Court Rules Guantanamo Bay Detainees may not Challenge their Detention

Court Rules Guantanamo Bay Detainees may not Challenge their Detention

Source Link: www.breitbart.com

Guantanamo Bay detainees may not challenge their detention in U.S. courts, a federal appeals court said Tuesday in a ruling upholding a key provision of a law at the center of President Bush's anti- terrorism plan.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that civilian courts no longer have the authority to consider whether the military is illegally holding foreigners.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 2/21/2007 by shots]

I am sorry, I am an American but this chaps my buttox that we are holding these people for years without trial without anything that can get them out of there.

If I remember correctly even POWs have certan rights to be either tried in front of an international tribunal or released after a certan point in time.

These are enemy combatants true. But either try them under some cocamamy bs crime or let them go shesh.

I don't even see how we can call this America anymore. :shk: We have very few of the values that that name used to stand for. Thank you, Mr. Bush and company.

Some of these people are innocent and they can't challenge their detention? I'm just ashamed...

Originally posted by whatukno
These are enemy combatants true. But either try them under some cocamamy bs crime or let them go shesh.

During the 2nd world war when prisoners were captured in North Africa or in the Pacific they were held for the duration of the war.

Why should this conflict be any different? A Prisoner of war is a prisoner of war are they not?

[edit on 2/21/2007 by shots]

Originally posted by shots
During the 2nd world war when prisoners were captured in North Africa or in the Pacific they were held for the duration of the war.

Why should this conflict be any different? A Prisoner of war is a prisoner of war are they not?

[edit on 2/21/2007 by shots]

And when does this war end? when terrorism ends? Well you might as well throw away the key cause then this is an automatic life sentence for these prisoners.

Excellent post, shots. The truth is, this is no different treatment of detainees than has been the norm in the past. One questions why people are so dead-set against this policy now. I think it is just a case of not knowing history.

These detainees are not even POW's. They are enemy combatants, not protected by our Constitution.

This is a different war than we have ever fought before. Sometimes rules need to be established on the fly, because there were no prior rules to cover the situation.

And nobody ever tries to defend the terrorist's treatment of their prisoners, do they? When our boys get captured, they get double-pumped or beheaded. So why should we worry if we're giving them free room and board for a period of time? Too harsh? Pffft!

Do we hear the same people denouncing the terrorist's treatment of our troops? I haven't.

The United States can hold enemy combatants for the duration of the war. That's international law.

If you want these guys to be released, why don't you convince their friends to stop attacking?

Originally posted by jsobecky
And nobody ever tries to defend the terrorist's treatment of their prisoners, do they? When our boys get captured, they get double-pumped or beheaded. So why should we worry if we're giving them free room and board for a period of time? Too harsh? Pffft!

Do we hear the same people denouncing the terrorist's treatment of our troops? I haven't.

Why do I care, because we are better then the pond scum we are suppose to be fighting I guess. Just because they are scum doesnt mean we can lower our standards.

People with honor don't hold themselves to a standard based on the relativity of those around them, but there own personal standards. We shouldn't base our standards on the actions of others, but what we believe in to begin with.

They are not American citizens, therefore no constitutional rights, ergo no involvement whatsoever in civilian courts, simple concept really. The military may hold tribunals to decide guilt if they so choose, although as others have said they are not obliged to do so unlit the war is over.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Excellent post, shots.

Thank you, your complement is appreciated

Do we hear the same people denouncing the terrorist's treatment of our troops? I haven't.

No we sure don't but we do hear groups of activists demanding that we release them don't we?

Release them???? For what, so they can come back to the battle field and start fighting over again as several have done already.

----

Grim

Might I ask you why you feel we would be changing our standards?


[edit on 2/22/2007 by shots]

The Geniva Convention

Those are the rules of war. We in my estimation have broken at least three of the articles in those rules...

