LGF

more options

  

Advertisement

  

Link address:
Link title:
Description: 
Remaining:

Supreme Court: Islamic Terrorists Have Constitutional Rights

Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 9:35:31 am PDT

We sure have come a long way since September 11, 2001. And the movement is all backward. High Court ruling may delay war crimes trials.

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

In its third rebuke of the Bush administration’s treatment of prisoners, the court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The court’s liberal justices were in the majority.

346 comments

  • Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 pegcity  6/12/08 9:36:34 am reply quote 2

Terrorists are people too

/ACLU

2 IgofAntioch  6/12/08 9:36:57 am reply quote 19

Law of unintended consequences- don't take prisioners!

3 Typicalwhitey  6/12/08 9:37:06 am reply quote 12

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

4 BGOH  6/12/08 9:37:13 am reply quote 10

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

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

6 gibsonz  6/12/08 9:37:38 am reply quote 0

Could we expect any less!

7 pegcity  6/12/08 9:37:56 am reply quote 0

so Jury trials for terrorists?

Why not have them all in Seattle

8 buzzsawmonkey  6/12/08 9:38:12 am reply quote 2

There is the rule of law, and there is the fool of law.

9 little boomer  6/12/08 9:38:13 am reply quote 0

How many more must die?

10 Pyrocles  6/12/08 9:38:51 am reply quote 3

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.

11 Kreuzueber Halbmond  6/12/08 9:39:06 am reply quote 13

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

12 ethanxxx  6/12/08 9:39:09 am reply quote 0

re: #9 little boomer

How many more must die?

All of Them...

13 aunursa  6/12/08 9:39:18 am reply quote 5

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?"

14 jaunte  6/12/08 9:39:33 am reply quote 15

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

15 pegcity  6/12/08 9:39:35 am reply quote 17

Liberals really are working damn hard to destroy America.

16 pegcity  6/12/08 9:40:25 am reply quote 2

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.

17 Kosh's Shadow  6/12/08 9:40:37 am reply quote 9

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."

18 CIA Reject  6/12/08 9:40:48 am reply quote 3

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!*

19 ORD neighbor  6/12/08 9:40:54 am reply quote 12

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

20 MandyManners  6/12/08 9:40:55 am reply quote 11
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens joined Kennedy to form the majority.

Assholes.

21 loppyd  6/12/08 9:41:02 am reply quote 4

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

22 buzzsawmonkey  6/12/08 9:41:18 am reply quote 0

"Conventional wisdom" is usually wrong. Geneva Conventional wisdom is worse.

23 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  6/12/08 9:41:39 am reply quote 0

Kill 'em

24 itellu3times  6/12/08 9:41:42 am reply quote 0

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.

25 gibsonz  6/12/08 9:41:43 am reply quote 0

re: #15 pegcity

With breathtaking speed the idiocy of the left overwhelms us.

26 Loren42  6/12/08 9:42:16 am reply quote 11

Can they vote, too, now?

27 Kreuzueber Halbmond  6/12/08 9:42:34 am reply quote 6
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens joined Kennedy to form the majority.

The axis of stupidity.

28 BGOH  6/12/08 9:42:43 am reply quote 7

re: #26 Loren42

Can they vote, too, now?

Only if they register as Democrats.

29 maddogg  6/12/08 9:42:58 am reply quote 4

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

30 redheadredstate  6/12/08 9:43:13 am reply quote 1

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"

31 buzzsawmonkey  6/12/08 9:43:23 am reply quote 5

And the Left sings to the terrorists:

Happy trials to you
Until we meet again
Happy trials to you
For our land we won't defend...

32 SpartanWoman  6/12/08 9:43:42 am reply quote 1

re: #26 Loren42

Can they vote, too, now?

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

33 pat  6/12/08 9:44:22 am reply quote 2

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

34 CIA Reject  6/12/08 9:44:26 am reply quote 0

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...

35 Killgore Trout  6/12/08 9:45:02 am reply quote 20

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

36 philosoteric  6/12/08 9:45:14 am reply quote 0

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.

37 thedopefishlives  6/12/08 9:45:14 am reply quote 3

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

38 taxfreekiller  6/12/08 9:45:45 am reply quote 9

Keep in mind, there in Our U.S. Senate, unpunished sits a traitor, a liar and a fraud, who is allowed by the fact that "We the People" allow it, he gets a vote on judges still.
John F. Kerry and the likes of that have to get the un-election.

