ABUSE CRISIS: Federal Judge Says Guantanamo Military Tribunals Unconstitutional

U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens Green has ruled that the military tribunals being held for prisoners in Guantanamo, Cuba are unconstitutional. The prisoners in Guantanamo are being held by the U.S. government as enemy combatants.



This is a definite setback for the U.S. government policy regarding terrorists picked up on the battlefield. The decision seems to conflict with earlier court rulings, and I expect that this case will be immediately appealed to a higher court by the Bush administration.

Related News Links:
FOX News


[edit on 31-1-2005 by Banshee]

throw this lady judge in guantanamo...she is obviously a traitor and looking to destroy the united states with this dangerous decision she made. her next ruling will make it legal for terrorists to attack us as long as they give us a warning ahead of time....

The link reads that the story is unavailable.

Originally posted by Nygdan
The link reads that the story is unavailable.

They're both working for me.

Originally posted by Yeticha
throw this lady judge in guantanamo...she is obviously a traitor and looking to destroy the united states with this dangerous decision she made. ....

This Judge is protecting YOUR civil rights and liberties.

"The court concludes that the petitioners have stated valid claims under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and that the procedures implemented by the government to confirm that the petitioners are 'enemy combatants' subject to indefinite detention violate the petitioners' rights to due process of law," Green wrote.

...The law is the law: It must apply across the board or not at all. It can't be used arbitrarily.

If you don't want suspected terrorists or anyone to have constitutional rights - the solution is simple - help Bush change the Constitution.


.

Strange, the Reuters one does say that its not available. Fox one works tho.

a pdf of the ruling itself
www.foxnews.com...

Should make for intersting reading. Not sure what she is basing this on, that they are held by the US therefore they are protected by the constitution? This isn't a guarentee thats given to actual POWs, seems odd to give it to them.

Originally posted by soficrow
...The law is the law: It must apply across the board or not at all. It can't be used arbitrarily.

If you don't want suspected terrorists or anyone to have constitutional rights - the solution is simple - help Bush change the Constitution.
.

I don't believe that the Constitution ever envisioned that the rights for civil cases and criminal trials would be extended to enemy fighters captured on a foreign battlefield by the military. I don't think that has ever been done before either by the U.S. or any other country in history.

this is just some activist judge trying to make a name for herself...these are not soldiers of any government so they get no protections....that is how the law goes concerning the geneva convention so if this judge says anything else it will just be her own made up rules....i'd chop off every body part one by one of these terrorists until i was satisfied they spilled all their secrets...i wouldn't be concerned about a terrorist losing a couple fingers if it saves thousands or millions of people...and if you chop off their fingers and get no intel from them, then at least they can't shoot another gun

Originally posted by djohnsto77

Originally posted by soficrow
...The law is the law: It must apply across the board or not at all. It can't be used arbitrarily.

If you don't want suspected terrorists or anyone to have constitutional rights - the solution is simple - help Bush change the Constitution.
.

I don't believe that the Constitution ever envisioned that the rights for civil cases and criminal trials would be extended to enemy fighters captured on a foreign battlefield by the military. I don't think that has ever been done before either by the U.S. or any other country in history.

...I think some of the people caught in the net are American citizens 'captured' on American soil, but...

...The Bush regime routinely ignores laws that it doesn't like Ie. propaganda:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

and environmental protection laws
www.abovetopsecret.com...

...with the result that the only recourse is civil litigation - so while you're likely right that " the Constitution ever envisioned that the rights for civil cases and criminal trials would be extended to enemy fighters captured on a foreign battlefield by the military" - it seems that human rights activists are using the only available avenue left to protect rights normally safe-guarded (in this case) by international laws ignored by the Bush administration.



BTW - this link works fine for me
www.reuters.com...

All prisoners in Guantanamo were captured in Afghanistan.

Please note that the judge is not saying that the detainess have full constitutional protections. Not too long ago the SCOTUS ruled that the detainess should have access to the courts. Then, recently, one or a few tried to have their trial moved in total into a civilian court. This was denied. This judge is apparently responding to that ruling (i don't know if she is an appeals judge on that ruling in particular).

Obviously, the Constitution of the United States does not apply in total to POWs or 'enemy combatants' (with the possible exception of US citizens who are enemy combatants). The Constitution has no jurisdiction over foreigners, at least not ones not held by the US in some way or another.


An excellent photo to accompany the discussion.

Another Source for the Story

Lets look at part of the actual statement

"The court concludes that the petitioners have stated valid claims under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and that the procedures implemented by the government to confirm that the petitioners are 'enemy combatants' subject to indefinite detention violate the petitioners' rights to due process of law," Green wrote.

This seems to mean that they can challenge their status as enemy combatants. That seems moderately reasonable, tho I disagree with it entirely. I plan on reading that pdf of the actual decision later tonight
www.foxnews.com...

Excellent point Nygdan, cause here is what another Federal Judge had to say:

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

[edit on 31-1-2005 by Seekerof]

Jose Padilla is an american citizen/turncoat who was captured in the US and is held at Gitmo, last I heard anyway. I have also heard that other detainess, some of the recently released ones, were captured in Pakistan, and presumably other Fronts of the war.

The problem is that not everyone there was caught red handed firing upon US and Allied Soldiers.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Jose Padilla is an american citizen/turncoat who was captured in the US and is held at Gitmo, last I heard anyway. I have also heard that other detainess, some of the recently released ones, were captured in Pakistan, and presumably other Fronts of the war.

The problem is that not everyone there was caught red handed firing upon US and Allied Soldiers.

I don't think Jose Padilla was ever in Guantanamo, if you have a link that says otherwise, please post it.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
All prisoners in Guantanamo were captured in Afghanistan.

A small point, but I know this to be not true. The Australian released was taken in Pakistan. I am sure there are more.

Originally posted by Kriz_4

Originally posted by djohnsto77
All prisoners in Guantanamo were captured in Afghanistan.

A small point, but I know this to be not true. The Australian released was taken in Pakistan. I am sure there are more.

OK, well I mean they were captured in the general area from the war in Afghanistan.

.
I suppose Seekerof if you want to hide behind technicalities you can,

These people were turned in for 5000 UDS a head.
Not one shred of proof was required, just the word of the person pocketing the 5 grand.

Capture people, detain them without informing anyone, beat and torture them for information they may or more likely don't have. All without any limit of time or requirement that they be given a hearing.

These are POLICE STATE tactics.

When did the US change from the beacon of freedom, liberty and the rule of law, to the bastion of secret police tactics?

Does having more in common with Hitler and Stalin's methods than the founding fathers trouble anyone else?

habeas corpus

The writ's sole function is to release an individual from unlawful imprisonment; through this use it has come to be regarded as the great writ of liberty.

This is a part of the constitution.
.