Guantanamo: suspects CAN appeal

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Just been annouced by the US Surpeme Court that the people inside Guantanamo CAN appeal to US courts.



That is, that they do have some fundamental human rights after all.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 17
    smirclesmircle Posts: 1,035member
    Nice to see the rule of the law is returning to the US after all.
  • Reply 2 of 17
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Yep.



    You have a fantastic constitution there, either the best or second best (South Africa's is amazing). America has been a beacon to the world in its time and can be again; its a country that should be loved (as it been) not widely hated (as it is).



    Let's hope this is the start.
  • Reply 3 of 17
    smirclesmircle Posts: 1,035member
    Quote:

    Writing for the 6-3 majority in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said, "As critical as the government's interest may be in detaining those who actually pose an immediate threat to the national security of the United States during ongoing international conflict, history and common sense teach us that an unchecked system of detention carries the potential to become a means for oppression and abuse of others who do not present that sort of threat."



    http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/28/sc...ses/index.html



    Someone has read the history text books.
  • Reply 4 of 17
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Smircle

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/28/sc...ses/index.html



    Someone has read the history text books.




    Guantanamo summary for the prisoners:



    At best: no charges, no legal representation, no access to family, no lawyers, no status, suspension of the Geneva Convention, solitary confinement 24/7, much of the time outside in the weather.



    At worst: the disposal of suspected al qaeda or taliban suspects using modified sugar cane chippers.







    Sounds as bad as (Reagan and Bush Sr's old buddy) Saddam Hussein's regime.



    Look who dissented: Justices Antonin Scalia, William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas. "Justices my a$$". As expected....they probably get their kicks from this kinda stuff.



    Quack, quack



    How many imporatnt terror suspects have been rounded up via Guantanamo bay? ZERO....more like a bunch of Afghan goatherders and shepherds. Thats probably why they denied them their time in court...because they got nothing to charge 'em with.



  • Reply 5 of 17
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    POW status doesn't apply to people that wage war outside the rules of war. So there has been no "suspension of the Geneva Convention" because that treaty doesn't apply to illegal combatants. To drag this matter into a civil court, rather than leave it to the martial court, will be the johnnycochranification of the war on terror. The ACLU will now become the leading advocate for terrorists.
  • Reply 6 of 17
    faust9faust9 Posts: 1,335member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    POW status doesn't apply to people that wage war outside the rules of war. So there has been no "suspension of the Geneva Convention" because that treaty doesn't apply to illegal combatants. To drag this matter into a civil court, rather than leave it to the martial court, will be the johnnycochranification of the war on terror. The ACLU will now become the leading advocate for terrorists.



    Just stop already... That's the Bush admin party line and 6 out of 9 Supreme Court justices disagreed with that line of logic. I think these people know a thing or two about the constitution and law than you do so quit complaining. This will not be a boon for terrorists because the people in question have been locked away for years now. Give it a break. Quit living in fear.



    Once you stop living in fear of the terrorists (just like the communist enemy right) you can move on and see that the Bush admin are wrong as are you.



    Oh and the Hamdi case was 8-1 so again you're wrong.



    [edit]typos
  • Reply 7 of 17
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    POW status doesn't apply to people that wage war outside the rules of war. So there has been no "suspension of the Geneva Convention" because that treaty doesn't apply to illegal combatants. To drag this matter into a civil court, rather than leave it to the martial court, will be the johnnycochranification of the war on terror. The ACLU will now become the leading advocate for terrorists.



    Scott, thats BS. Our policy in Afghanistan was "get someone, get anyone, show the public we're doing something, and it doesn't matter whether they're taliban, non-taliban, alqaeda, not alqaeda, guilty, not guilty, combatants, non-combatants, farmers, shepherds, busdrivers, 12 year old kids, whatever, round them up and screw 'em...they are all equally guilty. The Guantanamo system is a Gestapo-like Saddam-like kangaroo system of injustice, un-American, and 100% uncivilized. Or is that the kind of world that you want, Scott?