I agree that they are not american citizens. They are enemy combatants but when we declaired the end of all major fighting in afghanistan that is when these people needed to either be tried by a international tribunal or released.

Originally posted by whatukno
They are enemy combatants but when we declaired the end of all major fighting in afghanistan that is when these people needed to either be tried by a international tribunal or released.

That is true however they did not, did they?

In previous conflicts and world wars all prisoners are held until a truce has been signed, therefore the US can detain them until one is signed.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Excellent post, shots.

The truth is, this is no different treatment of detainees than has been the norm in the past. One questions why people are so dead-set against this policy now. I think it is just a case of not knowing history.

These detainees are not even POW's. They are enemy combatants, not protected by our Constitution.


This is a different war than we have ever fought before. Sometimes rules need to be established on the fly, because there were no prior rules to cover the situation.

And nobody ever tries to defend the terrorist's treatment of their prisoners, do they? When our boys get captured, they get double-pumped or beheaded. So why should we worry if we're giving them free room and board for a period of time? Too harsh? Pffft!

Do we hear the same people denouncing the terrorist's treatment of our troops? I haven't.

Anyone can be labeled an 'enemy combatant'. That doesn't mean they actually are and the point is that many could be and probably are innocent. There is no way to find out without a fair trial, or indeed any trial, which ALL of these people are denied. I doubt that you believe every single person at G'tmo is a bona fide terrorist. The fact that many have been released without charge is all the evidence we need to see that innocent people who AREN'T 'enemy combatants' are bieng kept there illegally.

If any other country in the world was to sieze people in such a manner and detain them without a trial for YEARS the US would be up in arms about it. I think a good think about 'shoe on the other foot' syndrome would do a lot of people in the western world a lot of good.

And how often do you hear about troops being beheaded? You say this as if it's a common thing but in all truth it's relatively rare and has only happened a handful of times, all of which have been used in good-old propoganda style. Ask yourself seriously how you would feel if Saddam Hussain had taken US, British, Australian, French and various other countries' nationals and locked them up in a prison camp with no rights, no trial, no access to their families and no set release time. You wouldn't have cared if he classed them as 'enemy combatants' or not or what they had done against them. You would think it was wrong and there would've been no need to make up stories about WMD's cause the reason to remove him would've been that alone. This is no different.

As I said, Shoe On The Other Foot Syndrome.

what is the difference between a "POW" and "enemy combatant"? They seem strikingly similar except enemy combatants are not part of an officially designated enemy or country we are waging war against. I guess they could also be called POW's becase we are waging a "war against terror" and they have been taken prisoner for fighting us in that war.

The Bush administration is using legal language to obfuscate the lines of the Geneva convention and completely disregarding human rights. Just because it may be technically legal doesnt make it right...

Originally posted by Nammu
Anyone can be labeled an 'enemy combatant'. That doesn't mean they actually are and the point is that many could be and probably are innocent. There is no way to find out without a fair trial, or indeed any trial, which ALL of these people are denied. I doubt that you believe every single person at G'tmo is a bona fide terrorist. The fact that many have been released without charge is all the evidence we need to see that innocent people who AREN'T 'enemy combatants' are bieng kept there illegally.

Well, they are just going to have to wait a while for us to determine if they are innocent or guilty. Right now, we're too busy going after the rest of them.

And how often do you hear about troops being beheaded? You say this as if it's a common thing but in all truth it's relatively rare and has only happened a handful of times, all of which have been used in good-old propoganda style.

Maybe you only ever heard about a handful of times, ever think about that? And once is too many.

They have been executed without trial many times; here are a few examples:

archive.turkishpress.com...

www.democracynow.org.../06/08/141203

www.adl.org...

Ask yourself seriously how you would feel if Saddam Hussain had taken US, British, Australian, French and various other countries' nationals and locked them up in a prison camp with no rights, no trial, no access to their families and no set release time. You wouldn't have cared if he classed them as 'enemy combatants' or not or what they had done against them. You would think it was wrong and there would've been no need to make up stories about WMD's cause the reason to remove him would've been that alone. This is no different.

