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: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by krill
you do realize i hope that all these "terrorists" picked off of "battle fields" are not just enemy combatents from iraq and afghanistan right? hell what about the poor muslim american cab driver who was arrested afeter droping a fare off at the airport here in the us ? ohhh what a dangerouse terrorist and such a scarey battle field . not everything is as black and white as you seem to belive there are varying shades of grey.

Please, give me a break with that nonesense.

There you go again, moving the goalposts and changing the subject. Are you doing this because you realize your argument regarding this court decision holds no merit.




posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   
I'm not even going to respond to those who would try to bring down the glory of this moment. The fact is that all of our rights were upheld today. Anyone who can't appreciate that is an unfortunate person.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


I'll give you an answer you will either not like or not understand - it's philosophical.

The U.S. should aspire to be the icon of civil liberties. Instead we have waged a vague war against a vague enemy for vague reasons. We detain them based on vague evidence, in the vague limbo-land of Guantanamo and put them through a vague dog and pony show of military tribunals.

We would never stand for our own citizens to be treated that way by any other country or organization. It's the epitome of arrogance to think we can circumvent our own laws and ideals in pursuit of "Justice."

This ruling gives me hope that the neocons are about as outdated and useless as their SUV's.



[edit on 12/6/2008 by kosmicjack]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Lets suppose WhatTheory, that due to some "faulty intelligence" you are picked up off the street in your home town, shipped off to gitmo and acused of being a foreign terrorist.

Between bouts of torture you continue to assert that you are an innocent American - of course they don't believe you. Why should they? After all, you are, according to their intelligence, a "foreign terrorist".

Just how many years would it take before you would begin to think that Habeas Corpus rights aren't such a bad idea after all?




[edit on 12-6-2008 by thepresidentsbrain]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by krill
 



Originally posted by krill
prisoners of war have their own rights according to the pacts we agreed to


They are not prisoners of war. They do not wear the uniform of any country. They do not sign treaties with other nations.

Enemy combatants can be held until "the end of hostilities", ie, the end of the War on Terror.


So there is a way to defeat terror? Is it a pill that makes people not want to commit these acts? There will be an end to hostilities? When exactly is this? So if the war on terror lasts another 100 years, then too bad for any innocents that were wrongly held captive.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory
This is one of the most outrageous rulings the supreme court has made in a very long time. NEVER in our nations history has the rights of U.S. citizens been given to terrorist caught on the battlefield. The 5 radical liberal judges who voted for this nonsense should be ashamed.

Using this twisted logic, I guess on the battlefield our soldiers will have to give the terrorists shooting at them their miranda rights. Wait a minute, since the court now says they are afforded the rights of U.S. citizens, how can we even shoot at them because it would be like shooting at U.S. citizens. This is just a ridiculous ruling.

This is one reason to vote for McCain since he stated he will at least submit strict constitutionalists for supreme court seats. These 5 radical liberal judges are writting their own laws instead of ruling on the law. Please tell me where in the Constitution that foreign enemies are afforded the rights of U.S. citizens.

Plus, since liberals love so cite precendent, what about the precedent set back during the WWII era by the supreme court which said no federal court had jurisdiction to hear their cases because the base is outside the sovereign territory of the United States. This current ruling is nothing but radical liberal judges gone awry.


You better hope you are never labeled an enemy combatant. Because our govt can do that. you can be named an enemy combatant for any reason or no reason. No one has to tell you why or what you are being charged with, they dont have to provide any evidence and you cannot even attempt to defend yourself. This of course is under the previous "military tribunal" system that Bush put into place that has been deemed unconstitutional 3 times.

Do you realize that with the current laws that Bush has implemented, the next president could label Bush an enemy combatant and place him in a secret prison, indefinitely. This is no joke. Once out of office Bush has no special protection from the next president doing this. I'm sure it wont happen because hopefully the next president will repeal most of the "bush" league govt that our fearless leader has implemented.

