Judge defies Bush, says prisionors actually have rights

[FormerLurker]

A U.S. judge dealt a setback to the Bush administration and ruled on Monday that the Guantanamo Bay terrorism suspects can challenge their confinement and the procedures in their military tribunal review process are unconstitutional. How fortunate that someone thinks of the Constitution as something more than an inconvenient obstacle in the WoT.

http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7487481

[Stoo]

Judges appear to be a thorn in the side of both Bush and Blair's administrations. More power to them. :)

[giant]

Not so much the judges as the law itself.

[Scott]

Isn't that the exact thing they said two years ago?

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Scott
Isn't that the exact thing they said two years ago?

No. That was for US citizens.

[Aurora]

This is going to be shocker for the pres and ann coulter who seem to think only Republicans have rights.

[Anders]

Originally posted by giant
Not so much the judges as the law itself.

I thought Bush was the law now that he has, you know, the mandate

[Scott]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
No. That was for US citizens.

That's not the way I remember it.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Scott
That's not the way I remember it.

Well, your remembrance is wrong.

[Scott]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Well, your remembrance is wrong.

The US never even holding US citizens in Gitmo.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Scott
The US never even holding US citizens in Gitmo.

You still were wrong.

[Scott]

Who?

[hardeeharhar]

Enough of that.

I like that the constitution doesn't simply protect US citizens.

[Scott]

So you don't know? You get a put on the spot, can't answer the direct question, and it's "Enough of that."


So now were back at the start.

Isn't that the exact thing they said two years ago?

[Harald]

Originally posted by Scott
So you don't know? You get a put on the spot, can't answer the direct question, and it's "Enough of that."


So now were back at the start.

Isn't that the exact thing they said two years ago?

Scott, he was LETTING YOU OFF. He was allowing you to save a bit of face.

Now he's going to have to point out the first Google link he comes across to show you that you are wrong and you DREW ATTENTION TO YOUR WRONGNESS. Dear lord.

Either that or you're trying to derail the thread.

[BRussell]

Topic: Judge defies Bush, says prisionors actually have rights

I think it's telling how even the topic title is framed as the judge "defying Bush." It's as if we don't really have three co-equal branches of government any more. Bush is king, and if one branch exercises its constitutional obligation, it is "defying" the president. :\

[Aurora]

This is good. you trample the rights of billions to catch a very few bad guys. Congress has sold out this country a long time ago and the Bush administration makes up their own rules and laws as they go. Good thing we have another branch of Govt watching our idiots in congress and Dubya. How long before the presidents Patriot act is brought up as illegal under our constitution is what i want to know.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Harald
Scott, he was LETTING YOU OFF. He was allowing you to save a bit of face.

Now he's going to have to point out the first Google link he comes across to show you that you are wrong and you DREW ATTENTION TO YOUR WRONGNESS. Dear lord.

Either that or you're trying to derail the thread.

Post that google link.

[Aurora]

Originally posted by Scott
Post that google link. Dont you remember the dude from California?

[Harald]

For the record. (http://www.google.com/search?q=supreme+court+guantanamo+ruling&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)

One case was about where the poor people could have their cases heard.

The other was about the legality of their confinement.

The clue was in the different words -- and the different meanings -- of the two rulings.

pwned.

[Aurora]

Georges way, we label you a enemy combatant therefore you have no rights whatsoever. Sounds like something from Hitler or Communist China. Isnt this the Year 2005??? Sure we have enemys but this isnt how its done nor is treating all of Americans as terrorist's(Patriot Act). Problem is we have a spineless Congress who's main interest is holding on to their power and working for special interests. Look 4 years later and they still ignore Mexico and its millions walking into this country. Hate to say it but im glad we have a few lawyers(judges) watching these yo yo's.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Aurora
Dont you remember the dude from California?

John Walker? How does he fit into this?

[Scott]

Originally posted by Aurora
Georges way, we label you a enemy combatant therefore you have no rights whatsoever. Sounds like something from Hitler or Communist China. Isnt this the Year 2005??? Sure we have enemys but this isnt how its done nor is treating all of Americans as terrorist's(Patriot Act). Problem is we have a spineless Congress who's main interest is holding on to their power and working for special interests. Look 4 years later and they still ignore Mexico and its millions walking into this country. Hate to say it but im glad we have a few lawyers(judges) watching these yo yo's.

