|
|
|
|
|
| Free the Gitmo270
Posted: 7/3/2008 10:47:43 PM | .......alright "Gitmo270" is not that catchy, but .... nonetheless.... (IMO) what needs to be done ASAP is for them to receive fair trials in civilian (fed'l) court(s). From that point, since probably the majority of them will be found to have been not guilty in the first place, then they can and should be sent back to their country of origin / birth. There will be no other just way to deal with this ongoing problem, and the US should not , given the standards it claims to hold itself to, be operating what amounts to a highly secretive prison camp for foreigners on a military base ~ and probably using methods which constitute torture inside there as well. More US citizens should be outraged today, IMO, as opposed to just singing anthems at fireworks displays. What is needed is not more jingoism, but an end to the disgrace that is Guantanamo Bay and a closure to this dark chapter in American history.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080704/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_guantanamo_bay
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 59 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The White House said Thursday that dangerous detainees at Guantanamo Bay could end up walking Main Street U.S.A. as a result of last month's Supreme Court ruling about detainees' legal rights. Federal appeals courts, however, have indicated they have no intention of letting that happen.
The high court ruling, which gave all detainees the right to petition federal judges for immediate release, has intensified discussions within the Bush administration about what to do with the roughly 270 detainees held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
"I'm sure that none of us want Khalid Sheikh Mohammed walking around our neighborhoods," White House press secretary Dana Perino said about al-Qaida's former third in command.
President Bush strongly disagreed with the Supreme Court decision that the foreigners held under indefinite detention at Guantanamo have the right to seek release in civilian courts. The 5-4 ruling was the third time the justices had repudiated Bush on his approach to holding the suspects outside the protections of U.S. law.
The legal ramifications of the Supreme Court decision remain fuzzy, but it's unlikely that a federal appeals court would order a detainee released into the United States even if a judge finds that the government was holding the detainee improperly. A court might tell the Bush administration to let a prisoner go, but it presumably would be up to the executive branch to figure out where.
Attorney General Michael Mukasey had predicted that the Supreme Court's decision would unleash a torrent of court filings from detainees seeking their freedom. Judges, however, have been particularly wary of telling the executive branch what to do with the detainees.
Late last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the military had improperly labeled Huzaifa Parhat, a Chinese Muslim, as an enemy combatant. The court said Parhat deserved a new hearing or should be released. But the court deftly avoided saying where he should be released — an indication that the courts expect the executive branch to wrestle with that decision.
Glenn Sulmasy, a national security fellow at Harvard University, said if the matter remains in the hands of civilian courts, there is an element of truth to the White House warning that detainees could be released in the United States. But he said that while it's possible, it's not probable.
He said the legislative and executive branches should find a third legal way — not through military commissions or the civilian courts — to deal with the detainees, perhaps a national security or other type of special court. "What is needed is a hybrid court," he said.
The administration opened the detention facility shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to hold enemy combatants, people suspected of ties to al-Qaida or the Taliban.
"We are in uncharted territory, and we have never had enemy combatants afforded constitutional rights like all of us have, so anybody who thinks that they know exactly what's going to happen if a detainee challenges his detention — his or her detention — in court, they're not being honest because we don't know what's going to happen," Perino said.
"But there is considered judgment, from many federal government lawyers — all the way up to the attorney general of the United States_ that it is a very real possibility that a dangerous detainee could be released into the United States as a result of this Supreme Court decision."
Judges at Washington's federal courthouse are moving quickly to process about 200 cases involving Guantanamo Bay detainees. Those cases would force the Justice Department to say why the detainees are being held and defend the decision to label them enemy combatants. Defense attorneys are convinced that, in many cases, the evidence will not hold up.
"The judge might say to the United States, 'You don't have enough evidence to hold this person,'" Perino said. "And then what do we do? ... Is he allowed to leave? And if so, is he picked up by immigration? Even if that's the case, they're only allowed to be held for six months."
Judge Thomas F. Hogan set a hearing for Tuesday to decide how the cases will proceed. Under the schedule expected to be adopted, judges could start reviewing evidence in a matter of weeks and some cases could be decided by September.
___
Associated Press writer Matt Apuzzo contributed to this report. | |
|
| Free the Gitmo270
Posted: 7/3/2008 10:54:12 PM | This is just the one high profile individual who happened to make it to Iraq and whose remains were identified.
(CBS/AP) A Kuwaiti who had been imprisoned in Guantanamo for more than 3 1/2 years carried out a recent suicide attack in Iraq, the U.S. military said Wednesday.
Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi took part in one of three suicide bomb attacks last month in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, said U.S. Navy Cmdr. Scott Rye, a military spokesman.
It appears to be the first time someone who was held at the prison at the U.S. base in Cuba has carried out a suicide attack, said a Pentagon spokesman, Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon.
Al-Ajmi, 29, was transferred in 2005 to Kuwait, where the government was supposed to ensure he would not pose a threat. In May 2006, a Kuwaiti court acquitted him and four other former Guantanamo prisoners of terrorism charges.
Dubai-based al-Arabiya television, citing a cousin of al-Ajmi, last week reported that he had carried out a suicide attack, but the U.S. military could not confirm it until Wednesday.
Rye said in an e-mail to The Associated Press that al-Ajmi's family has confirmed his death and that authorities determined he entered Iraq through Syria.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/07/iraq/main4077969.shtml
Sure let them out. I have friends serving in Iraq.
Maybe your idea will get them killed.
| |
|
| Free the Gitmo270
Posted: 7/3/2008 11:22:25 PM | The blatant disregard for truth and due process the Bush administration has show seems to be coming full circle. Even his one time supporters are beginning to ask, "If you have evidence of guilt why aren't the accused allowed to know what it is and to conduct trials in the public eye with full transparency?"
How many detainees are actually innocent? How many might be guilty but with no evidence and what is reasonable where that seems to be the case? How many are guilty with clear evidence and why have they not been tried openly?
I really would be hesitant to talk the word of a government as inept as this one that everyone detained is guilty, more realistic that terrorists freed to walk your streets I'd be thinking taxpayers on the hook for unlawful confinement/imprisonment....... and let's not forget the verified cases of torture by independent MD's. Of course someone will find a way to blame a particular political party for the increased taxes required to pay restitution for a rabid miscarriage of justice. | |
|
| Free the Gitmo270
Posted: 7/4/2008 12:33:02 AM | What they have done is take 270+ men, most of whom likely would not have done anything against the US, and turned them into a whole prison camp full of likely totally radicalized and militantly anti-US fighters. Barring the obvious (9/11 architect Khalid Shaikh Muhammad, et.al.), and any others who are legitimately found guilty of something in a fed'l court of law (the same as any American citizen would have to be), the rest should be sent back to their countries of origin posthaste and the entire camp closed down.
We really seem to have perfected the art of radicalizing people into extreme anti-Americanism. I've known for a long time that we have this tendency, but the extent to which the current administration has perfected it is quite extraordinary.
I wonder, sometimes, at people who think this is about what this or that individual prisoner might or might not do if released. The SPECTACLE of Gitmo as a symbol of our violation of both our own constitution and international accords we've agreed to is such a potent rallying point for those who want to recruit in the name of anti-Americanism. If we can't be true to our principles, then why should anyone in the world have any respect for them either. We say "they hate what we stand for...they hate our freedom," but why shoudn't they, if we ourselves have so little regard for those things? | |
|
| Free the Gitmo270
Posted: 7/4/2008 12:35:58 AM | | Nah, how about bring them to trial? You know, with access to judges, and evidence, and all those sorts of crazy things. | |
|
| Free the Gitmo270
Posted: 7/4/2008 12:49:00 AM | Best idea.......Shoot em in the field and never bring em back. They arent US citizens, they were captured during WAR, they are classified ENEMY COMBATANTS, we want to give everyone everything WE fought for........go fight for it yourself! And if you dont like it move the F to another damn country!
Where in the US Constitution does it guarentee the rights of non US citizens??
Find it for me PLEASE!!!! | |
|
| Free the Gitmo270
Posted: 7/4/2008 12:51:07 AM | indeed charles....but you have to charge them with something first. And you need evidence even for that little step in the process..... Usually, if you can't charge someone with something, you are supposed to release them.
Damn constitution!
just forums :
Where in the US Constitution does it guarentee the rights of non US citizens??
Find it for me PLEASE!!!!
mmmm....when it comes to general rights, the Bill of Rights as a whole. On these specific issues....fifth, sixth and fourteenth ammendments...just to start?
The founders were very specific about where they said citizens and where they didn't, as have ben subsequent authors of amendments. Think what you want about the just denial of rights to non-citizens....but you can't base your beliefs about that on the constitution.
| |
|
| Free the Gitmo270
Posted: 7/4/2008 12:58:55 AM | | Let's face it: we have all been less safe than possible with this whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. We're just asking to let murderers and thieves go free with that flawed principle. | |
|
| Free the Gitmo270
Posted: 7/4/2008 1:05:53 AM | "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
These are the word of the preamble to the US Constituion.
