Supreme court delivers blow against NWO

The US supreme court ruled 5-3 against "Gitmo military tribunals" for detainees.

www.cnn.com...

This is good news....

"Congress has not issued the executive a 'blank check,'" Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in a concurring opinion.

Interestingly, Samuel Alito, supreme court justice recently appointed by BUSH, was one of the 3 who voted for the Bush administration in the ruling.

The case was a major test of Bush's authority as commander-in-chief during war. Bush has aggressively asserted the power of the government to capture, detain, and prosecute suspected terrorists in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

Let's hope rulings such as these further prevent Bush from asserting yet more power, in advancing the agenda of the NWO.

lets be realistic, the government will do what ever they want any how. just take those prisoners to a prison that is not recognised etc...

So...

What do we do with these guys then?

Since it is good news to you that American standards of law now apply to a organization that what desperately to destroy the same laws. what now?

The Supreme court just signed a treaty with Al Queda. I thought the President had that power? I thought Congress must ratify it.

Please tell me why this is good news that these dirt bags now have your rights.

Originally posted by crmanager
So...

What do we do with these guys then?

Since it is good news to you that American standards of law now apply to a organization that what desperately to destroy the same laws. what now?

The Supreme court just signed a treaty with Al Queda. I thought the President had that power? I thought Congress must ratify it.

Please tell me why this is good news that these dirt bags now have your rights.

The idea that I myself might one day be arbitrarily labelled a suspected terrorist and arrested and sent off to gitmo and be subjected to the military justice system does not sit well with me. I would prefer to have a real trial in an American court out in public in front of an American civilian jury of my peers.

I guess that's my answer.

Simply put, it would be way too easy and convenient for the government to simply "get rid of people", (and I'm talking about innocent American citizens) without due process, using "terrorism" as an excuse.



[edit on 29-6-2006 by openfire]

Answer the question...

Does the Supreme Court have the right to sign a treaty?

Originally posted by crmanager
Answer the question...

Does the Supreme Court have the right to sign a treaty?

I'm sorry I was unaware that the Supreme court signed a treaty with Al-Qaida.

By saying the Geneva Convention applies to a non-signatory they signed that treaty. Great!

Not one but two arms are tied behind our back.

And by the way, Unless you are speaking to someone in Peshwar daily or sending money to the Taliban, you shouldn't worry.

Are you?

they didn't sign any treaty with anyone. they just interpreted the laws....and well, decided that Bush was overstepping his authority, which I believe he is also. interpreting the laws of the land....thought that was part of the job description for the supreme court justices....

ya know, until there is something similar to a fair trial for the prisoners of war we are collecting, I don't see how anyone can sit there and make them out to be these horrible terrorists intent on destroying us. how do you know they aint just some peasant boy who was dragged away from his sheep he was tending and handed over to our troops for the nice reward they were offering? you don't!! and I don't care what country they are from, they don't deserve to sit indefinately in a cell without being able to at least tell their side of the story and be proven to be terrorists.

kind of funny really.....conservative christian....christians, the ones who are always blabbing about how our government was formed on christian values. sometimes bringing in that one phrase from our founders to prove their claim....hold these truths to be self evident. That all men are created equal, and endowed by our creator with certain inalianable rights....live, liberty, and the persuit of happiness...

I'll agree that it was a primary tenet that our constitution was founded on, but lets consider the wording here....who endowed these people these rights? the united states??? or the creator?

and to whom were they endowed to?? the citizens of the US, or all men??

so, what is a government, any government doing when the begin to take these basic rights unjustly from their people, if not depriving them of the basic freedoms the our creator gave all of us?
which would be contrary to the creator's will, wouldn't it??

Me thinks the compassionate conservative christian's true colors are showing through!



[edit on 29-6-2006 by dawnstar]

Originally posted by dawnstar
they didn't sign any treaty with anyone. they just interpreted the laws....and well, decided that Bush was overstepping his authority, which I believe he is also. interpreting the laws of the land....thought that was part of the job description for the supreme court justices....

ya know, until there is something similar to a fair trial for the prisoners of war we are collecting, I don't see how anyone can sit there and make them out to be these horrible terrorists intent on destroying us. how do you know they aint just some peasant boy who was dragged away from his sheep he was tending and handed over to our troops for the nice reward they were offering? you don't!! and I don't care what country they are from, they don't deserve to sit indefinately in a cell without being able to at least tell their side of the story and be proven to be terrorists.

kind of funny really.....conservative christian....christians, the ones who are always blabbing about how our government was formed on christian values. sometimes bringing in that one phrase from our founders to prove their claim....hold these truths to be self evident. That all men are created equal, and endowed by our creator with certain inalianable rights....live, liberty, and the persuit of happiness...

