Comments on: Top Court Rejects Gitmo Detainees' Appeal

Supreme Court Won't Decide Legal Rights Of Prisoners At Guantanamo Bay

[gunnerv1]

JohnShaft4: Actually the "Enemy Combatants" that we are holding at Gitmo are spies (and just pure luck that they were not shot outright). They had taken up arms while not in any recognized military uniform, whereas the 15 Brits were in a Recognized Military Uniform and are therefore subject to being treated as POW's under the Geneva Conventions

[gunnerv1]

It's all the fault of the Jews

[theusa1st]

Basically, what YOU are saying is we can do whatever we want to those prisoners because they're not in the US. That's BULL and you know it. We need to prove we are on a moral HIGH ground, not a lawyer-esque walking-the-line of the words of law. FOLLOW the spirit of the law and you'll be ok; but dance around it and you look like a hypocritical moron...
Posted by canyoutellme at 01:20 PM : Apr 02, 2007

Basically YOU have no idea what I am thinking so do not assume you do. They should be treated decently and they are..they certainly are not getting their heads cut off as other cowards have done. My question is still unanswered. Yes, all men are created equal...but OUR laws are for OUR citizens. The constitution should be followed as it is written with the founding fathers original intent. It should not be stretched and pulled so judges can legislate from the bench. Judges need to follow the rule of law...not make laws. These individuals should be given a proper trial but NOT a trial in our civil courts.

[ammianus]

The Sorrows of Young Dumus, Art. XVI:
When the appointment of Stultus Dumus the Younger appeared inevitable, it is said the House of Saaud complained to the House of Dumus that, in their view, the security agencies of the Hegemon were harassing Saaud subjects. The Saaudi asserted that in view of the intimate friendship between the two Houses and the anticipated electoral victory for which the Saaudi had furnished a weighty contribution, the House of Dumus should undertake, once the office of Chief Magistrate was secured, to discourage the attentions of the Hegemon intelligence services toward Saaudi subjects belonging to Al Ghazna. In return, the Saaudi pledged to moderate the fanaticism of their subjects, particularly the acolytes of ibn Shaitan. Journandes reports the agreement was memorialized by several forms of documentation to ensure the continuing fidelity of both parties. When Dumus assumed office, the agreement on the side of the Hegemon was facilitated by the practice of compartmentalism. Each group within an intelligence agency assigned a specific task was alone permitted information relevant to its mission and was forbidden to share knowledge, including the bare facts of its own actions, with any other group. The House of Dumus had but to direct a handful of overseers to practice deliberate inattention where Saaud subjects were involved. These servitors performed admirably in deflecting enquiries into the activities of Saaudi Al Ghazni in the Northern Continents.

[ammianus]

The Sorrows of Young Dumus, Art. XVII:
Yet all might have been well had the Saaudi fulfilled their side of the agreement. In the event, they were neither able nor willing to restrain their subjects within Al Ghazna. Only when Dumus the Younger first learned of the attacks on his capitols (A. J. 6715, 23 Lo:os,), did he realize that his longstanding allies had betrayed him. Retaliation was prevented by an agreement documented in various incontrovertible forms (J-B. E. Roppe, op. cit., p. 361). Were the pact published, it would be clear to all that the order for deliberate inattention enabled the success of attacks that would otherwise have been thwarted through the customary operations of the Hegemon agents. The world would know that the greatest atrocity yet perpetrated on the Continent Hesperides was made possible by the gullibility, by the incompetence, and by the alien loyalties of the Dumus administration.
It is said that a second pact quickly followed. The lieutenants of ibn Shaitan, his family and friends (all proximate to the Saaud throne) were in possession of the documentation above mentioned. They vowed to publish if ibn Shaitan were ever killed or captured or if any of their number were detained for questioning. The House of Dumus capitulated, undertaking to immediately evacuate ibn Shaitan associates still on the Continent, prevent the death or capture of ibn Shaitan himself and deflect public attention from him.

[johnshaft4]

Why can't the Iranians claim that the 15 British soldiers are "enemy combatants"?

[dogband]

This is well, fine and good, as long as this applies to our soldiers and citizens in any other country that desire to proceed as we have done here.

So when Somolia, or Japan, or Sweden, or any country at all decides that all Americans in its country are spies, they can just lock them up in prison w/out charges as they wish?

If you are fine with this, then support this policy. PS, if you support this, then I probably would not travel abroad much.

[canyoutellme-2009]

I think people have forgotten 9/11/01. Whose rights were violated that day? These evil b a s t a r d s attacked our country and killed innocent civilians. How many times does this have to happen to us before we learn our lessen about treating the enemy with rights because they will use those rights against us. Just ask the family survivors of 9/11.
Posted by cathaleen at 12:06 PM : Apr 02, 2007

Question for you then, WHY is it that your leader, George Bush, no longer is searching for Bin Laden? You'd think that if 09/11 events were so horrible and justice is required, then why haven't we continued to hunt this monster down? What's he afraid of? That he'll actually CATCH him? BTW, when Clinton was going after Bin Laden, it was the REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS that ripped him several times for wanting to go after him.. it was the republiCONs who prevented it. Go read up on history. Something is not right here, the CONs want Bin Laden free; do you know why? I do... it's so they can refer to him all the time to SCARE the country into doing what the CONs want. GO AFTER BIN LADEN and bring that ANIMAL TO JUSTICE!!