Oh, the mellowdrama. I heard they were installing a train track in Gitmo so Bush could tie the brown peope to it.

If you have more to offer than hysterical exaggerations please do.

[hardeeharhar]

Jose Padilla (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/18/padilla.case/)

Mr. Padilla, a US citizen, was held as an enemy combatant: this was unconstitutional.

[hardeeharhar]

Scott,
Sometimes, people try to get the last word in. I am not one of those people. You forced me to call you out. Sorry.

[Aurora]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Jose Padilla (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/18/padilla.case/)

Mr. Padilla, a US citizen, was held as an enemy combatant: this was unconstitutional. Looks like you ran Scott off with the facts.:lol: I dont know whats worse our Govt removing our liberty and freedoms under false pretense or Kids growing up not knowing how our Constitution protects us from the George Bush's of the world.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Scott
Isn't that the exact thing they said two years ago? I'm not sure I understand what's going on. I think two years ago they said the Gitmo prisoners had a right to pursue habeas corpus, whereas before they had no right at all to challenge their imprisonment. I think this ruling deals more with how they can pursue their challenge. The gov't had set up military-based tribunals to judge the cases, and I believe this ruling says they have the right to civilian rather than military courts. So I think it's really just a further refinement or extension of that previous ruling.

[Harald]

Hey Scott!

How about an apology over here?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Harald
Hey Scott!

How about an apology over here? I'm not quite sure what the big deal is with what Scott said. This ruling IS basically a restatement of what the Supreme Court said last year, from what I can tell. This might be 100% wrong because it's just based on news reports, but I think what happened is that the Bush admin tried to use military courts to live up to the Supreme Court ruling of last year, but this new judge is saying that doesn't cut it - they have to be allowed access to regular courts. Can you succinctly state the relationship between those two rulings?

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by BRussell
I'm not quite sure what the big deal is with what Scott said. This ruling IS basically a restatement of what the Supreme Court said last year, from what I can tell. This might be 100% wrong because it's just based on news reports, but I think what happened is that the Bush admin tried to use military courts to live up to the Supreme Court ruling of last year, but this new judge is saying that doesn't cut it - they have to be allowed access to regular courts. Can you succinctly state the relationship between those two rulings?

Actually, the Supreme Court ruling led to this ruling. But I would not say that it is a repeat of that prior ruling. The sumpreme court said that these detainees can use the justice system to challenge their dentention. They did so, which led to this ruling which gives them broader rights under the judicial system than the prior ruling -- that is not only can they challenge their detention, they now have every right to plea their case (and not just their status) in a real court...

[sammi jo]

The "Patriot" Act (sic) can strip US citizens of their citizenship, with no recourse for the victim to contest the 'verdict', if the government sees it 'fit' that the 'trial' should be held in secret, for 'national security' reasons.

Carry on.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Harald
Hey Scott!

How about an apology over here?

Um, I'm sorry I don't know WTF you think I should apologize for.

[madmax559]

Originally posted by Scott
Um, I'm sorry I don't know WTF you think I should apologize for.

how come you always get defensive & abusive ?

[Ra]

Originally posted by sammi jo
The "Patriot" Act (sic) can strip US citizens of their citizenship, with no recourse for the victim to contest the 'verdict', if the government sees it 'fit' that the 'trial' should be held in secret, for 'national security' reasons.

Carry on. There's no way that can be true...

[Towel]

Originally posted by Ra
There's no way that can be true... I don't think it was part of the PATRIOT ACT, it was just an ad hoc "re-interpretation (http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=10673&c=206&Type=s)" of Presidential war powers. But it's taken years for the courts to decide it just might be unconstitutional. I think the confusion over stripping people of their citizenship comes from the fact that the US forced Hamdi to renounce his citizenship as a condition of his release, then deported him. Since the courts finally decided that as a US citizen they couldn't hold him indefinitely without trial or deport him, stripping him of his citizenship and deporting him seems like the next best thing. The constitutionality of that seems pretty questionable, but I'm sure it'll be 2010 before it reaches the SCOTUS.