I'll agree that it was a primary tenet that our constitution was founded on, but lets consider the wording here....who endowed these people these rights? the united states??? or the creator?

and to whom were they endowed to?? the citizens of the US, or all men??

so, what is a government, any government doing when the begin to take these basic rights unjustly from their people, if not depriving them of the basic freedoms the our creator gave all of us?
which would be contrary to the creator's will, wouldn't it??

Me thinks the compassionate conservative christian's true colors are showing through!

[edit on 29-6-2006 by dawnstar]

I could not have said it better myself.

That sound is my head exploding.

The Creator...

Inalienable rights...

So when our guys were tortured, decapitated and booby trapped their rights were...

American laws apply to Americans. By your thinking American laws apply EVERYWHERE? Stop this BS.

You hate BUSH and this is a set back for him. You LOVE IT. The fact that pure sweet innocent farmers (I.E. blood sucking nutbags are now under US laws and soon to be free is incidental.

well......it wasn't the liberal left squaking about the constitutional foundation begin set on biblical values, now, was it?? and well, this is one of their "proofs" isn't it...
even had some kind of imply that if we remove "God" from the government, well, these right that "God" has given everyone would vanish!!!

but, it sounded good, though, didn't it?? obviously some didn't actually beleive the squaking they were making!

well, we could put them under international law, but yous don't like that idea either, do yas?

tell me, what laws should apply to them, or should they be destined to be in a lawless vacumn?

[edit on 29-6-2006 by dawnstar]

Ahh, now that the explosion is over, and no signs of common decency or
tolerance have been found, maybe we can settle down enough to question whether
the Supreme Court or Mr. Bush should have "signed the treaty".
I'm leaning, . . . .leaning . . . the Supreme Court?

*Note: Dawnstar, you said it right !

Or is it a victory? After all, its a matter of international treaty agreements being used to dictate US policy. Its, clearly, a legitimitization of internationalist law over national sovreignty.

This means that these terrorists will have to be tried in our court system. When they are captured it is in the heat of battle with bullets flying. In many cases there will be no way to gather evidence due to the risk to our soldier’s lives. Soldiers are not criminal investigators nor should they be. I can see this leading to all sorts of insurmountable problems. This is great news for terrorists and terrible news for their victims. They can continue chopping off peoples heads and strapping bombs on their children to blow up innocent civilians encouraged by the knowledge that if they are captured they will be released to do it all over again.

This is a sad day for the victims and their loved ones. If this is allowed to stand many of these butchers will be released due to lack of evidence to kill again. What about the rights of their victims? Who is standing up for them. You can chuckle and laugh and tell yourself how great it is that GW lost this court battle but the truth remains that the terrorists are the only winners in this scenario. The terrorists will be even more encouraged and energized by knowing that many Americans are on their side including the United States Supreme Court. I can only hope that when the next terrorist attack on our soil occurs that those who think this is a good thing remember that they played a part in helping these thugs succeed.

Well...
Bush is going to fight against it. Which isn't wise.

Originally posted by infinite
Well...
Bush is going to fight against it. Which isn't wise.

The people fighting this war volunteer, leave their loved ones behind and risk their lives for us. They should at least know that when they capture these people that we won’t let them back out to come back and take another shot at them. Some will probably never board the plane when released and melt into the background to do terrible deeds right here at home. Like I said “It’s a sad day for America”.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
This means that these terrorists will have to be tried in our court system.

No.

It means that the military comissions weren't sufficiently constructed, and that the courts martial system should be used.

When they are captured it is in the heat of battle with bullets flying.

This is actually not true. Some people have been turned over to the US when accused of being al-qaida or taliban by their neighbhors.

Some will probably never board the plane when released and melt into the background to do terrible deeds right here at home

They are not being released of their own recognizanse. What is happening is that when they are reviewed, and found to not warrant holding, other nations are contacted. If they will take them in, then they are trasported there, and released to those governments. In some cases, they are being put into that countries prison.

All the decision means is that a courts martial instead of a military commission, is going to review their cases.

if we disregard the values our country was founded on, degrade ourselves to their level, and find various reasons not to deal with others in a humane and just way.....well, haven't the terrorists won then also...after all, susposedly, it's our way of life, our freedom and our equality that they hate us for...it must give them great pleasure in watching us tear down this horrible establishment of freedom, equality, and justice we have worked and fought to build up over the past few centuries!!