[canyoutellme-2009]

"where in the constitution does it state that non-citizens have the "same constitutional rights" afforded to citizens of the United States?
Posted by theUSA1st at 12:35 PM : Apr 02, 2007

Don't you think the US should be ABOVE all other nations with morals and ethics instead of just ruling merely on the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law? The US Constitution was to guarantee rights to ALL people. It abhored the treatment that other nations gave their people, so instead, they said ALL men (people) are created equal. PERIOD. If we are holding others captive, then WE should be held to the constitution that governs US. The US constitution applies to the CAPTORs if not to the CAPTees! Habeus Corpus should be a guaranteed right throught ALL lands and ESPECIALLY if we are the occupying force. Merely locating them outside of US Territory should not evade our constitution.

Basically, what YOU are saying is we can do whatever we want to those prisoners because they're not in the US. That's BULL and you know it. We need to prove we are on a moral HIGH ground, not a lawyer-esque walking-the-line of the words of law. FOLLOW the spirit of the law and you'll be ok; but dance around it and you look like a hypocritical moron...

[processor2]

tuckerndfw,

where in the constitution does it state that non-citizens have the "same constitutional rights" afforded to citizens of the United States?

Posted by theUSA1st at 12:35 PM : Apr 02, 2007


GREAT QUESTION

[jimibear]

"It amazes me how so many people seem to think their hysteria about the events of 9/11/01 justify converting the US into some lawless banana republic."

Absolutely, Tucker. I wish it amazed me, but it doesn't even surprise me, although it does make me sad. The simple fact is that a large number of people find it much easier to put their faith in "leaders" and parrot propaganda and fear than to think for themselves.

It's the same way the Nazis took power in Germany. Bush would love to be a dictator; he has publicly stated this on more than one occasion. "Things sure would be much easier if this were a dictatorship ... just so long as I'm the dictator." - GWB

[theusa1st]

Anyone in US custody has "constitutional rights." Otherwise, the person holding him has no legal right to hold him.
Posted by tuckerndfw at 11:49 AM : Apr 02, 2007

tuckerndfw,
where in the constitution does it state that non-citizens have the "same constitutional rights" afforded to citizens of the United States?

[tuckerndfw]

I think people have forgotten 9/11/01. Whose rights were violated that day? . . . (more hysteria)

Posted by cathaleen at 12:06 PM : Apr 02, 2007

The events of 9/11/01 are irrelevant to the fact that anyone in US custody has constitutional rights.

And, anyone who refuses to defend the US Constitution and the rights it confers is refusing to defend the United States of America.

The USA is the US Constitution.

It amazes me how so many people seem to think their hysteria about the events of 9/11/01 justify converting the US into some lawless banana republic.

[jimibear]

"I think people have forgotten 9/11/01. Whose rights were violated that day? These evil b a s t a r d s attacked our country and killed innocent civilians. How many times does this have to happen to us before we learn our lessen about treating the enemy with rights because they will use those rights against us. Just ask the family survivors of 9/11.
Posted by cathaleen at 12:06 PM : Apr 02, 2007"

Cathaleen, if we pervert our own legal system in response to terror so that we hold people who have not even been charged, let alone found guilty, then the enemies of America have already won.

If we become a dictatorship (and the ability of the government to lock people away without evidence, trial or conviction is a huge step in that direction) then we are no longer a country worth defending.

No one has forgotten 9/11, at least in part because every time the Bush administration wants to do something horrible, they use it as an excuse. These prisoners have not even been charged with a crime, let alone convicted. 9/11 doesn't justify imprisoning them, and using it as a justification for illegal, un-American acts is an insult to the memory of those who died. Shame on you.

[inventagod]

I agree with tuckerndfw, continuing to call this oilgrab a 'war' furthers the huge lie that is Bu$hCo. The term somehow legitimizes the Halliburton tax glut that will go on until the Congress grows some ballz and slaps Bu$h and Cheney with war crimes charges. I am still not convinced that those PNAC traitors didn't have something to do with 9/11, and that these 'detainees' are just holding the places in line for Cheney and Rove...

[jimibear]

Exactly, tucker. In fact, beyond that - if this is a "war" then these people are prisoners of war, protected by the Geneva Convention and international law. If it is not a war, then they are criminals and entitled to the standard protection of the US Constitution.

In neither case can they be legally detained without trial, tortured, sleep-deprived, denied council or the right to face their accusers, as is happening with these prisoners.

The terrorists have already won. They are on Capitol Hill.

[cathaleen]

I think people have forgotten 9/11/01. Whose rights were violated that day? These evil b a s t a r d s attacked our country and killed innocent civilians. How many times does this have to happen to us before we learn our lessen about treating the enemy with rights because they will use those rights against us. Just ask the family survivors of 9/11.

[tuckerndfw]

Allowing the Bush administration to claim the "war on terror" is a "war" within the constitutional meaning of the term has led to gross miscarriages of justice, including these rather bizarre rulings by the US Supreme Court.

The foundation for the entire US governemnt is the US Constitution and it is by the authority of the US Constitution that all government agencies, including the White House, Congress, Supreme Court, Defense, et al operate.

Anyone in US custody has "constitutional rights." Otherwise, the person holding him has no legal right to hold him.