    Have you ever been in jail for something you haven't done? Just like 90% of those Iraqi prisoners at Abu Gharaib who committed no crime, and many ended up getting tortured for the entertainment of certain members of our military? Our stomping around the world using our taxpayer-funded armed services as a security force for private corporations is making lots of people in many countries pissed as hell. I guess that kind of foreign policy lunacy justifies Bush's war on terrorism because his admin's policies are sure to trigger more bombings and possibly more 9-11 type*events*; perhaps an escalation of terrorism is what he's after, just so he prove that he's got somewhere to hang his hat.



    The Guantanamo bay fiasco is nothing to do with justice: its about revenge, and the problem is, the vast majority of the people who are in, and have gone throught the Guantanamo concentration camp had nothjing to do with 9-11 or any other act against America. Meanwhile, the perpetrators of 9-11 have seen no arrest, no questioning, no charges, no courtroom, and no sentence.



  • Reply 8 of 17
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    Scott, thats BS. Our policy in Afghanistan was "get someone, get anyone, show the public we're doing something, and it doesn't matter whether they're taliban, non-taliban, alqaeda, not alqaeda, guilty, not guilty, combatants, non-combatants, farmers, shepherds, busdrivers, 12 year old kids, whatever, round them up and screw 'em...they are all equally guilty.



    Actually it was nothing like that and was never the reason for it. Just your pure unthinking anti-US spin.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    The Guantanamo system is a Gestapo-like Saddam-like kangaroo system of injustice, un-American, and 100% uncivilized. Or is that the kind of world that you want, Scott?



    Wrong again. It's nothing like that. More anti-american spin from you.





    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    Have you ever been in jail for something you haven't done? Just like 90% of those Iraqi prisoners at Abu Gharaib who committed no crime, and many ended up getting tortured for the entertainment of certain members of our military?



    90%? Number out of ass? All of those people were "tortured". More anti-US spin from SJO.





    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    Our stomping around the world using our taxpayer-funded armed services as a security force for private corporations is making lots of people in many countries pissed as hell.



    Now you're off in space.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    I guess that kind of foreign policy lunacy justifies Bush's war on terrorism



    9-11 justified the war on terror. Or did you forget that event? Or support it?



    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    because his admin's policies are sure to trigger more bombings and possibly more 9-11 type*events*; perhaps an escalation of terrorism is what he's after, just so he prove that he's got somewhere to hang his hat.



    Confronting terrorist is sure going to piss them off. No doubt get them going. You'd rather surrender? Well put a fucking burka on now 'cause that's what Ossam thinks your proper place is.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    The Guantanamo bay fiasco is nothing to do with justice: its about revenge,



    It has nothing to do with revenge. It has to do with putting a stop to the people that caused 9-11. Something you don't support.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    and the problem is, the vast majority of the people who are in, and have gone throught the Guantanamo concentration camp had nothjing to do with 9-11 or any other act against America.



    You have absolutely no way of knowing that. Pull it out of your ass again?



    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    Meanwhile, the perpetrators of 9-11 have seen no arrest, no questioning, no charges, no courtroom, and no sentence.







    Who was that Ron Jeremy__guy they arrested? Didn't he have something to do with it? Among others. Forgetting facts to prove your point? Shame shame.





    I guess the US is all wrong and you are all right when you forget everything and make it up as you go along.
  • Reply 9 of 17
    faust9faust9 Posts: 1,335member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Actually it was nothing like that and was never the reason for it. Just your pure unthinking anti-US spin.







    Wrong again. It's nothing like that. More anti-american spin from you.









    90%? Number out of ass? All of those people were "tortured". More anti-US spin from SJO.









    Now you're off in space.







    9-11 justified the war on terror. Or did you forget that event? Or support it?







    Confronting terrorist is sure going to piss them off. No doubt get them going. You'd rather surrender? Well put a fucking burka on now 'cause that's what Ossam thinks your proper place is.







    It has nothing to do with revenge. It has to do with putting a stop to the people that caused 9-11. Something you don't support.







    You have absolutely no way of knowing that. Pull it out of your ass again?







    Who was that Ron Jeremy__guy they arrested? Didn't he have something to do with it? Among others. Forgetting facts to prove your point? Shame shame.





    I guess the US is all wrong and you are all right when you forget everything and make it up as you go along.