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
" except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War..."
Need anything else be said??
The damn Supreme court got it wrong.........
The Gitmo's should be dropped off in the ocean with nice new shiny lead belts!
Nomadic>>>> Please do some research and find fact to base your opinions on. there it is for you to read..... | |
|
| Free the Gitmo270
Posted: 7/4/2008 1:07:18 AM |
Best idea.......Shoot em in the field and never bring em back. They arent US citizens,
Laws don't just apply to US citizens. Also several detainees have been found to be innocent, I guess killing a few innocent people without trial is ok if they have darker skin?
they were captured during WAR,
With whom?
they are classified ENEMY COMBATANTS,
Magic words with no real meaning. Just remember next time an American gets his head chopped off, you're not allowed to even complain, in fact you should applaud the terrorists decision, after all, they're at war right?
we want to give everyone everything WE fought for
Where did you serve in the American war of independence?
........go fight for it yourself! And if you dont like it move the F to another damn country!
Here I thought the USA had some sort of constitutional right to free speech without punishment, but now you're advocating exile? Maybe you should brush up on your constitutional law.
Where in the US Constitution does it guarentee the rights of non US citizens??
Find it for me PLEASE!!!!
[edit] Amendments
First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Second Amendment – Right to keep and bear arms.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Tenth Amendment – Powers of states and people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
I don't see anything about citizens in there, just people. The Supreme court agrees with me.
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0118_0356_ZS.html
The guarantees of protection contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution extend to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, without regard to differences of race, of color, or of nationality. | |
|
| Free the Gitmo270
Posted: 7/4/2008 1:12:38 AM | Yeah heres the text for the 14th amendment:
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
This says it all:
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Now wheres that part about not having to be a citizen??? | |
|
| Free the Gitmo270
Posted: 7/4/2008 1:28:24 AM | just forums:
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
" except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War..."
Need anything else be said??
The damn Supreme court got it wrong.........
The Gitmo's should be dropped off in the ocean with nice new shiny lead belts!
The clause about being in "land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of War" is pertaining to being in the AMERICAN forces... so, do you really want to start dropping American soldiers "in the oceans with shiny lead belts"?
This says it all:
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Now wheres that part about not having to be a citizen???
Right there, you just quoted it. As I said before, amendments tend to be very specific in their language. The first part of this section of the 14th describes citizenship. But the second section deliberately switches to the word PERSON: no "PERSON" shall be be deprived of "life, liberty, or property without due process of law." "PERSON" is not a synonym for CITIZEN....
Get it?
Now, you MIGHT be able to make a case, when it comes to THIS amendment, due to the fact that the restrictions against denying due process are placed on STATES--and Gitmo isn't in a state. This distinction, however, is not made in the fifth amendment, and the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the due process protection when it comes to Gitmo.
So...I'm afraid the constitution just isn't cooperating with you tonight. | |
|
| Free the Gitmo270
Posted: 7/4/2008 1:47:35 AM | And the Supreme Court got it wrong!!
Im sorry but this isnt a world in which ideals can protect the safety of people....we now live in an age of terrorism in which anyone can at anytime strap a damn bomb to their chest and crawl onto a bus with the intent of killing non soldiers.
But I digress, In Amendment 14 to the constitution it is talking about the rights of the citizens and the use of semicolons is use to join the lists of ideas.
When writing one does not have to use the specific word citizen to keep the context of the list and its subject matter in focus. The use of the semicolon clearly indicates that this is written soley about CITIZENS of the USA.
Now think back to the late 1800's when this was written, youve just been in a long civil war , and there are these slaves from countries in africa and wherever else. Why is now that the government would intend to write a law that would give people rights who werent "naturalized" or "born" here?
*- EDITED - Flamebait content removed. Address the topic, not the poster. -TheMadFiddler-* | |
|
| Free the Gitmo270
Posted: 7/4/2008 1:54:35 AM | Just forums, you should read the politics forums rules. This being a private website, we do not have complete free speech here.
Edit:
Ah... well, there you go, then. | |
|
| Free the Gitmo270
Posted: 7/4/2008 2:00:08 AM | forums, think whatever you want about my education...BUT, the fourteenth amendment doesn't mean what you are saying it means. Yes, the amendment is designed to specify the definition of "citizen" for exactly the reason you suggest...and yet, the switch to "persons" is deliberate, as the court has reaffirmed again and again and again since the amendment was passed. If the authors wanted to specify "citizen"in the section we're discussing they would have. In the case of the fourteenth amendment, the court has even gone so far as to protect corporations under the category of "persons."
