Guantanomo Detainees get appeal rights

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that Guantanamo Bay prisoners have the right to go before U.S. federal judges to challenge their years-long detention, handing a stinging setback to the Bush administration.

By a 5-4 vote, the high court overturned a ruling that upheld a law President George W. Bush pushed through the Republican-led Congress in 2006 that took away the habeas corpus rights of the terrorism suspects to seek full judicial review of their detention.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSWAT00965420080612?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

Finally common sense and the rule of law has prevailed.

How did we know someone from the left would post this?

LTRT wrote:How did we know someone from the left would post this?

Because Truth, Justice, and the American way trump the Good 'ol Boys?

LTRT wrote:How did we know someone from the left would post this?

What are your thoughts on it? Seriously, I'm not out to completely Bash bush for the sake of bashing Bush... you just always seem to respond to topics of national importance by attacking the left, or attacking the poster...

Do you think those in Gitmo are POWs? If they arent POW's then they should have rights to habeas corpus, if the are POW's, they should be governed under the GC... The adminstration calls them enemy combatants, which is not an acknowledged class of individual in international law, in fact it was a term coined by the administation.

Those that are saying this is a hard hit for Bush are mistaken. This is the easy path out. If they are POWs and not prisoners, then the administration is guilty of war crimes, in the face of documented torture that took place.

I have no problem with them NOT getting access to American courts.. see OJ for example #1 as to why. Money wins in court, not justice.

Military courts.. are hopefully not subject to money.. but.. I've never seen one in action, so I don't really know, I can only hope. However.. by putting someone on trial in a court run by people who that person wants to kill, your chances of getting a fair shake are pretty slim.

Let them stand up and say, do they want to kill Americans or not? If they do, shoot them there, if they don't, release them. End of problem.

pez wrote:

LTRT wrote:How did we know someone from the left would post this?

What are your thoughts on it? Seriously, I'm not out to completely Bash bush for the sake of bashing Bush... you just always seem to respond to topics of national importance by attacking the left, or attacking the poster...

It seems as though beliefs are about if you are right winged or left winged. I get the impression that some people respond to an issue based on that as well and not about the right or wrong of the situation.

I agree with that observation you made there pez.

cardinal5150 wrote:I have no problem with them NOT getting access to American courts.. see OJ for example #1 as to why. Money wins in court, not justice.

Military courts.. are hopefully not subject to money.. but.. I've never seen one in action, so I don't really know, I can only hope. However.. by putting someone on trial in a court run by people who that person wants to kill, your chances of getting a fair shake are pretty slim.

Let them stand up and say, do they want to kill Americans or not? If they do, shoot them there, if they don't, release them. End of problem.

LOL... so when the 50th detainee took the stand surrounded by a pile of bodies, I wonder what he would say...

pez wrote:you just always seem to respond to topics of national importance by attacking the left, or attacking the poster...

Oh you mean like Bman does all the time

pez wrote:Do you think those in Gitmo are POWs?

How can they be POW's since we've been informed for years that there was no declaration of war?

pez wrote:The adminstration calls them enemy combatants, which is not an acknowledged class of individual in international law, in fact it was a term coined by the administation.

I would agree with the "coined" term, just like those here illegally are illegal immigrants and not undocumented workers.

pez wrote:This is the easy path out. If they are POWs and not prisoners, then the administration is guilty of war crimes, in the face of documented torture that took place.

We all want to have the crystal ball when it comes to "topics of national importance". I wonder how long this political debate will go on after the new admin takes office.


If would be nice to see into the future though, let the guys go and then they can go back to the Taliban & AlQaeda, I wished we would've shot them on the battle front in the first place instead of holding these guys for all this time and having the opposing party inform those in charge of what the next move will be.

pez wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:I have no problem with them NOT getting access to American courts.. see OJ for example #1 as to why. Money wins in court, not justice.

Military courts.. are hopefully not subject to money.. but.. I've never seen one in action, so I don't really know, I can only hope. However.. by putting someone on trial in a court run by people who that person wants to kill, your chances of getting a fair shake are pretty slim.

Let them stand up and say, do they want to kill Americans or not? If they do, shoot them there, if they don't, release them. End of problem.

LOL... so when the 50th detainee took the stand surrounded by a pile of bodies, I wonder what he would say...

"is that camera on?"

pez wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:I have no problem with them NOT getting access to American courts.. see OJ for example #1 as to why. Money wins in court, not justice.

Military courts.. are hopefully not subject to money.. but.. I've never seen one in action, so I don't really know, I can only hope. However.. by putting someone on trial in a court run by people who that person wants to kill, your chances of getting a fair shake are pretty slim.