    WTF are you going on about!!??!! The 90% figure mention was 70-90% of people interned at Abu Gharab (sp) where innocent. This is a figure produced by the ICRCC and signed off by the Pentagon. For Christ's sake why does this have to be explained each and every thread. Why can't you recall this from the long torture thread.



    Another thing SJ only asked about being arrested YOU brought up torture as a straw-man argument.



    Where did Ron Jeremy come into this BTW. Yeah he has a 10" schlong but who cares!!! God damn Scott you have gone off the deep end.



    As far as the legalities afforded to the Gitmo detainees prior to the SCOTUS ruling, all of the Military lawyers assigned to defend these guys said as much. Read a f__king paper. Hell, Fox news even covered this.



    The funny thing is Scott, the state department just revised a terrorism report showing that worldwide terrorism has increased. How the F__K can you say what we are doing in Iraq is helping us when the facts are against that stance. Terrorism is on the rise.



    9/11 Justified the war on terror SH and Iraq where (as has been pointed out by DOZENS of people from within the intelligence and admin who have come forward) a distraction! Oh, I forgot you simply discredit them all because Rummy, Cheney and Bush tell you too. Talk about a blind F__King follower.



    Damn dude while SJ can be out there sometimes, in this case he made some valid points which you have attacked while completely forgetting all of the available information which supports many of SJ's claims. For Christ's sake man get a note book if you have to and write down:
    • ICRCC estimates 70-90% of prisoners at ABu Gahrab where innocent.

    • Terrorism went up last year

    • The SCOTUS ruled against Bush for good reason.

    • Fascism is bad

    • Confronting SH allowed OBL to plot plan and decentralize even more

    • Many insiders have come forward with the same stories

    Carry on.





    [edit]Too tired. Fixed a dozen spelling errors.
  • Reply 10 of 17
    arty50arty50 Posts: 201member
    The detention of these prisoners while denying them basic rights is completely unjustifiable. Bush is constantly blathering about how he wants to bring freedom to Iraq, the Middle East, and the rest of the world. Well a very important component of freedom is the recognition of basic civil rights. These prisoners have been denied that, and thus Bush is full of shit.
  • Reply 11 of 17
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    The supreme court of US made a logical decision, perfectly in adequation with US constitution.
  • Reply 12 of 17
    smirclesmircle Posts: 1,035member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    POW status doesn't apply to people that wage war outside the rules of war. So there has been no "suspension of the Geneva Convention" because that treaty doesn't apply to illegal combatants.



    I don't quite get the fixation of the right with Geneva. Holding prisoners for 2+ years without any chance for legal appeal is a violation of this little document here, esp. articles 6 to 9. Notice that it is termed universal for a reason, no combattants mentioned, no creative backdoors.



    Gitmo is an attempt at creating a secluded place that sits outside the reach of the legal system. The supreme court saw the intention and slapped Bush in the face. Quite simple.
  • Reply 13 of 17
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Powerdoc

    The supreme court of US made a logical decision, perfectly in adequation with US constitution.





    What I read was that it actually it wasn't based on a single part of the constitution. It was based on statute so ... it can be changed.
  • Reply 14 of 17
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    So they're wrong, is that what you're saying?



    That bloody liberal bastion, believing the media lies ... the Supreme Court of the US. Should just get rid of it, no? Only Presidential fiat is the way to achieve the right kind of decision process in a time of war.



    Eh, Scott?
  • Reply 15 of 17
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    How 'bout this? I'll give you my password to my account and you can go back and edit my post from what I said to whatever you wanted or thought I said. I should make it easier for you to jump to conclusions and put words in my mouth.
  • Reply 16 of 17
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    POW status doesn't apply to people that wage war outside the rules of war. So there has been no "suspension of the Geneva Convention" because that treaty doesn't apply to illegal combatants. To drag this matter into a civil court, rather than leave it to the martial court, will be the johnnycochranification of the war on terror. The ACLU will now become the leading advocate for terrorists.



    But the question is who decides whether someone is an illegal combatant. Can a president/defsec simply declare anyone they wish? This ruling says that you can appeal your status through the courts, that the executive doesn't get to simply decide these things without check or balance. "Trust me I'll do the right thing" isn't usually the way these things work. So maybe we can stop it with this abnerlouimafication of the war on terror.
Sign In or Register to comment.