But if you need more proof that the constitution is intended to protect the rights of people under the law in this country rather than merely citizens, just read the bill of rights....
| |
|
| Free the Gitmo270
Posted: 7/4/2008 2:31:16 AM | Normadic already said it, certainly rights do only apply to citizens, mostly to do with specifics of ellections and government.
People on the other hand get a set of rights just for being exactly that... people. The supreme court agrees with me, the text agrees with me, consitutional scholars agree with me. | |
|
| Free the Gitmo270
Posted: 7/4/2008 6:01:21 AM |
the extent to which the current administration has perfected it is quite extraordinary.
No, the highly praised President Mr. Lincoln did much more to disregard the Constitution than any other President (Don't take my word for it read it like a real historian does). He even went so far as to disobey the supreme court when it ruled the President had no right to make war upon a State. His suspension of habeas corpus in regions of the country not directly effected by the war and where no martial law exsisted is a great example of overstepping the powers of the Presidential office and violating the US Constitution...
The situation in Gitmo I agree is a hard call to make. No, they should not be afforded the same protections under the Constitution as they are not citizens of the United States. However, there are some aspects to the United States as a nation of the World does owe any prisoner of war, which in my opinion they have been denied and wrongly so. | |
|
| Free the Gitmo270
Posted: 7/4/2008 6:25:30 AM |
No, the highly praised President Mr. Lincoln did much more to disregard the Constitution than any other President (Don't take my word for it read it like a real historian does). He even went so far as to disobey the supreme court when it ruled the President had no right to make war upon a State. His suspension of habeas corpus in regions of the country not directly effected by the war and where no martial law exsisted is a great example of overstepping the powers of the Presidential office and violating the US Constitution...
Considering the South fired the first shot, I don't think it really matters.
The situation in Gitmo I agree is a hard call to make. No, they should not be afforded the same protections under the Constitution as they are not citizens of the United States. However, there are some aspects to the United States as a nation of the World does owe any prisoner of war, which in my opinion they have been denied and wrongly so.
Nope, they shouldn't get the right to vote, but the right to a fair trial? Child rapists and multiple murderers get that. These guys are held without trial for the flimsiest of evidence for YEARS. | |
|
| Free the Gitmo270
Posted: 7/4/2008 6:40:19 AM |
Considering the South fired the first shot, I don't think it really matters.
I'm not going to discuss the issue because one it's off topic and more importantly you lack the knowledge about the subject. Wikipedia and 8th grade text books are hardly a source for actual historical facts...
Nope, they shouldn't get the right to vote, but the right to a fair trial? Child rapists and multiple murderers get that. These guys are held without trial for the flimsiest of evidence for YEARS.
Yes, they should get a fair trial but that doesn't mean they are entitled to the same protections under the US Consitution. There's international law such as the treaties of the Geneva Conventions all of which are perfectly acceptable avenues for fair trails. | |
|
| Free the Gitmo270
Posted: 7/4/2008 6:58:30 AM | The 14th amendment does mean everyone when it switches form " citizen" to "any person" and therefor the Supreme Court got it right this time.
It is outrageous for people to say that we don't have to abide by the Constitution in a time of war. Those same people would say that we fight for "America" and for our "American way of life". I've got news for them...those words represent fighting for out way of governing and that means our Constitution and Bill of Rights (not that that's the reason we are in this war). So if you believe in the concept of America you have to uphold it's basic tenants. As Benjamin Franklin said: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
a bit nomadic - I didn't hear the insult against you but you sound like a law student or lawyer - and if not, just one very intelligent woman who makes a lot of sense. Certainly much more intelligent than you average "joe" or plentyoffisher! | |
|
| Free the Gitmo270
Posted: 7/4/2008 7:19:00 AM | Formally charge, provide with lawyers, and try the ones who have not yet been tried , in civilian fed'l courts. Or, if that is not possible, then free them and send them back to their country(s) of birth or citizenship....that's what I am ultimately saying. So, to say flat-out "Free the Gitmo270" as the thread title says is a bit misleading, admittedly. It should be Free And / Or Try the Gitmo 270 ASAP ......but that's even less catchy...  And the obvious cases (such as, again, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed -one of the key planners & organizers of 9/11) should go without saying that I don't want them freed. In any case however he and a few of his co-conspirators are being or have been tried (in some capacity at least), by military tribunal I believe, down there. Then when he is found guilty, which he is, he can be processed like any other criminal is and sent on to probably a "supermax" fed'l penitentiary. His cousin, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef (the ringleader of the first attempt to bring down the WTC), was tried in civilian fed'l court (along with his crew of plotters) and sentenced to life in prison. Why should it be any different for this man?? At the time, in '93, there was no secret prison camp for foreign nationals in Guantanamo Bay and justice functioned just fine on its own.