Let them stand up and say, do they want to kill Americans or not? If they do, shoot them there, if they don't, release them. End of problem.

LOL... so when the 50th detainee took the stand surrounded by a pile of bodies, I wonder what he would say...

Most of the true AllQueers are fanatics, they'd view it as their chance to meet the 70 virgins, or however many it is. Besides.. just ask them what they think, line them up, let the ones who say no go.. shoot the rest all at once. It could be a reality show.. decide how they die.

LTRT wrote:

pez wrote:you just always seem to respond to topics of national importance by attacking the left, or attacking the poster...

Oh you mean like Bman does all the time

pez wrote:Do you think those in Gitmo are POWs?

How can they be POW's since we've been informed for years that there was no declaration of war?

pez wrote:The adminstration calls them enemy combatants, which is not an acknowledged class of individual in international law, in fact it was a term coined by the administation.

I would agree with the "coined" term, just like those here illegally are illegal immigrants and not undocumented workers.

pez wrote:This is the easy path out. If they are POWs and not prisoners, then the administration is guilty of war crimes, in the face of documented torture that took place.

We all want to have the crystal ball when it comes to "topics of national importance". I wonder how long this political debate will go on after the new admin takes office.


If would be nice to see into the future though, let the guys go and then they can go back to the Taliban & AlQaeda, I wished we would've shot them on the battle front in the first place instead of holding these guys for all this time and having the opposing party inform those in charge of what the next move will be.

ok... so if they are not Prisoners of War in the War on Terror, then what are they, really? My opinion is that they are detainees of a civilized government, and should be afforded the basic legal right of habeas corpus (produce the body) -- the right to see the evidence against them. I think that, truth told, a majority of them are detained for very good reason, and the government should present it's case and prosecute them.

No one is saying let them go, I'm just saying that the Uinted States has/had a certain moral obligation to uphold human rights. Detaining indefinitely without charges is the stuff of brutal dictators. The "capital' that Bush supposedly gained when he began his second term is squandered by places like gitmo.

I think you have me pegged a bit wrong, I'm not a bleeding heart that wants to set everyone in gitmo free with an apology and a hundred grand, go home and hug trees. I just want my country to act upon the guiding principles upon which it was founded. And vast detention compounds with no access to any legal body sounds like Burma.

Sounds good to me.

pez wrote:

LTRT wrote:

pez wrote:you just always seem to respond to topics of national importance by attacking the left, or attacking the poster...

Oh you mean like Bman does all the time

pez wrote:Do you think those in Gitmo are POWs?

How can they be POW's since we've been informed for years that there was no declaration of war?

pez wrote:The adminstration calls them enemy combatants, which is not an acknowledged class of individual in international law, in fact it was a term coined by the administation.

I would agree with the "coined" term, just like those here illegally are illegal immigrants and not undocumented workers.

pez wrote:This is the easy path out. If they are POWs and not prisoners, then the administration is guilty of war crimes, in the face of documented torture that took place.

We all want to have the crystal ball when it comes to "topics of national importance". I wonder how long this political debate will go on after the new admin takes office.


If would be nice to see into the future though, let the guys go and then they can go back to the Taliban & AlQaeda, I wished we would've shot them on the battle front in the first place instead of holding these guys for all this time and having the opposing party inform those in charge of what the next move will be.

ok... so if they are not Prisoners of War in the War on Terror, then what are they, really? My opinion is that they are detainees of a civilized government, and should be afforded the basic legal right of habeas corpus (produce the body) -- the right to see the evidence against them. I think that, truth told, a majority of them are detained for very good reason, and the government should present it's case and prosecute them.

No one is saying let them go, I'm just saying that the Uinted States has/had a certain moral obligation to uphold human rights. Detaining indefinitely without charges is the stuff of brutal dictators. The "capital' that Bush supposedly gained when he began his second term is squandered by places like gitmo.

I think you have me pegged a bit wrong, I'm not a bleeding heart that wants to set everyone in gitmo free with an apology and a hundred grand, go home and hug trees. I just want my country to act upon the guiding principles upon which it was founded. And vast detention compounds with no access to any legal body sounds like Burma.

Amen brother, we have to be better than the rest of the world if we want them to raise their standards, having us lower our standards only puts our soldiers in harms way.

excellent post pez! and i was happy to read this in the news!

http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/faqs/legal-analysis%3A-boumediene-v.-bush/al-odah-v.-united-states

A link to some more details in this case.