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.

 

Justice Dept asks court to abandon US system of justice

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   
I just found this :Link




WASHINGTON, Jan. 3 -- The Bush administration notified federal trial judges in Washington that it would soon ask them to dismiss all lawsuits brought by prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, challenging their detentions, Justice Department officials said Tuesday. unknownnews.org




The action means that the administration is moving swiftly to take advantage of an amendment to the military bill that President Bush signed into law last Friday. The amendment strips federal courts from hearing habeas corpus petitions from Guantanamo detainees. unknownnews.org


Why don't they want these "terrorists" have there day in court?? Its the American way to be able to confront there accusers. If these people are terrorists, prove it.


mod edit to use "ex" instead of "quote"
Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ**
Quote Reference.

[edit on 20-1-2006 by sanctum]




posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Umm... non American citizens are not entitled to the US Constitution, and that includes Habeas Corpus.

[edit on 19-1-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Umm... non American citizens are not entitled to the UN Constitution, and that includes Habeas Corpus.


Not according to the US Supreme Court Link
and this Link2 And this Link3



(a) The District Court has jurisdiction to hear petitioners’ habeas challenges under 28 U.S. C. §2241, which authorizes district courts, “within their respective jurisdictions,” to entertain habeas applications by persons claiming to be held “in custody in violation of the … laws … of the United States,” §§2241(a), (c)(3). Such jurisdiction extends to aliens held in a territory over which the United States exercises plenary and exclusive jurisdiction, but not “ultimate sovereignty.” Pp. 4—16.supct.law.cornell.edu


mod edit to use "ex" instead of "quote"
Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ**
Quote Reference.

[edit on 20-1-2006 by sanctum]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Oh my god, This is really really really starting to get to me now.

This guy will make or pass any law or ammendment that gives him extra powers, that covers his ass and will deny justice to the American People, and to the rest of the world. Regardless of weather these people are entitled to be treated like the UN Constitution says it should (Which by the way, everyone in the world is covered by.. especially when it comes to the Human Rights section) the fact they are being denied any kind of justice is really begining to boiling my blood.

How can we stand fort his?

Bush realises he will have no way of winning these court cases if they go to court, so he decides to pass laws that allow him to stop them from giong to court.



And people, actually voted for this guy? Not just once, but twice?


[edit on 19-1-2006 by ekul08]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 05:44 PM
link   
, I know they said that, but that decision is so horrible it doesn't even deserve to get mentioned, a non US citizen can have the same rights as me?
Oh, that’s a good one. I’m glad President Bush is exercising this right to reverse that outrageous decision.

Note: I had a mistake in my previous post, I meant US constitution, not UN Constitution.


[edit on 19-1-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
, I know they said that, but that decision is so horrible it doesn't even deserve to get mentioned, a non US citizen can have the same rights as me?
Oh, that’s a good one. I’m glad President Bush is exercising this right to reverse that outrageous decision.


Uh President Bush Doesn't have the Right to overturn a ruling by the United States Supreme Court. The old law and the new law Is Unconstitutional, and will not hold up in the courts. Let me ask you, how would you feel if Americans were being held without any type of due-process in another country?
not including hostages. Would that be ok? and if not then why not, we are doing it.....

It amazes me people will hold Bush over our Constitution, Our Constitution is what has set us apart from the rest of the world, and has givin you the freedoms you enjoy today. Not Bush! Not the Republican Party, Not the Democrat Party!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you really have unwavering support to President Bush that you feel he is beyond the High Courts and the Constitution!!!

Im not implying these "terrorits" are innocent, But Everyone deserves there day in court Its UnAmerican not to do so.

IMHO

[edit on 19-1-2006 by LDragonFire]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Hey does that means that if an American citizen is taken to Guantanamo they would not be able to get their rights also?

I think Bush did that because the supreme court and Padilla day in court.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Uh President Bush Doesn't have the Right to overturn a ruling by the United States Supreme Court. The old law and the new law Is Unconstitutional, and will not hold up in the courts.