I believe in the future someday most of the 270+ held there will likely prove to have been wrongly swept up in various raids in Afghanistan's tribal regions, etc, and sent to Gitmo. Most will prove to be essentially innocent of plotting or having knowledge of terrorism against the US. I realize there are some in there, maybe 10%, who are truly dangerous and need to be kept in custody of some sort; which is exactly why the weeding out process needs to begin ASAP. Who is who, what have they done (if anything), is there any remote hint of evidence against each which will uphold itself in a US court of law, and so forth. That way the truly deadly ones can be processed properly through the system and imprisoned humanely in a standard US penitentiary, and the others can be sent home. | |
|
| Free the Gitmo270
Posted: 7/4/2008 8:49:22 AM | " except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War..."
Need anything else be said??
Yes, Just Forums, something else need be said -- are you ready? Here goes -- We are not at war.
The method by which the US declares war is spelled out in our Constitution -- the same one you are citing. Show me a declaration of war, and we can talk. You can't pick and choose which pieces of the Constitution you wish to follow. Right now, we are not at war. I don't know what we are doing, but the one thing I am sure of is, we are not at war.
And that is my 4th of July lecture on the US Constitution for this year. | |
|
| Free the Gitmo270
Posted: 7/4/2008 11:17:18 AM | Topgear:
(quoting me): the extent to which the current administration has perfected it is quite extraordinary.
Topgear: No, the highly praised President Mr. Lincoln did much more to disregard the Constitution than any other President (Don't take my word for it read it like a real historian does). He even went so far as to disobey the supreme court when it ruled the President had no right to make war upon a State.
You know, Topgear, since you contrast yourself to others by claiming (?) the status of a "real historian," surely you know that if you are going to quote someone and then attack what they said...you should AT LEAST attack what they ACTUALLY said, and not what you wish they had said so that you would be able to .... attack it! I did NOT say that the current administration had perfected the art of disregarding the Constitution beyond the level of any other president. I personally think this MIGHT be so....it would take a study of ALL previous administrations to draw this conclusion, which I'm not prepared to do, but it wouldn't surprise me. Nevertheless, the quote of mine that you posted wasn't arguing that. No, what I said was that the current admininstration had perfected "the art of radicalizing people into extreme anti-Americanism." That is a completely different thing--and if you want to paint this picture of yourself as some kind of "real" scholar at other posters' expense....then you should take care to conduct your argumentation in a way that conforms to "real" scholarly standards.
And of course, you offer the same kind of snide insult to charlesdm:
I'm not going to discuss the issue because one it's off topic and more importantly you lack the knowledge about the subject. Wikipedia and 8th grade text books are hardly a source for actual historical facts...
Having opened this question, of the constitutionality of Lincoln's decision to wage war, you now refuse to discuss it on the basis that you find those who challenge your interpretation somehow not worthy of your engagement? And what makes YOU so much more qualified to conduct this discussion than other posters? Charles stated a fact--the south fired the first shot.
Well, whatever is motivating your condescension, the constitutionality of Lincoln's decision to fight the south was resolved almost immediately following the firing on Ft Sumter....and (despite your assertion) by the Supreme Court itself. Sumter was fired upon (BY THE SOUTH) in April 1861; Lincoln blockaded southern ports LATER the same month, and then called the Supreme Court into session, in order to determine the constitutionality of going to war. They met in July and GAVE authorization, declaring that the president DOES have the right to put down an INSURRECTION. That principle was re-asserted in 1863 in one of what's known as the "Prize Cases."
But even if the court had NOT done this, it would have been easy enough to make the argument that the southern states had declared themselves, through secession and then by firing upon an American fort, NO LONGER states of the union, and thus were essentially a Foreign (and aggressive) Power. As it happens, neither the Court nor the president wanted to argue that the southern students COULD secede from the union (which is obviously a different consitutional issue in itself), but they DID authorize Lincoln's decision to fight the war.