Hah! Saddam would not have dared to do that.

As I said, Shoe On The Other Foot Syndrome.

No, in your case, it is Head In The Sand Syndrome.

Originally posted by jsobecky
One questions why people are so dead-set against this policy now. I think it is just a case of not knowing history.

I think it is a case of people actually knowing history. When we know something that was done in the past was wrong, are we to continue the wrong act?

These detainees are not even POW's. They are enemy combatants, not protected by our Constitution.

They were called enemy combatants instead of POWs because they could get around the constitution. What makes these people enemy combatants instead of POWs?

And nobody ever tries to defend the terrorist's treatment of their prisoners, do they? When our boys get captured, they get double-pumped or beheaded. So why should we worry if we're giving them free room and board for a period of time? Too harsh? Pffft!

Because if just one person is wrongly accussed, it means the system isn't working.

Do we hear the same people denouncing the terrorist's treatment of our troops? I haven't.

All parties are to blame.

Originally posted by shots

Grim

Might I ask you why you feel we would be changing our standards?


[edit on 2/22/2007 by shots]

"well since we are at war, we dont have to charge them with a crime and we can detain them. We can torture them, why not? They are beheading our people, why should we treat them better."

I think as americans we can hold ourselves to better standards then that. When the opposition stoop to a new low, we have two options. Lower our standards to fight them more effectively on their playing field or hold our honor and keep fighting with the same standard we hold ourselves to. We don't condone the torturing of human beings, and nothing should change that, no outside cause at least.

The whole reason we fight is to fight for whats right correct? How is torturing right? It saves lives? Are we fighting for a way of life or life itself? Those are two different things. I'll fight for our way of life if threatened. But it hasn't gotten to the point of it being threatened. No force has come into america and actually threatened our way of life. They have threatened our lives yes. They are criminals though and thats it.

I will fight some one who threatens to take our country and attempts to follow through. I will even fight some one who in person tries to hurt me or some one else. I will not go half way around the world to fight some religious nuts who threaten to kill people as a way to influence us to take our own way of life away from ourselves. I will not fall into such a trap they have set.

They didn't attack our way of life, they attacked life itself and let you do the rest. They don't need to attack our way of life because they know once we got riled up we would take it away ourselves.

Originally posted by Griff

These detainees are not even POW's. They are enemy combatants, not protected by our Constitution.

They were called enemy combatants instead of POWs because they could get around the constitution. What makes these people enemy combatants instead of POWs?

They are enemy combatants because they do not wear identifiable uniforms, follow the ROE, or any of the other provisions that would afford them the protections due to POW's.

Do we hear the same people denouncing the terrorist's treatment of our troops? I haven't.

All parties are to blame.

Not all parties. Just the apologists and sympathizers.

Originally posted by shots
That is true however they did not, did they?

In previous conflicts and world wars all prisoners are held until a truce has been signed, therefore the US can detain them until one is signed.

and who do you sign with? osama bin laden? He doesn't represent anyone really. If osama signed, al qaeda would just say hes no longer part of al qaeda and change the positions as though osama just died in a bombing, thus continue to fight.

Terrorists aren't countries. You can sign a treaty with a country, but a terrorist can be anyone, not just al qaeda.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
I will fight some one who threatens to take our country and attempts to follow through. I will even fight some one who in person tries to hurt me or some one else. I will not go half way around the world to fight some religious nuts who threaten to kill people as a way to influence us to take our own way of life away from ourselves.

You can't have it both ways in one breath you say you will fight but in the other you say you will not because it is around the world. That makes no sense at all because what you are saying in essence is they have to come here and kill or attack me on US soil before I will protect myself or my loved ones.

Do you need to be reminded they already attacked the US home land?

I prefer the battle take place on their land not ours while you on the other hand :shk: