It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Federal Judge Says Guantanamo Military Tribunals Unconstitutional

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   
FOX News reports that a U.S. federal judge has determined the military tribunals being held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba are unconstitutional because they don't insure due process of law.

I don't see anything on the Internet yet.

More on this to come...




posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
FOX News reports that a U.S. federal judge has determined the military tribunals being held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba are unconstitutional because they don't insure due process of law.

I don't see anything on the Internet yet.

More on this to come...


Please find the judges name so we can start "impeachment" process against him/her.............



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 09:14 AM
link   
I just submitted this as an ATSNN news story.

Here's the link to a Reuter's story:
www.reuters.com...



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Any information as to what specifically is impeding due process? I am interested in this subject, especially since the right has been saying "They aren't wearing uniforms... bla bla bla" until they effectively forget that we have human beings down there. Untried ones at that.

Thanks



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Senior Judge Joyce Hens Green (bio)
Judge Green was appointed United States District Judge for the District of Columbia in May 1979. She was a member of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court from May 1988 until her seven-year term expired in May 1995, and served as its Presiding Judge from May 1990 until the expiration of her term. Judge Green graduated from the University of Maryland, receiving a B.A. in 1949, and the George Washington University Law School, receiving a J.D. in 1951. Judge Green practiced law in the District of Columbia and Virginia until she was appointed Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in 1968, where she served until her appointment to the federal bench in 1979. She is a member of the U.S. Judicial Conference’s Judicial Branch Committee and Chair (1997 - 98), National Conference of Federal Trial Judges. Judge Green took senior status in July 1995

www.dcd.uscourts.gov...



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 09:21 AM
link   
She seems to think that these people that were caught on an enemy battlefield fighting our soldiers are entitled to the full protection of the U.S. constitution and courts. I doubt this is an opinion that will be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
She seems to think that these people that were caught on an enemy battlefield fighting our soldiers are entitled to the full protection of the U.S. constitution and courts. I doubt this is an opinion that will be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.


This supreme court has done some very strange things, don't take anything for granted. If these terrorist ever attacked an abortion clinc it would all be over...........



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 10:34 AM
link   
I rather like to think that some do not think we need a piece of paper to tell us that all people deserve due process and should be considered innocent until proven guilty. We are a country that believes that all people should be afforded these God given rights that America has allowed us to enjoy.

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights"

Personally, I believe that fair treatment and due process are the right of all people, and should be afforded those rights because we are a compassionate, just, and civilized country (at least we are supposed to be).



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 10:43 AM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...
There is another thread on this


Why are there sometimes a dupicate, one in ATSNN proper, the other in 'other news' or some such? Isn't ATSNN enough?



are entitled to the full protection of the U.S. constitution and courts.

Doesn't look like full protection, so far anyway. She is arguing that when theSupreme Court ruled that they had legal access to the civilian court system, that this meant that they could be tried in the civilian court system.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   
If one argues that the Constitution applies to all humanity, then it requires that the US government do exactly what the Bush admin claims to be doing, replacing tyrannies with democracies.

I suspect that no one is actually arguing that the whole of the constitution applies to non US citizens.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   
The Constitution applies to Americans in practice, but in principle it supports the belief that all people are created equal, and in that deserve the same consideration when under the US government.

These terror suspects are being detained by the US government, and in that should be treated by the government by the beliefs this country was founded on.

There is honor in being just in the face of an enemy that would not do the same. We can not claim the moral high ground if we do not take it.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
The Constitution applies to Americans in practice, but in principle it supports the belief that all people are created equal, and in that deserve the same consideration when under the US government.

These terror suspects are being detained by the US government, and in that should be treated by the government by the beliefs this country was founded on.

There is honor in being just in the face of an enemy that would not do the same. We can not claim the moral high ground if we do not take it.


There is a long history of "enemy combatants" and there process outside the US constitution. How can the Courts grant rights to non-citizens? Find in the constitution where this is specifically outlined.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   
disreguard

[edit on 31-1-2005 by Halfofone]



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Halfofone
We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal and independent

All men, not all Americans.


First, The Declaration of Independance is not a legal document. Second, all men are treated the same way. All foreign citizens while in the U.S. have full constitutional protection just the same as U.S. citizens. American citizens caught overseas waging war against the U.S. were also given the "enemy combatant" label.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   
It is not specifically outlined, but then again not much in the terrorism department is in any documents, UN, US, whatever.

Point is, is that I am speaking to the intent of America and it's principles. These principles of justice, freedom, and rightousness have made America great. They should continue regardless of who is involved and for what reasons.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Here ya go....from a Federal Judge ruling:


Leon concluded the detainees presented "no viable theory" to support their claim that they are being held in violation of federal laws. Foreign citizens captured and detained outside the United States have no rights under the Constitution or international law, he said.

Detainees Can't Challenge Confinement



seekerof



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   
In addition, courts do not grant rights. Anyone under the umbrela of America (citizens, immagrents of any kind, detainees, etc) are subject to American laws which have been estabished under a code that rights are given by God, and only taken away or limited by man.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Really, KJ?
Might want to talk to Judge Leon, maybe.
Look above your post and you'll see and read what he ruled.



seekerof



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Seeker:

There is sometimes a difference between the law and the right thing to do. Again, speaking only about humanity, you are left with the idea that they are innocent until proven guilty and should be given reasonable access to due process.

These are American principles that are respectable to civilized people and should be maintained.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Their is a distinct difference between whats "right" (subjective) and law (objective), KJ.



seekerof



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join