First we must deal with such as this at the vote booth, we must fix this broken two party system, there is no other choice.

39 gibsonz  6/12/08 9:45:57 am reply quote 6

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

40 Killgore Trout  6/12/08 9:46:00 am reply quote 16

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

41 CIA Reject  6/12/08 9:46:05 am reply quote 6

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

42 dgax65  6/12/08 9:46:06 am reply quote 4

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

43 Sabnen  6/12/08 9:46:08 am reply quote 3

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.

44 Dad O' Blondes  6/12/08 9:46:12 am reply quote 10

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?

.

45 bosforus  6/12/08 9:46:18 am reply quote 1

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

46 LionFromzion  6/12/08 9:46:39 am reply quote 1

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

47 maddogg  6/12/08 9:46:49 am reply quote 11

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.

48 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  6/12/08 9:46:49 am reply quote 2

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.

49 Ben Hur  6/12/08 9:46:53 am reply quote 2

OK.

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

50 rwmofo  6/12/08 9:47:05 am reply quote 5

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.

/

51 Kreuzueber Halbmond  6/12/08 9:47:11 am reply quote 2

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.

52 philosoteric  6/12/08 9:47:16 am reply quote 1

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.

53 snowtravel  6/12/08 9:47:46 am reply quote -14

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.

54 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  6/12/08 9:47:55 am reply quote 1

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.

55 loppyd  6/12/08 9:48:00 am reply quote 1

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.

56 IgofAntioch  6/12/08 9:48:19 am reply quote 1

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.

57 alegrias  6/12/08 9:48:23 am reply quote 1

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.

58 see bs  6/12/08 9:48:37 am reply quote 1

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

59 thedopefishlives  6/12/08 9:49:06 am reply quote 4

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.

60 Rogue198  6/12/08 9:49:19 am reply quote 1

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!"?

61 maddogg  6/12/08 9:49:40 am reply quote 1

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.

62 unrealizedviewpoint  6/12/08 9:49:41 am reply quote 1

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.

63 Ben Hur  6/12/08 9:49:48 am reply quote 1

Try them under Sharia.

64 Kosh's Shadow  6/12/08 9:49:52 am reply quote 0

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?

65 loppyd  6/12/08 9:50:08 am reply quote 18

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.”

66 aunursa  6/12/08 9:50:11 am reply quote 1

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?

67 gymnast  6/12/08 9:50:25 am reply quote 3

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.

68 ethanxxx  6/12/08 9:50:26 am reply quote 1

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".

69 Golem Akbar  6/12/08 9:50:33 am reply quote 1

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.

70 VegasRick  6/12/08 9:50:38 am reply quote 1

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.

71 The Other Les  6/12/08 9:50:56 am reply quote 1

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

72 IgofAntioch  6/12/08 9:51:11 am reply quote 1

re: #26 Loren42

Can they vote, too, now?

Might as well them drivers licenses too

73 alegrias  6/12/08 9:51:19 am reply quote 1

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.

74 loppyd  6/12/08 9:51:19 am reply quote 6

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.”

75 karmic_inquisitor  6/12/08 9:51:31 am reply quote 2

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?

76 Ben Hur  6/12/08 9:51:38 am reply quote 0
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...]

77 The Other Les  6/12/08 9:51:41 am reply quote 0

re: #63 Ben Hur

Try them under Sharia.

That's an automatic acquittal for them.

78 buzzsawmonkey  6/12/08 9:51:44 am reply quote 6

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.

Prisoners of war are held until the war is over. They are not given trials.

The prisoners at Gitmo are hardly "incommunicado"; they practically have a souvenir shop for bleeding-heart lawyers.

79 unrealizedviewpoint  6/12/08 9:51:50 am reply quote 2

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.

80 Iron Fist  6/12/08 9:51:50 am reply quote 7

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*]

81 karmic_inquisitor  6/12/08 9:52:03 am reply quote 0

re: #75 karmic_inquisitor

pimf "salvo"

82 SagamoreGal  6/12/08 9:52:22 am reply quote 1

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...

83 CIA Reject  6/12/08 9:52:24 am reply quote 0

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.