Not that any of this probably really matters for the current topic. But YOU brought it in....and insofar as it marks a clear contrast between one president's determined engagement with the court and clear desire to consult on the constitutionality of his own actions, and another's disregard of the court and its decisions, past and present....perhaps there's SOME point to the comparison....if not the one that YOU wanted to make.
| |
|
| Free the Gitmo270
Posted: 7/4/2008 11:38:19 AM | Also, this just "came across my desk"......
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080704/ts_alt_afp/usattacksjusticeguantanamoreport_080704153347
Fri Jul 4, 11:33 AM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US government is developing a "long-range plan" to empty its war-on-terror prison at its naval base in Guantanamo, Cuba, and seeking help on what to do with inmates who won't be tried, The Washington Post reported Friday.
President George W. Bush's administration may ask Congress to "spell out procedures for scores of suspected terrorists whom the government does not plan to bring to trial," the report said, citing unnamed administration officials and others familiar with high-level White House talks on the thorny issue.
Last month the US Supreme Court ruled that inmates could challenge their detention in a civilian court. The US government had said it wanted to bring 60 to 80 Guantanamo detainees before military commissions, though only about 20 have so far been charged.
The commissions are highly controversial, notably because they accept indirect witness statements as evidence, as well as information obtained under duress.
One scenario under consideration would see "about 80 detainees ... remain at the facility in Cuba to be tried by military commissions, and about 65 others would be turned over to their native countries."
But "the focus of the intensifying debate is what to do with about 120 remaining prisoners, who are viewed by the administration as too dangerous to release but who are unlikely to be brought before military commissions because of a lack of evidence.
"Officials are considering whether to propose legislation in coming days that would establish legal procedures for such prisoners, who could be transferred to military or civilian prisons on the US mainland," the report quoted unnamed sources as saying.
Bush has said for more than two years that he would like to close the widely condemned prison camp at the Caribbean naval base, which itself lies on the coast of Cuba against the will of the communist government in Havana.
US authorities were cited in the report as saying no decision has been made on a potential close of the prison camp and that "the administration's debate is focused on what steps would be necessary for such a closure, including moving scores of terrorism suspects to other US detention facilities." | |
|
| Free the Gitmo270
Posted: 7/4/2008 3:54:33 PM |
Last month the US Supreme Court ruled that inmates could challenge their detention in a civilian court. The US government had said it wanted to bring 60 to 80 Guantanamo detainees before military commissions, though only about 20 have so far been charged.
The commissions are highly controversial, notably because they accept indirect witness statements as evidence, as well as information obtained under duress.
One scenario under consideration would see "about 80 detainees ... remain at the facility in Cuba to be tried by military commissions, and about 65 others would be turned over to their native countries."
But "the focus of the intensifying debate is what to do with about 120 remaining prisoners, who are viewed by the administration as too dangerous to release but who are unlikely to be brought before military commissions because of a lack of evidence.
"Officials are considering whether to propose legislation in coming days that would establish legal procedures for such prisoners, who could be transferred to military or civilian prisons on the US mainland," the report quoted unnamed sources as saying.
Interesting. While this might seem, to some, a step in direction towards resolution of this problem, I don't see it that way. The Military Commissions Act (MCA), which outlines the terms under which an "illegal combatant" can be tried by a Military Commission, is very problematic, removing key rights under our law such as the right to choose your own attorney, the rights associated with fully preparing a defense (access to exculpatory evidence, etc.), the right to habeas corpus protection, the right to be subject to laws passed BEFORE actions are actually committed, etc. Plus, the calculation by which it's determined WHO should go before military commissions and who should not, should not be in the hands of the "administration": as it stands, this article seems to state that this decision is theirs to make. And it goes without saying that rules of evidence and what it takes to achieve a conviction in a military commission seriously depart from what would normally be considered necessary to the achievement of "due process," a problem exacerbated by the fact that no independent judiciary will be able to exercise oversight or hear appeals.
And finally, it's been made clear that these proceedings will, either wholly or in part, be closed from public view--attorneys will be subject to "gag orders" (although at the same time, attorney-client privilege will be limited), and the right is retained EVEN to bar defendents themselves AND their attorneys (based on military "judgement") from portions of their own trials!! Is it possible that we could see some of these people actually EXECUTED, based on second-hand evidence (as acc to MCA) INCLUDING hearsay evidence and evidence gained by torture (as well as evidence that the defendent himself isn't even allowed to hear!!), according to a conviction by two-thirds of commission members (as acc to MCA), in a "hearing" subjected to no transparency, no public view, NO judicial oversight? There is no word for this other than tyranny. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
