemy combatants had habeas corpus rights or the right to appear in any federal court.
The only practical thing for the US to do now would be to hand over these scum buckets to Iraqi prisons, where they should be treated with less concern than we have shown them. This horrific and indefensible decision did not bar the transfer of such prisoners now, and the sooner they are out of US custody the better. And, if, by chance some of these scum get released and a plane goes diving for the SCOTUS building, not that I am wishing that on this misguided Court, maybe then the remaining members of the Court might ponder how their actions today led to inexpressable disaster tomorrow.
There is no country in the world that could survive this Court's decision. Indeed, the limited nature of the liberal Justices' interpretation of the suspension clause is so at odds with its expansion of other non existent rights and clauses in the Constitution that they continue in their beknighted beliefs that they are a super legislature. This is a sadddd day for this Country and if this County has an epitaph, God Forbid, it will be written from this treacherous decision.
God save us from more justices of this ilk who would surely be appointed and approved by a demoncrap President and Congress.

re: #266 eaglewingz08

The only practical thing for the US to do now would be to hand over these scum buckets to Iraqi prisons, where they should be treated with less concern than we have shown them.

Not a bad idea, that. I'm sure there's probably an argument that can be made against it, but it's escaping me right at the moment.

re: #236 joncelli

Grow up. If you recognize them as POWs, you recognize them as legal combatants from an internationally recognized entity. That legitimizes the Taliban and al Qaeda. Do you suppose some actual lawyers maybe put some thought into this? Maybe?

No, I don't suppose they have. (Demonstrably so, if the last several Supreme Court holdings are any indication.) And your own argument is pure paranoid imagination.

Defeating our enemies on the battlefield, taking lots of prisoners, and trying those accused of war crimes before military officers (or war crimes tribunals) is hardly tantamount to "legitimizing." By your logic, Nuremberg "legitimized" the Nazis.

But what do I know, I'm just a kid.

re: #265 Killian Bundy

That's debatable.

/technically, we "lease" it from Cuba

I am fully aware of that... just as we lease bases in other countries, like Germany, Japan and South Korea. No one has ever suggested that they are "sovereign US territory" like an Embassy. Guantanamo Bay is not unique, other than if the host countries of those other bases asked us to leave we probably would (think Clark and Subic in The Philipines). We have no official relations with the Castro government, so Fidel/Raúl are outta luck until the lease is up.