[Aurora]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ra
There's no way that can be true... [/QUOTE It is True, under the patriot act the govt has the authority to walk into any house,business etc with no search warrant all they have to say is they suspect you as a terrorist.Boom your rights are gone. This is wrong and America is being stupid for ignoring this crap. Our own constitution prohibits this kind of thing but we have a simple minded reactionary Congress who seem to do whatever George wants. This kind of behavior from any Govt is scary and can only lead to abuse which it allready has. do a look up of Patriot Act abuses and they are allready starting to pile up. This is illegal. Repeal or redo this bad legislation is the answer yet the democrats run around like Sheep. They had so many issues to hammer George but they didnt.Patriot act,Mexican border,war etc......Democratic Party is floundering like a fish out of water. Perhaps the Demo's should start working on these major issues instead of gay rights,suckerfish and being so antigod. Maybe then they would get elected.:smokey:

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Aurora
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ra
There's no way that can be true... [/QUOTE It is True, under the patriot act the govt has the authority to walk into any house,business etc with no search warrant all they have to say is they suspect you as a terrorist.Boom your rights are gone. This is wrong and America is being stupid for ignoring this crap. Our own constitution prohibits this kind of thing but we have a simple minded reactionary Congress who seem to do whatever George wants. This kind of behavior from any Govt is scary and can only lead to abuse which it allready has. do a look up of Patriot Act abuses and they are allready starting to pile up. This is illegal. Repeal or redo this bad legislation is the answer yet the democrats run around like Sheep. They had so many issues to hammer George but they didnt.Patriot act,Mexican border,war etc......Democratic Party is floundering like a fish out of water. Perhaps the Demo's should start working on these major issues instead of gay rights,suckerfish and being so antigod. Maybe then they would get elected.:smokey:

Tell you what...why don't you post the part of Patriot Act that says that.

[SDW2001]

To continue in this topic, I find it amazing how unbalanced people get over the Patriot Act and the holding of prisoners. I will again ask those who think the Patriot Act is the work of Satan to post the parts they disagree with.

On civil rights and terrorism, my opinion is (and that's all it is)

1. US Citizens should not be held as enemy combatants, unless it was for a very short period due to the risk of an imminent terror attack (say, 30 days maximum).

2. Non -US citizens held for their suspected involvement in terror plots should not receive protections (of the Constitution or Geneva Conventions) unless thet are part of a uniformed army.

3. We should not allow secret trials of US citizens.

[Aurora]

Look at section 215 that should be enough but if not feel free to read the whole thing. Allows govt to search you,your home,business,financial records,library records,dental,medical,etc etc......all they have to do is suspect. This opens the door to fishing expeditions just as cops now can go through your car if stopped for any infraction they dream up. This is leading to the Police State known as America. FBI,CIA,Homeland Security,Police,Sheriff,Highway Patrol, and im sure there are lots lots more. when is enough enough? How many Cops do we need? perhaps if they werent letting these Islamic extremist in the country in first place we wouldnt need all this waste of our Tax dollars. Has the Patriot act made anyone safer? its just more Govt with the same results. Higher taxes and Govt loves that so it can grow even bigger. Its a circle Jerk with the Taxpayer in the middle.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by SDW2001
To continue in this topic, I find it amazing how unbalanced people get over the Patriot Act and the holding of prisoners. I will again ask those who think the Patriot Act is the work of Satan to post the parts they disagree with.

On civil rights and terrorism, my opinion is (and that's all it is)

1. US Citizens should not be held as enemy combatants, unless it was for a very short period due to the risk of an imminent terror attack (say, 30 days maximum).

2. Non -US citizens held for their suspected involvement in terror plots should not receive protections (of the Constitution or Geneva Conventions) unless thet are part of a uniformed army.

3. We should not allow secret trials of US citizens.

1. Not at all.

2. They are protected under the constitution.

3. Well, duh.

[Towel]

Originally posted by SDW2001
3. We should not allow secret trials of US citizens. I can't believe that even needs to be stated as a opinion, as if there are those who might reasonably disagree.

[Scott]

Originally posted by madmax559
how come you always get defensive & abusive ?

I was bottle fed?

[madmax559]

Originally posted by Scott
I was bottle fed?

ahh so now you take your frustrations out on other people