BREAKING: Supreme Court backs rights for Guantanamo detainees

[Toad]

Well, it's the law now.

[Elfie]

I glad 5 of them remembered the law.

What law states that enemy combatants get to use the civilian court system?

As I recall, combatants captured during WWII didn't get access to our civilian courts and were in fact held w/o trials or charges presented until the end of hostilities upon which time they were repatriated.

Challenge their status as combatants first if you want them to go to trial and have charges presented.

[midnight Target]

I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that having "enemy combatants" would require a declared war.

[Toad]

I haven't read the whole decision yet.. maybe tonite.

The opener or Robert's dissent strikes me as pretty "right on" though.

Today the Court strikes down as inadequate the most
generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens
detained by this country as enemy combatants. The political
branches crafted these procedures amidst an ongoing
military conflict, after much careful investigation and
thorough debate. The Court rejects them today out of
hand, without bothering to say what due process rights
the detainees possess, without explaining how the statute
fails to vindicate those rights, and before a single petitioner
has even attempted to avail himself of the law’s
operation. And to what effect? The majority merely replaces
a review system designed by the people’s representatives
with a set of shapeless procedures to be defined by
federal courts at some future date.

[Elfie]

I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that having "enemy combatants" would require a declared war.

Korea....Vietnam.....

[bj229r]

Lol there a couple  hundred foreign women-and-children killers using US courts to get OUT of Gitmo, and in Baghdad, we have a couple US citizens trying to use US COurts to get INTO Gitmo:

The Supreme Court has ruled against two U.S. citizens held in Baghdad who tried to use American courts to challenge their detention.

The unanimous decision came in the cases of Shawqi Omar, taken into custody in Iraq for allegedly assisting a terrorist network, and Mohammad Munaf, whose death sentence by an Iraqi court was recently overturned. Munaf has been accused in Iraq of setting up the 2005 kidnapping of three Romanian journalists.

Held by the U.S. military at Camp Cropper near Baghdad International Airport, both men are Sunni Muslims who say they will be tortured if turned over to the Iraqi government.

http://www.lawinfo.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/News.story/msgID/F7DC52D1-5689-4BC6-8007-BAC9A51133E7

[ZetaNine]

I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that having "enemy combatants" would require a declared war.

war came to us babe......... 86 the semantics

[Gunslinger]

I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that having "enemy combatants" would require a declared war.

Actually it just has to do with conflict in general as enemy combatants are defined in US Law of Armed Conflict.  No declaration is required.

[Mickey1992]

Bring the detainees before a court, have the US prove how/why the are unlawful enemy combatants, then put them back in detention.

[Rich46yo]

Right when you think Americans couldnt get stupider along comes this.

[Elfie]

Bring the detainees before a court, have the US prove how/why the are unlawful enemy combatants, then put them back in detention.

The article states they are classified as enemy combatants, not unlawful enemy combatants. If they are in fact classified as unlawful combatants, I don't see why they need access to civilian courts. Is there a precedent for this?

If the prisoners are in fact classified simply as enemy combatants then there is no precedent in allowing them access to civilian courts. Also, iirc, it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions to actually charge enemy combatants w/ crimes for simply performing their duty as combatants.

[Donzo]

I say try them and return them to Iraq.

However, next time we don't just "capture" them.

[Mickey1992]

The article states they are classified as enemy combatants, not unlawful enemy combatants.

"The President has determined that al Qaida members are unlawful combatants because (among other reasons) they are members of a non-state actor terrorist group that does not receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. He additionally determined that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants because they do not satisfy the criteria for POW status set out in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. Although the President’s determination on this issue is final, courts have concurred with his determination."

http://www.cfr.org/publication/5312/enemy_combatants.html

[Elfie]

"The President has determined that al Qaida members are unlawful combatants because (among other reasons) they are members of a non-state actor terrorist group that does not receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. He additionally determined that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants because they do not satisfy the criteria for POW status set out in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. Although the President’s determination on this issue is final, courts have concurred with his determination."

http://www.cfr.org/publication/5312/enemy_combatants.html

Very informative link, thanks. That information should convince even MT that the prisoners are not being held illegally.

[Mickey1992]

Keep in mind that that document was from 2002.  Congress has tried to tweak the law 3 times since then so some of it may not still apply.