84 Kosh's Shadow  6/12/08 9:53:14 am reply quote 0

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.

86 Sabnen  6/12/08 9:53:40 am reply quote 0

re: #72 IgofAntioch

Might as well them drivers licenses too

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

87 Kreuzueber Halbmond  6/12/08 9:53:53 am reply quote 0

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.

88 SpartanWoman  6/12/08 9:54:00 am reply quote 0

re: #75 karmic_inquisitor

OT

89 Kosh's Shadow  6/12/08 9:54:20 am reply quote 0

re: #72 IgofAntioch

Might as well them drivers licenses too

Pilot's licenses.
/do I need to?

90 Killgore Trout  6/12/08 9:54:28 am reply quote 2

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.

91 unrealizedviewpoint  6/12/08 9:54:31 am reply quote -2

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.

92 karmic_inquisitor  6/12/08 9:54:31 am reply quote 0

re: #88 SpartanWoman

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

Got that right.

93 Ben Hur  6/12/08 9:54:40 am reply quote 0

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.

94 Ringo the Gringo  6/12/08 9:54:49 am reply quote 0

Take no prisoners!

95 Rogue198  6/12/08 9:54:50 am reply quote 0

re: #85 Ringo the Gringo

thankie :D

96 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  6/12/08 9:55:05 am reply quote 0

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

97 zmdavid  6/12/08 9:55:08 am reply quote 0

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.

98 MandyManners  6/12/08 9:55:11 am reply quote 0

re: #85 Ringo the Gringo

Here's the MSNBC poll:

99 lawhawk  6/12/08 9:55:27 am reply quote 16

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.

100 buzzsawmonkey  6/12/08 9:55:36 am reply quote 2

re: #80 Iron Fist

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*]

Show Trial
--with apologies to Hoagy Carmichael, and "Small Fry"

Show trial
Leftist over-reachment
Show trial
If they miss impeachment
My, my! They're champing at the bit
We haven't heard the half it...

Show trial
Specious accusations
Show trial
To stampede the nation
My, my! It's plain for all to see
They're trying to grab what they can't win legitimately

They've worn their hands to the wrist as they've compiled their list
Oh yes, oh yes, oh yes!
Amazing how their hearts yearn as they labor to turn
The Constitution to a pool of cess!

Show trial
Sets the stomach churning
Show trial
Eternal Plame a-burning
My, my! Take a tip from me
There's no place for a show trial in democracy
It's evil, vile--show trial.

101 stevieray  6/12/08 9:55:37 am reply quote 1

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

102 Vikingstar  6/12/08 9:56:11 am reply quote 7

Apparently the Constitution IS a suicide pact, after all.

103 IgofAntioch  6/12/08 9:56:50 am reply quote 0

Does this entitle each prisioner his own press agent?

104 lawhawk  6/12/08 9:57:04 am reply quote 0

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.

105 rollingdivision  6/12/08 9:57:13 am reply quote 3

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.

106 maddogg  6/12/08 9:57:21 am reply quote 0

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.

107 CyanSnowHawk  6/12/08 9:57:24 am reply quote 2

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.

108 theparson  6/12/08 9:57:34 am reply quote 1

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!?"

109 Killgore Trout  6/12/08 9:57:49 am reply quote 0

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.

110 pat  6/12/08 9:58:10 am reply quote 2

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

111 GregInSeattle  6/12/08 9:58:12 am reply quote 0

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

God Save the Republic.

112 republic  6/12/08 9:58:41 am reply quote 9

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.

113 Kosh's Shadow  6/12/08 9:58:44 am reply quote 0

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.

114 SpartanWoman  6/12/08 9:58:58 am reply quote 0

re: #98 MandyManners

56 v. 43 Yes.

horrifying response

115 BGOH  6/12/08 9:59:02 am reply quote 1

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...]

116 jamgarr  6/12/08 9:59:07 am reply quote 0

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

117 unrealizedviewpoint  6/12/08 9:59:34 am reply quote 0

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.

118 uncle_monkey  6/12/08 10:00:09 am reply quote 6

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.

119 Killgore Trout  6/12/08 10:00:12 am reply quote 0

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

It took out a whole block.

120 republic  6/12/08 10:00:29 am reply quote 0

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 de