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.

 

Supreme Court backs rights for Guantanamo detainees

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:
JSR

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 09:43 AM
link   
I believe this will change the dynamic of how the war is fought. I only hope this does not turn the American court system into a big circus.



WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.
The justices handed the Bush administration its third setback at the high court since 2004 over its treatment of prisoners who are being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The vote was 5-4, with the court's liberal justices in the majority.


source: www.breitbart.com...

let the discussion begin.

This raises a few question for me.
1. Will most or all of the cases brought be thrown due to mistreatment. Or the claims of coerced testimony, and illegal interrogation tactics.

2. Will the military be forced to use intelligence gathered by the CIA in a domestic court room? Can they even do that?

3. Will the consolets of the respective countries be call to represent the prisoners.

4. Will the status of "Enemy Combatant" be dropped for some description criminal charge. Can Constitutional rights be extended to foreigners whos crime was committed in a foreign country.

There are more question. I just cant think of them now.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by JSR]




posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   
I really really really hope that Dimension Detective shows up for this thread.
This is what I have been talking about.
The Supreme Court has been just cringing at all of Bush's anti-constitutional antics.
I said that the Court was just hoping to wait Bush out and fix these things quietly or just let some of the insane things like suspending Habeas Corpus expire without embarrassing the Executive branch.

To me this story just goes to show that the Judicial branch isn't sleeping or like Dimension and other CT's would say. "they are in on it too"
The SC is not bought and paid for and you will see more "corrections" as time goes by.
They just don't want to get into an unnecessary war with the executive branch if they can avoid it.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Isn't it great that the U.S. government's checks-and-balances work as designed?

Are there many other countries in the world in which the country's highest court would stand up for the rights of accused enemies of the state over the wishes of the President?

It's good to know that "of the people, by the people, and for the people" still means something here in the U.S.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 10:44 AM
link   
It will mean something when we see these detainees in civilian courts. Besides that, I feel that it doesn't address the other secret prisons that fail to make the headlines although this does set an interesting precedent.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 10:49 AM
link   
It's about time....

'inalienable human rights' mean just that human-rights.....not US American rights...



JSR

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   
while searching to answer question #2, i found this about the CIA. a little off-topic, but interesting.



As part of its mandate to gather intelligence, CIA is looking increasingly online for information, and has become a major consumer of social media. "We're looking at YouTube, which carries some unique and honest-to-goodness intelligence," said Doug Naquin, director of the DNI Open Source Center (OSC) at CIA. "We're looking at chat rooms and things that didn't exist five years ago, and trying to stay ahead."[59]


maybe this deserves its own thread.

---------------------edit-----------------
to add source
source: en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 12-6-2008 by JSR]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by JSR
 


Then I suggest that these prisoners should be treated with respect and kept in prison till the war is over. And they are like in their 20s and 30s. The war be over by the time they are in their 80s and 90s.
They are not criminals, just soldiers with rights.


JSR

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
reply to post by JSR
 

They are not criminals, just soldiers with rights.


if I understand you correctly, then yea.....that's my point. if like the article says. "terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts", then what will the charge from the government be? can the government try an "enemy combatant" in a civilian court whos only crime (for lack of a better word) was fighting on the opposite side?

I would guess that more than half will be let go. but the ones who the government wants to try in civilian court must be a charge the civilian court can handle. is there any precedence for this kind of thing? or will this be a new kind of trial?

and something im very curious about is the CIA. will the CIA let into an open civilian court evidence gathered in CIA operations and risk exposure of agents and assets? will intelligence gathered by the CIA be even permissible in a civilian court?

there are just too many questions with this ruling.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by jamie83
 



Indeed.


I applaud the Supreme Courts Decision.