Your lack of understanding of how our systems work is disturbing. I am beginning to believe that you are a right wing plant. Your posts are right out of the Rove/Limbaugh book of politics and propaganda.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by krill
you do realize i hope that all these "terrorists" picked off of "battle fields" are not just enemy combatents from iraq and afghanistan right? hell what about the poor muslim american cab driver who was arrested afeter droping a fare off at the airport here in the us ? ohhh what a dangerouse terrorist and such a scarey battle field . not everything is as black and white as you seem to belive there are varying shades of grey.

Please, give me a break with that nonesense.

There you go again, moving the goalposts and changing the subject. Are you doing this because you realize your argument regarding this court decision holds no merit.


That poster has valid points and you dismiss them without merit. There were large cash bounties put on the .s of any "terrorist" shortly after 9/11. There were people just throwing names out there to the military and our govt, simply to recieve a cash reward. You can look it up for yourself. I'm not going to research for you. Many people on this forum have provided you with links in other posts to back their points and you just dismiss them and continue to believe what you want to believe. I and many other have done the research and its time you start doing the same.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by AmethystSD
I'm not even going to respond to those who would try to bring down the glory of this moment. The fact is that all of our rights were upheld today. Anyone who can't appreciate that is an unfortunate person.


Well said!!



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 05:58 AM
link   
reply to post by iamcamouflage
 


The treatment that Gitmo prisoners get is far better than what our own citizens get in prison. Prayer mats, culturally adjusted food, excellent medical care, and more. For some, it is the best treatment that they ever got in their life. And to boot, they have our Constitution and our legal system working for them now.

What do we get in return?



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 

The supreme court already ruled on this matter, years ago!

I have been ferociously googling for this, but i can't remember the name of the case!


Johnson vs. Eisentrager

In 1950, the Supreme Court said:

We hold that the Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or an immunity from military trial and punishment upon an alien enemy engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by kosmicjack
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


I'll give you an answer you will either not like or not understand - it's philosophical.

The U.S. should aspire to be the icon of civil liberties. Instead we have waged a vague war against a vague enemy for vague reasons. We detain them based on vague evidence, in the vague limbo-land of Guantanamo and put them through a vague dog and pony show of military tribunals.

We would never stand for our own citizens to be treated that way by any other country or organization. It's the epitome of arrogance to think we can circumvent our own laws and ideals in pursuit of "Justice."

This ruling gives me hope that the neocons are about as outdated and useless as their SUV's.



[edit on 12/6/2008 by kosmicjack]

Sorry i disagree.Our enemy has always been Al qaida and those who seek to do America her allies and citizens harm.All detainees are held until the war on terror is over.Neocons eh?Paranoid much?After learning about politics, im going to help canada vote conservative next election so Canada can help America win this war.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justice11
Neocons eh?Paranoid much?After learning about politics, im going to help canada vote conservative next election so Canada can help America win this war.

Kudos to you for expressing and planning to add your opinion to the process of participatory government. But if you think he's being overly paranoid simply by positing a neo-con agenda, you obviously haven't read some of the threads around here.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   
They will be given a fair trial.... .then murdered according to US law.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justice11

Originally posted by kosmicjack
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


I'll give you an answer you will either not like or not understand - it's philosophical.

The U.S. should aspire to be the icon of civil liberties. Instead we have waged a vague war against a vague enemy for vague reasons. We detain them based on vague evidence, in the vague limbo-land of Guantanamo and put them through a vague dog and pony show of military tribunals.

We would never stand for our own citizens to be treated that way by any other country or organization. It's the epitome of arrogance to think we can circumvent our own laws and ideals in pursuit of "Justice."

This ruling gives me hope that the neocons are about as outdated and useless as their SUV's.



[edit on 12/6/2008 by kosmicjack]

Sorry i disagree.Our enemy has always been Al qaida and those who seek to do America her allies and citizens harm.All detainees are held until the war on terror is over.Neocons eh?Paranoid much?After learning about politics, im going to help canada vote conservative next election so Canada can help America win this war.



The same allies that you tell to mind their own business and stay out of American politics while you drag them through the dirt and meddle in their affairs?


Riiiiiighto.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by kosmicjack
I'll give you an answer you will either not like or not understand - it's philosophical.

The U.S. should aspire to be the icon of civil liberties.

Your 'feelings' are irrelevant!
We are dealing with war and law. What you don't seem to understand is that civil liberties we enjoy here in the U.S. does not apply to foreigners trying to kill us.

