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.

 

POLITICS: Senate Bars Detainees From Filing Lawsuits

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Late Thursday, the US Senate voted 49-42 on a proposal to bar terror suspects being held at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba military detention center from challenging their detentions in US federal courts. If the amendment to the military budget bill survives in its current form it would nullify a June 2004 Supreme Court ruling that detainees are legally entitled to challenge their detentions in U.S. courts.
 



news. yahoo.com
The Senate voted Thursday to bar foreign terror suspects at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, from filing lawsuits in American courts to challenge their detentions, despite a Supreme Court ruling last year that granted such access.

In a 49-42 vote, senators added the provision by Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), R-S.C., to a sweeping defense policy bill.

Under the provision, Guantanamo Bay detainees would be allowed to appeal their status as an "enemy combatant" one time, to the Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. But they would not be able to file petitions known as writs of habeas corpus, which are used to fight unlawful detentions, in that or any other U.S. court.

"For 200 years, ladies and gentlemen, in the law of armed conflict, no nation has given an enemy combatant, a terrorist, an al-Qaida member the ability to go into every federal court in this United States and sue the people that are fighting the war for us," Graham told his colleagues.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This vote came just days after the Supreme Court said it would consider the constitutionality of war crimes trials before Bush's military tribunals for some detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Needless to say human rights groups are crying foul over this proposal, but who cares.

The part I like about the proposal is, it will nullify any lawsuits that are pending at the time the law is passed, which will free up our court system from the needless lawsuits by the likes of the ACLU and other Human Rights groups.

[edit on 11/11/2005 by shots]




posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Hmm, it will be interesting to see what will happen if this passes. Has there ever been a case before where the Congress tried to limit the federal courts' juristiction after the Supreme Court has granted certiorari? It certainly seems constititutional:



In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
It certainly seems constititutional:


I agree and think this is long overdue. There is absolutely no reason to give them access to the US civilian court system since this involves military operations which are normally held in the military court system.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I think the question was if we were really at war, since there wasn't an explicit declaration of war by the Congress. The D.C. Circuit ruled that by giving the President the authorization for military action, the Congress did automatically give the President the war powers to detain combantants, so it was basically a de facto declaration of war.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I think the question was if we were really at war, since there wasn't an explicit declaration of war by the Congress. The D.C. Circuit ruled that by giving the President the authorization for military action, the Congress did automatically give the President the war powers to detain combantants, so it was basically a de facto declaration of war.


I hear ya. I think there is a very good reason for no Official Declaration of War. If they had declared war it would have given the president powers to ration everything from soup to nuts if he wanted too.


To be honest, I am not sure just what additional powers the president gets during war time but they are very drastic as I understand it. For example he could seize companies and order them to built what he wants and that is something that I think would not be good for the country, unless of course those items were needed for the war effort.


As I stated earlier, I think this is a step in the right direction, since Military cases should be governed by military courts and not civilian.

A good example would be the Nuremberg tribunals held after world war two.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 02:22 PM
link   
If they fall under the jurisdiction of the military court then they are entitled to protections under the Geneva Convention. Its either that or they are entitled to protection under the same laws U.S. citizens are since they are technically being held on U.S. soil. I'd watch my step if I were Bush. I don't think he wants to be found in violation of the Geneva Convention. But then when has he ever cared about human rights?



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 04:30 AM
link   
The question that linger is "What do you do with enemy combatants?" Do you keep them detained forever? I don't think the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay are of importance anymore, intelligence wise, Al Quieda's moved on. What do you do with a person that can't be released because if you do he fight and plot against you again. They can't recieve a fair trial or tribunal because the government says that the evidence presented would present security risk.

What do you do with enemy combatants? Any suggestions?



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 05:55 PM
link   
You charge them and put them on trial. If they are found not guilty then you let them go because you were wrong. If they are found guilty then you do whatever... lock them up for life or execute them. But you must provide a fair trial otherwise you are no better than Saddam.



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Many at guantanamo were handed over for pay by warlords in Afghanistan. All we have is some warlord's word that the person in question is an "enemy combatant" and not just a guy who slept with his sister or a tourist handed over for a few extra bucks.

Even prisoners of war (used to) have rights under US jusrisdiction.

Bush has done more to destroy the republic than any terrorist could dream of. Bin Laden has already won.



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Where does this notion of a duty to be just and humane to people trying to kill us come from exactly?


Originally posted by Indy
If they fall under the jurisdiction of the military court then they are entitled to protections under the Geneva Convention. Its either that or they are entitled to protection under the same laws U.S. citizens are since they are technically being held on U.S. soil. I'd watch my step if I were Bush. I don't think he wants to be found in violation of the Geneva Convention. But then when has he ever cared about human rights?


Admittedly, while the legal arguments are ongoing, the desicions coming down again and again affirm that those detained individuals declared as Illegal Enemy Combatants have almost no rights or protections under either the Geneva Convention or the U.S. Constitution, Indy.

Bear this in mind:


The non-citizen detainees in Guantanamo have no right to habeas corpus relief in U.S. courts. See, e.g., Coalition of Clergy v. Bush, 189 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (C.D. Cal. 2002), affirmed on other grounds, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 23705 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2002).


And this:


Enemy Combatant

An “enemy combatant” is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban. In applying this definition, the United States government has acted consistently with the observation of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37-38 (1942): “Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war.”

“Enemy combatant” is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention. (The treatment accorded to unlawful combatants is discussed below).

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.


