Comments on: Supreme Court: Gitmo Detainees Have Habeus Rights

By: John David Prince

John David Prince — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:15:58 +0000

McCain and Political Pundits are not mentioning the fact that the recent Supreme Court ruling concerning the due process rights of government detainees is not so much about foreign enemy combatants; rather it is about all possible enemy combatants. What the American public does not realize nor have they been told is that any American Citizen can be designated an enemy combatant by the White House on nothing more than mere suspicion. So the issue is can the right of the due process of law that is guaranteed by the constitution be denied. Can an American have their right to hear the evidence against them, the right to a speedy trial by a jury of their peers, the right to access to legal council, and all the other due process aspects afforded them? We had better have those rights. But before the Supreme Court ruling foreign suspected enemy combatants and suspected American enemy combatants had no right to constitutional equal protection of law. The President had thrown out the right to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and replaced it with guilty by suspicion without due process. As well anyone American or foreigner could be held forever with out first being proven guilty of being an enemy combatant. The treatment of all potential enemy combatants meant that all American Citizens had lost the equal protection of the law and the protection of the principle of due process of law. That is what is so conveniently left out of the conversation. What a shame that pundits are leaving out the important details which would allow Americans the ability to decide why the Court ruled the way they did.

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 12:53:26 +0000

I'd give Beldar a bit more credit than that.

By: Billy

Billy — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 04:37:57 +0000

Shorter Bithead: "I crap my pants every time someone says 9/11. I expect the US to surrender any day now. I will convert to Islam immediately when this happens." Shorter Beldar: "I hear stuff about the law when I golf with judges. Alarmist hyperbole works with juries, so I'll use it everywhere else."

By: anjin-san

anjin-san — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 02:09:01 +0000

Eric,

When you are on your knees, being converted at the point of a sword, you will be very, very sorry you supported this freedom bs...

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:26:02 +0000

Y'know, I still don't get the train of thought of some posters here. As Michael points out, how does extending Constitutional principles to every POW, "enemy combatant," or whoever allow them to kill us more? If you believe that, then you must, by your own tortured logic, admit that the same threat obtains from, say, a good, old-fashioned, garden-variety American serial killer. After all, if we let serial killers avail themselves of the Constitution, then we're just giving them a chance to kill more Americans--another nail in the coffin, eh Bithead? I mean, I can't tell you how often I hear and read about how Americans think our justice system is the best in the world, how other countries should emulate us; but when it comes to stupid terrorists, suddenly you guys wanna go run and hide in your closets because--oh my god!--if detainees get to challenge their detainment, they're going to somehow mysteriously kill us all. I am a firm believer that the American justice system can handle it. It's worked for us quite well for over 200 years, thank you. Why suddenly must we scrap basic justice (i.e., habeas corpus, due process, etc.)? If you want that, then we might as well just stop pretending and go right to the Soviet show trials of the 1930's and '40's. Seriously, what are you scaredy-cats afraid of? Grow some nuts. You seem to have plenty of them when arguing for more and better War. Where are they now when it comes to confidence in your own justice system that is the envy of the world?

By: legion

legion — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:24:33 +0000

Beldar, I understand it all right. Let me go back to an earlier aside from Bithead -

SO, Why aren't US soldiers allowed access to civilian courts?

Actually, they are. There's no legal or Constitutional construction that requires a separate military legal system - any court martial could be brought over to the federal system, though I forget if that can be done directly or only via appeal. It doesn't happen because the civilian courts have a long-standing policy of deferring to military courts in handling military issues. In the other direction, I have seen a number of legal issues, from DUI to child pornography, where the military has been happy to let the civilian system do the work, and then just follow up with their own administrative punishments afterwards to ensure the individual (if guilty) is bounced out of the service. The short version is that alternative legal avenues, like the military justice system, are there because it's hasn't been so egregiously biased & unlawful that the courts have seen fit to step in & say "no, we'll be handling that - you can't be trusted". The current system the DoD has set up to deal with detainees has always had troubling issues and unanswered questions about its legitimacy, and this is the courts' way of raising a red flag & saying "you're going the wrong way - come back this way or we'll shut you down".

By: anjin-san

anjin-san — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:50:01 +0000

This is a fairly simple issue. If we stop being a nation that cherishes the rule of law, Bin Laden wins. It means he destroyed America on 9/11.

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:08:54 +0000

Functionally, on the other hand is a whole 'nother thing. Here's one situation where the gap between reality and the best of intentions formed into law, are the farthest apart one may possibly imagine.

Okay the, please explain how, "functionally", applying Constitutional protections to terrorists allows them to harm us.

By: Bithead

Bithead — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:54:18 +0000

Unless one is going to argue that the Constitution allows people to carry out terrorist attacks against us, I fail so see how this is a bad thing.

Leagally speaking? Of course not it doesn't.
Functionally, on the other hand is a whole 'nother thing. Here's one situation where the gap between reality and the best of intentions formed into law, are the farthest apart one may possibly imagine.

I think the court has helped to put another nail in our coffin.

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:25:34 +0000

This decision gives rights under the U.S. Constitution to all those foreign terrorists most devoted to destroying the U.S. and its Constitution, so long as they're captured by U.S. government forces. That's no overstatement. That's exactly what it does. You must grasp that before you can possibly grasp the seriousness of this decision.

Unless one is going to argue that the Constitution allows people to carry out terrorist attacks against us, I fail so see how this is a bad thing.

By: Beldar

Beldar — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:04:30 +0000

legion: By the way, the grounding of today's decision is supposedly the Constitution itself. "Laws already in place" to deal with detainees were swept away as unconstitutional by the back of the five-Justice majority's hand. Laws dictating what would happen to POWs would be too.

By: Beldar

Beldar — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:01:51 +0000

There is nothing in the rationale for yesterday's decision that limits it to "unlawful detainees" or exempts POWs (per Geneva Convention definitions) from it. All that is required is that someone be in captivity, and that such captivity be under the effective, practical control of the U.S. government (such that if it wished, the government could effectively relocate the captive elsewhere; that includes essentially anyone ever captured by U.S. troops fighting abroad). Anyone being held prisoner by the U.S. government, anywhere in the world, no matter their citizenship, no matter the circumstances of their capture, now enjoys rights under the United States Constitution and may enforce those rights via writs of habeas corpus filed in the civilian courts of the United States. The only exception admitted by Justice Kennedy's opinion is for those in the first few hours, or perhaps days, after their capture, while they're receiving their initial processing. This decision gives rights under the U.S. Constitution to all those foreign terrorists most devoted to destroying the U.S. and its Constitution, so long as they're captured by U.S. government forces. That's no overstatement. That's exactly what it does. You must grasp that before you can possibly grasp the seriousness of this decision.

By: joe

joe — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:54:25 +0000

How shameful that the Supreme Court has to announce "Oh yeah, people have rights, sorry about that." The embarrassment of the legal system by the entire Gitmo/Guantanamo scenario is a part of our history that will haunt us like the interment camps in World War II. Will the administration abide by the Supreme Court though, that's the question.

By: Bithead

Bithead — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:51:44 +0000

Perhaps one of the lawyers among us can answer the question:

What has changed since Quirin that the rulings on so similar a condtion, are so vastly different?

By: legion

legion — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:13:37 +0000

Beldar,
Because the term POW has a very specific, legal definition. That definition, and the treatment POWs must have, is laid out in the Geneva Conventions - specifically, the 3rd Convention (1949). Basically, there are already laws in place to handle individuals who meet the criteria of POWs, and today's ruling, since it didn't declare the GC to be unconstitutional, doesn't change that.