What's even more unbelievable is Senator John McCain who himself was a detainee "prisoner of war" voiced his opposition to the Court decision today.
One more reason I cannot vote for McCain.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Problem is easily solved;no more prisoners.Ex parte Quirin....Since the most important writ of law is going to be used as a petard.It seems that the only plausible course is to remove the radical,from a now convoluted equation of meting out justice,to a much simpler state of affairs.Where-as you raise a rifle,scimitar,plant an IED or just spot for a ululating jihadi sniper,attempting to aim a Dragunov that his culture could never create;you kill them on the spot.No quarter.No aid, nor medical treatment.No surrender allowed.Only death to those who wish to dress as civilians and carry out military activities.

So in a sense, the court has done us a favor.A 5.56 costs magnitudes less than shelter and food...and those pesky military tribunals.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   
As I pointed out in another post:

The Supreme Court ruled against a President one time, and someone asked him about the ruling. The President at the time said "The Supreme Court has made a ruling, now let's see them enforce it!"

I think the same situation is going to apply here. Unless they order the U.S. Marshals to start arresting governmental people, nothing is going to change.

(I wish I could attribute that quote, but I forget who said it)



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by JSR
 


I agree with you whole heartedly here. I don't know that we should be getting so giddy here, it will be interesting to see what the ramifications are in giving "enemy combatants" rights that are normally only given to the citizens of the U.S.
This has potential to be real bad, and its purpose of protecting human rights becoming extremely twisted in it original purpose the future.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by jamie83
 




Isn't it great that the U.S. government's checks-and-balances work as designed?

Are there many other countries in the world in which the country's highest court would stand up for the rights of accused enemies of the state over the wishes of the President?

It's good to know that "of the people, by the people, and for the people" still means something here in the U.S.


Jamie.....this is your most rational post I have seen yet! Thank you.....and a star.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 



The Supreme Court ruled against a President one time, and someone asked him about the ruling. The President at the time said "The Supreme Court has made a ruling, now let's see them enforce it!"

I think the same situation is going to apply here. Unless they order the U.S. Marshals to start arresting governmental people, nothing is going to change.

(I wish I could attribute that quote, but I forget who said it)


That kind of smugness??? Who else could it have been?
It was Bush.

A recycled statement though....and you can bet he didn't read it in a book.



The State of Georgia, two Supreme Court decisions in 1831
and 1832 upholding the rights of the Cherokee nation over the State of
Georgia who had wanted to destroy Cherokee jurisdiction on it's land
because gold had been found on it, and the state seeing the Indians as
tenants on state land decided to "kick them out". Chief Justice John
Marshall ruled that Georgia had no jurisdiction to interfere with the
rights of the Cherokee and removal of them would violate treaties
between them and the U.S. Government. However, Jackson, not liking
these decisions was reported of saying "John Marshall has made his
decision, now let him enforce it."


Source.

Edit to add: Notice they both are referring to a ruling that is tied to a racial issue?


[edit on 3-7-2008 by Grafilthy]



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grafilthy
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 



The Supreme Court ruled against a President one time, and someone asked him about the ruling. The President at the time said "The Supreme Court has made a ruling, now let's see them enforce it!"

I think the same situation is going to apply here. Unless they order the U.S. Marshals to start arresting governmental people, nothing is going to change.

(I wish I could attribute that quote, but I forget who said it)


That kind of smugness??? Who else could it have been?
It was Bush.

A recycled statement though....and you can bet he didn't read it in a book.



The State of Georgia, two Supreme Court decisions in 1831
and 1832 upholding the rights of the Cherokee nation over the State of
Georgia who had wanted to destroy Cherokee jurisdiction on it's land
because gold had been found on it, and the state seeing the Indians as
tenants on state land decided to "kick them out". Chief Justice John
Marshall ruled that Georgia had no jurisdiction to interfere with the
rights of the Cherokee and removal of them would violate treaties
between them and the U.S. Government. However, Jackson, not liking
these decisions was reported of saying "John Marshall has made his
decision, now let him enforce it."


Source.

Edit to add: Notice they both are referring to a ruling that is tied to a racial issue?


[edit on 3-7-2008 by Grafilthy]


Thank you!
I could not for the life of me remember who it was, now I know it was Marshall and Jackson.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join