Also this:


Authority to Detain

The President has unquestioned authority to detain enemy combatants, including those who are U.S. citizens, during wartime. See, e.g., Quirin, 317 U.S. at 31, 37 (1942); Colepaugh v. Looney, 235 F. 2d 429, 432 (10th Cir. 1956); In re Territo, 156 F. 2d 142, 145 (9th Cir. 1946). The Fourth Circuit recently reaffirmed this proposition. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 296 F.3d 278, 281, 283 (4th Cir. 2002). The authority to detain enemy combatants flows primarily from Article II of the Constitution. In the current conflict, the President’s authority is bolstered by Congress’s Joint Resolution of September 18, 2001, which authorized “the President . . . to use all necessary and appropriate force” against al Qaida and against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines” committed or aided in the September 11 attacks.” Pub. L. No. 107-40, § 2(a), 115 Stat. 224 (2001) (emphasis added). This congressional action clearly triggers (if any trigger were necessary) the President’s traditional authority to detain enemy combatants as Commander in Chief.

Presidents (and their delegates) have detained enemy combatants in every major conflict in the Nation’s history, including recent conflicts such as the Gulf, Vietnam, and Korean wars. During World War II, the United States detained hundreds of thousands of POWs in the United States (some of whom were U.S. citizens) without trial or counsel. Then as now, the purposes of detaining enemy combatants during wartime are, among other things, to gather intelligence and to ensure that detainees do not return to assist the enemy.

Enemy Combatants




seekerof

[edit on 13-11-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 09:53 PM
link   
I'd like to know what foreign courts think. Not what the U.S. courts think. Thats like asking the crook "did you rob the bank?" What do you expect them to say? Internal reviews, and this is what this really is, means nothing. Let an international court decide.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
Let an international court decide.



Let an international court decide


You have got to be kidding! The world court, UN whatever should never and I repeat never have any say in the matter when it comes to what can and cannot be in our court system.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by oily one
The question that linger is "What do you do with enemy combatants?" Do you keep them detained forever? I don't think the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay are of importance anymore, intelligence wise


I agree, what they are going to do with them, feed them, make them comfortable all at the expenses of tax payers?

I think also that they have no more value they have been in jail for to long.

Also I will like to point out that yes they were trying to kill Americans but they did that in their own lands and we were fighting a war.

So occurs is going to be people trying to kill Americans, wars are not one sided you know.


Even when Iraq conflict in the beginning was just that.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 08:24 PM
link   
You deserve the system you are willfully allowing to be created shots. You want to do away with peoples rights to fair trials? Well reap the consequences and dont you dare even think about complaining.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Why should non US citizens have access to our courts? That is a privillege a US citizen has, not a foreign national being held prisoner.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
You want to do away with peoples rights to fair trials?


That is not what I said so stop twisiting my words K. They do have a right to a trial but not in the US "Civilian Court System" Trails for military offences are held by Miltary Tribunals.

educate yourself on the matter you can start here

www.stephen-stratford.co.uk...



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Why should non US citizens have access to our courts? That is a privillege a US citizen has, not a foreign national being held prisoner.


If other nations take this same approach, you would be a fool to travel to them.

Go read your Constitution and tell me where it says habeas corpus applies only to US citizens. Prisoners of war are not held indefinitely.

If there is no state to negotiate with, then they need to be tried as criminals rather than held as soldiers. Simply holding them forever is unacceptable.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Also what these people seem to not comprehend is that these plaintiffs were removed (kidnapped if you will) from their own country by United States forces. If they were whisked away from their country by the US, held in Guantanamo for 3 years, found innocent of any wrong doing then they should be able to sue the United States.

These are not PoW's, the Bush administration has made that abundantly clear. So if they are not Prisoners of a War then they are civilians. The United States cannot kidnap people at will, detain them for 3 years with or without a trial then let them go and not expect any consequences. Who the hell do you think you guys are? Is it any wonder you are despised around the World? Your attitude stinks and your "only Americans can access our courts" is bull# when your own forces are the ones that are bringing these people out of their own country.

[edit on 15/11/05 by subz]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Why should non US citizens have access to our courts? That is a privillege a US citizen has, not a foreign national being held prisoner.


I don't think you people here understand the implications.

THIS INCLUDES US CITIZENS!

You only need to be accused, and then you can be locked up forever.

Giving Judicial powers to the Administration makes America into a Dictatorship.

Have you ever heard of Joseph Padilla?

He is a US citizen that has been held for 3 years and 191 days with no charges being filed against him, and the only evidence being hearsay.

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

Now that you know that you too could spend the rest of your life in Jail just because the US Admin wants it what do you now think?

Do you think the law should be amended to include US Citzens among those who can be held against their will forever?

Do you think the right to be accused, and to have a fair trial is something you can do without and still be free?

[edit on 15-11-2005 by ArchAngel]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Also what these people seem to not comprehend is that these plaintiffs were removed (kidnapped if you will) from their own country by United States forces. If they were whisked away from their country by the US, held in Guantanamo for 3 years, found innocent of any wrong doing then they should be able to sue the United States.




Haven't you heard the vast majority of al Qeda come from Saudi Arabia therefore they are not as you content citizens of that country. Nice try at deception though



Further more Al Queda operatives are not POW's the are considered illegal combatants.


Members of the al Qaeda organization are not considered "prisoners of war," and therefore, do not have protection under the Geneva Conventions. Instead, al Qaeda terrorists are, under international law, considered "illegal combatants," and are subject to trial by military tribunals.

Source


BTW you are lucky you edited your cussing out I was going to file a complaint. You of all pepole should know that ATSNN is held to a higher standard then normal boards since you are running for election.

[edit on 11/15/2005 by shots]




top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join