I know, the congress does though, and they should pass a law overturning that decision.
Show me where in the constitution it says foreign enemy combatants or POW, whatever you want to call them, show me where it says they are entitled to US civil trials.


Let me ask you, how would you feel if Americans were being held without any type of due-process in another country? not including hostages. Would that be ok? and if not then why not, we are doing it....


It doesn’t matter how I would feel, if the constitution of that country does not offer the same protection to foreigners as it does to its citizens then no matter how much I may or may not like it that still wont change the fact that that’s their law.

Also, we have given the detainees at Guantanamo a trial conducted by a military tribunal, what this is discussing is a US civil trial. Now I’m sorry but I don’t feel we should have to bend over backwards because Akhmed was unhappy with his military tribunal. That is how we have always tried our enemy forces, by military tribunals.


Im not implying these "terrorits" are innocent, But Everyone deserves there day in court Its UnAmerican not to do so.


I don’t think its un-American at all to deny terrorists access to our civil courts.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 07:49 PM
link   
westpoint, this might explain pretty well www.usconstitution.net...

[edit on 19-1-2006 by namehere]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 08:30 PM
link   

westpoint, this might explain pretty well www.usconstitution.net...


Umm... thanks for the link, not sure what it was for, but thanks anyway.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   
A civil trial?, I was talking about a crimminal trial, we have labeled these people as terrorists, let a crimminal trail prove this point. And if they are not terrorists, but POW's then this Linkshould have beeen used.

Have all the prisoners at Gitmo recieved a military Trial?



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Well, this brings about an interesting scenario and a fundamental one at that. How can the Judicial Branch be a check/balance if the Legislative/Executive Branch makes it impossible for the Judicial Branch to hear cases?

It sounds like what the Fed. Gov. wants to do is to take away the checks and balances system. As well, I believe the US has already stripped any kind of responsibility to International Courts.

So, I guess technically the US can find any kind of foreigner, call them a "terrorist", "POW", or "enemy combatant" and make them disappear without any kind of legal consequence for their actions.

There must be some very gullible people out there who would entrust this kind of power to total strangers. If I was a foreigner in the US, I would watch my back.

[edit on 20-1-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
, I know they said that, but that decision is so horrible it doesn't even deserve to get mentioned, a non US citizen can have the same rights as me?
Oh, that’s a good one. I’m glad President Bush is exercising this right to reverse that outrageous decision.
[edit on 19-1-2006 by WestPoint23]


Why exactly do you feel that is outrageous for a non-citizen to have access to the rights as a citizen? Perhaps you could go into a little more detail on your intriguing opinion. Exactly what rights are non citizens entitled to in your opinion?



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   

A civil trial?, I was talking about a crimminal trial, we have labeled these people as terrorists, let a crimminal trail prove this point.


We were doing just that, Military Tribunals were deciding via trial if a detainee was a terrorist or if he was innocent. Either way it should be a Military Tribunal who decides that, not a civilian judge from an American court. These proceedings were only stopped when their legality was ridiculously challenged.


Have all the prisoners at Gitmo recieved a military Trial?


Like I mentioned before, a good deal of them had been tried under this system before it stopped. These precedents however are scheduled to start again very soon. Enemy Combats, POW, call them what you will have always been tried by Military Panels.


Why exactly do you feel that is outrageous for a non-citizen to have access to the rights as a citizen?


It shouldn’t just be a matter of being associated with the US or just being on our soil. You have to earn and gain the rights that citizens are granted. Simply stepping foot our soil, or attacking our troops is not reason enough.


Exactly what rights are non citizens entitled to in your opinion?


That’s a good question, and one that I’m entirely sure I can answer. However in my opinion non citizens of a state in which they are currently residing in are entitled to basic human rights, as defined by international law. Now, if you adhere to and respect the laws of the country you are currently in, then you shall enjoy those international rights granted to you. However, if you were to in anyway violate or break the laws of the host county then you should immediately be placed in their jurisdiction (except in cases of prior agreement between the two parties) and held under their laws governing foreigners. What those laws may be is entirely up to that country to decide.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join