BREAKING: Supreme Court backs rights for Guantanamo detainees

[ZetaNine]

I'm not nearly as scared of a bunch of religious nuts from a third work country as I am of politicians who want to "protect" me by "modifying" the constitution because they know what's best. Sounds like you feel different.

wow..........just wow.

I'll add you to the list that thinks 911 was a tv show ....and wish you good luck.

ps: need I remind you: politicians invented the constitution...and concluded that it had faults and would require modifications over time.

[Nashwan]

The folks being held in Gitmo are enemy combatants, the rules of war apply to them. The rules of war does not require due process to be carried out for those captured while fighting your army.

What about the ones who weren't fighting at the time of their capture?

As an example, 2 of the "British" detainees released in 2007 were captured when their flight from the UK landed at Banjul airport, Gambia, West Africa. They were arrested by Gambian authorities, turned over to the US, and spent 5 years in Guantanamo.

These men cannot in any sense of the word be said to have been taken on the "battlefield". They were arrested passing through immigration at an airport in West Africa. There was no fighting in progress, they didn't have any weapons, and they arrived on a commercial flight from the UK.

[ZetaNine]

your answer is somewhere in "released in 2007"

[myelo]

wow..........just wow.

I realize my argument is stunning but as a courtesy to others, please hold your applause til the end.

[ZetaNine]

I realize my argument is stunning but as a courtesy to others, please hold your applause til the end.

duly noted, sir.

[Donzo]

911 didn't change the constitution. If we want to modify the constitution, there's a mechanism to do that. Until then, I'm glad our individual liberty in protected from arbitrary whims of politicians.

I guess it's a matter of perspective. I'm not nearly as scared of a bunch of religious nuts from a third work country as I am of politicians who want to "protect" me by "modifying" the constitution because they know what's best. Sounds like you feel different.

Once again, how does the US Constitution apply to these enemy combatants?

[ZetaNine]

Once again, how does the US Constitution appply to these enemy combatants?

once again........it doesn't yet.

[Donzo]

I get that...myelo keeps going back to the Constitution.  I want to hear his explanation as to how it applies to these enemy combatants.

[ZetaNine]

I get that...myelo keeps going back to the Constitution.  I want to hear his explanation as to how it applies to these enemy combatants.

understood........that was for him as well.

[midnight Target]

I get that...myelo keeps going back to the Constitution.  I want to hear his explanation as to how it applies to these enemy combatants.

The definition of their status seems to be moot. If there is no rebelion or invasion and they are under the jurisdiction of the US, they have the right to Habeas Corpus.

[Toad]

The definition of their status seems to be moot. If there is no rebelion or invasion and they are under the jurisdiction of the US, they have the right to Habeas Corpus.

So what you are saying is that German soldiers captured in WW2 under the jurisdiction of the US should have had the right to take their cases to civil court as the Gitmo Gang are about to do?

No rebellion or invasion of the US by Germany at that time.

[midnight Target]

No, that is what the Supremes are saying. The key seems to be the open ended nature of our current "war".

[Toad]

And by extension of your previously posted approval, you think the German POWs in the above example should have been entitled to habeas corpus while held here in the US or anywhere under US jurisdiction?

[ZetaNine]

edit

[ZetaNine]

in 1950 there was a supreme court decision...the eisentrager case.......which is supposed to be the precedent that future SC's regarding this issue....and one the current SC is obliged to follow......which 21 german nationals were taken into chinese custody at the end of WW2. they were found guilty by a US military tribunal...in china.  they were then remitted to a us military prison in germany...they sought to have their cases remedied in the USA under the writ of habeas corpus...

the issue was if alien combatants should have access to US Courts......... (and these were soldiers...not terrorists who follow no laws)

the SC unanimously (and filled with liberal justices by the way) ruled that the german soldier's had no right to access the civil courts of the USA.

the SC understood that war was not their province, and enemy combatants were not their concern...for reasons we are talking about here.
these terrorists are not part of OUR criminal justice system........


think about the weight this put's on our military now.......some 21 year old infantryman...out on a battlefield.......will now not only have to worry about protecting himself and his fellow soldiers in battle........he will also have the obligation to COLLECT EVIDENCE if he has to capture an enemy......to satisfy some local judge in miami or denver.........are you freakin' kidding me???????????????

this decision is the new Roe V Wade.