It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Validating the Terrorist Agenda?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 09:57 PM
Has the US Supreme Court, given credence to the Terror Community, and validated their beliefs and actions as representative of the Global Community?

Supreme Court rules against Bush on Gitmo trials
By Gina Holland
The Associated Press

Washington - The Supreme Court ruled today that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.

The ruling, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and international Geneva conventions.

I was always under the presumption (maybe thats my problem though) that these being held, where neither under the Geneva Conventions, or U.S. Law, simply due to the fact they represent no one, other than their own criminal intent. They represent no Country, or Political Party. They are not part of an Armed Force under any jurisdiction, nor do they or have they previously been a signatory party of any of these agreements.

"Trial by military commission raises separation-of-powers concerns of the highest order," Kennedy wrote in his opinion.

So, this is the basis of the ruling put forth by the Supreme's, but what is this really saying. The U.S. Supreme Court has power to regulate Court Actions outside of the U.S.? Or are they moving the Terrorist scum, up the ladder of acceptability, and giving them legitimate claims of due process as provided by the Laws of the International Community and U.S. Law?

In the days that have followed, more questions are now faced than we had two weeks ago. What is to be done?

News Analyis: Bush takes a step back on detainees
By Scott Shane The New York Times

Published: July 12, 2006

......In the meantime, the Supreme Court was knocking down some of the administration's key assertions of presidential power in the battle against terror.

In Rasul v. Bush in 2004, the court ruled that American courts had the authority to decide whether foreign terror suspects held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, had been rightfully detained. And on June 29, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the court rejected the administration's rules for military commissions set up to try Guantánamo detainees, saying it had failed to seek Congressional approval and had fallen short of the standards set by law and the Geneva Conventions.

It was the Hamdan ruling that prompted England's memo. "It is my understanding," he wrote, that all current Defense Department rules were already in compliance with Article 3.......

Now this is where I get lost on this.

Civil People deserve Civil Treatment, and I do not think anyone would argue this, but this seemingly represents a conflict between the Judical and Excecutive, and the will of both, deeming who really holds the Power.

In light of this, Terrorist are now being granted Civilian Rights, and Judical Rights afforded only to those who are part of the International Community, or entitled to U.S. Law.

With this said, it can be then argued, they are entitle to defense at the Tax Payer's expense, and the protections afforded Civilians and Countries at war, to which Terrorist are part of neither.

Now, I do understand, Congress is being spoken to in respects to this, and some measures maybe able to be ratified inorder to expedite the disposal of these Terrorists in a timely fashion. I trust YOU people will write or Email your Congress man/woman, and request them to support the Executive Branch and it's plans, so they can start to get rid of these people in Gitmo as soon as possible.

Sitting without Charge or Trial, is an abuse, and one that should have been the main concern of the Supreme's, not delaying these trials further, and throwing roadblocks in the path of justice.

In doing what they did, it seems to me, that now any Terror Group, will be afforded the same liberties, despite their intent on destroying those same liberties they are now being granted.

Not to forget, they now become like every civilian or representative of a foreign combative group, and have Court recognition as a legitimate entity, rather than the scum of the earth they truly are. Cockroaches, that should be stomped. Not coddled and your tax expense.

And it thought the Catch Phrase was, you either with us or against us. Seems the Supreme's have chosen to be against.



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 10:45 PM
The Constitution of the United States makes no exceptions for terrorists, child molesters, nun cannibals, or anyone else, no matter how uncivilized.

The US has one set of laws that apply to all actions of the United States government, period.

Don't like it? Leave it, as the right is fond of saying.

Find a country where authority is absolute and the government is not subject to it's own laws, or to the limits on state power imposed by the Constitution.

posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 11:31 PM

Originally posted by xmotex
Find a country where authority is absolute and the government is not subject to it's own laws, or to the limits on state power imposed by the Constitution.

Ah, maybe you would wish to rephrase that.

There are toooo many to list.

But if your point is, the Supreme's are expressing this view point, not so much as a sympathy for the terrorist, as much are they are correcting an oversight in the preparation and setup of the Military Justice Plan, that the Whitehouse originally believed they could have held, due to the nature of these combatives, then maybe reigning in these Trials, and correcting these oversights by obtaining Congressional Approval, or at the least, some guidence from Congress, on how to proceed, maybe a good thing, in this respect.

I guess the Result, will be a "wait and see" sort of event.

Somehow, I can not see how it is, the Supreme's would be willing to take responsibility for all occured costs, within the U.S. Legal System, and expensing that against the Population.

People of No Homeland, (At least one that would be willing to Stand Up and say so.), which represent no standing Army, (At least one who would be willing to Stand Up and do so on the Battlefield), are not entitled to the benefits as currently laidout, but I guess the Supreme's may have over ruled me on that.

But that I guess, is another "wait and see" sort of thing.



[edit on 13-7-2006 by Shane]

posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 06:09 AM

There are toooo many to list.

Exactly, but this isn't one of them.

The Court ruling was a technical ruling of legal interpretation, not a moral opinion about the treatment of suspected terrorists. The Executive acted outside US law, and the Court reigned them in: that's their job, to ensure the Legislative and Executive branches act within the law.

new topics

top topics

log in