Are you trying to project our Constitution and rights worldwide? I thought people like you wanted us to stay out of the affairs of others. However, now you seem to want to give the entire world the priviliges and rights we have because of our Constitution. Your logic is so faulty it's scary.


Instead we have waged a vague war against a vague enemy for vague reasons. We detain them based on vague evidence, in the vague limbo-land of Guantanamo and put them through a vague dog and pony show of military tribunals.

I guess you don't know that the word 'vague' means because it makes no sense in the context you are using it.


We would never stand for our own citizens to be treated that way by any other country or organization.

Treated like what? You act like the detainees in Gitmo are being mistreated. Secondly, of course U.S. citizens will be treated differently. Reason being that they ARE U.S. citizens.


It's the epitome of arrogance to think we can circumvent our own laws and ideals in pursuit of "Justice."

I agree if you are talking about the 5 justices who ruled in favor of this garbage. They ignored previous precedent and law.

They ignored the Military Commissions Act which states:
GENEVA CONVENTIONS NOT ESTABLISHING SOURCE OF
RIGHTS.—No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by
military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva
Conventions as a source of rights.

No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to
hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed
by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who
has been determined by the United States to have been properly
detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

Military Commissions Act

They also ignored their own previous ruling:
Johnson v. Eisentrager
The United States Supreme Court held that the federal Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or immunity from military trial and punishment on alien enemies engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States. The "aliens" concerned were German Nationals who were confined in the custody of the United States Army in Germany following their conviction y a military commission of having engaged in military activity against the United States in China after the surrender of Germany. The Court stated that the military authorities have a jurisdiction, during or following "hostilities" to punish those guilty of offenses against the laws of war, and the German Nationals did not have the right to a writ of habeas corpus.

Previous court ruling

So, the only this current court has proved is that the 5 radical judges are putting their own agenda a. of law and the Constitution.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by thepresidentsbrain
Lets suppose WhatTheory, that due to some "faulty intelligence" you are picked up off the street in your home town, shipped off to gitmo and acused of being a foreign terrorist.

Look, this is a ludicrous attempt at an analogy.
I guess I will just have to show them my birth certificate, social security card and other paperwork proving I'm a U.S. citizen. Done. End of discussion.
How do you NOT understand that we are talking about foreign terrorists who have never set foot on U.S. soil and want to kill you.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
You better hope you are never labeled an enemy combatant.

Don't worry, it will never happen because I am not a foreigner and can prove I am a U.S. citizen. Nuff said.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by mOOmOO
The same allies that you tell to mind their own business and stay out of American politics while you drag them through the dirt and meddle in their affairs?

Huh?
Yet you want to project our U.S. Constitution worldwide and apply it to foreigners. Yeah, that makes sense.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by mOOmOO
The same allies that you tell to mind their own business and stay out of American politics while you drag them through the dirt and meddle in their affairs?

Huh?
Yet you want to project our U.S. Constitution worldwide and apply it to foreigners. Yeah, that makes sense.


No, we want you to butt out of our affairs and stop calling us your slaves, erm allies.

YOU are the one that was shouting "her allies" and then the same people "Americans" want us to butt out of American politics.



[edit on 13-6-2008 by mOOmOO]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by AKnight
how do captured terrorists get rights from the U.S. constitution? The bill of right pertains the U.S. citizens. Now i agree the prisoners have rights from UN treaties but I dont believe they rights from the U.S. constitution


I'm sorry, are you calling detainees terrorists? What ever happened to due process?

The Bill of Rights does pertain to US Citizens, but from a commonly accepted understanding, the Rights of the individual, "inalienable rights" apply to all humanity.


The term inalienable rights (or unalienable rights) refers to a theoretical set of individual human rights that by their nature cannot be taken away, violated, or transferred from one person to another. They are considered more fundamental than alienable rights, such as rights in a specific piece of property.

Inalienable (Individual) Rights are: natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They are the most fundamental set of human rights, natural means not-granted nor conditional. They are applicable only to humans, as the basic necessity of their survival.


Source

Therefore if we treat alleged terrorists as if they have no applicable rights, aren't we just as guilty as they might be?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join