Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Reply To Thread

Detainees in Gitmo allowed to challenge detention in courtsFollow

#1 Jun 12 2008 at 6:38 AM Rating: Decent
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SCOTUS_GUANTANAMO?SITE=AP

Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

The justices handed the Bush administration its third setback at the high court since 2004 over its treatment of prisoners who are being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The vote was 5-4, with the court's liberal justices in the majority.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

It was not immediately clear whether this ruling, unlike the first two, would lead to prompt hearings for the detainees, some of whom have been held more than 6 years. Roughly 270 men remain at the island prison, classified as enemy combatants and held on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaida and the Taliban.

The administration opened the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to hold enemy combatants, people suspected of ties to al-Qaida or the Taliban.
#2 Jun 12 2008 at 6:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Took long enough.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#3 Jun 12 2008 at 6:55 AM Rating: Good
YAY! Canaduhian
*****
10,293 posts
ZOMG these peeps r teh enemies of freedom!
____________________________
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
#4 Jun 12 2008 at 6:56 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Haven't read the decision yet, but I'd be curious if it entitles them to Habeas too.

Let's have a look!
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#5 Jun 12 2008 at 7:10 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Wow, this is going to be a ******* mess.

I imagine the reaction will be to move most of them back to the nation they were captured in.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#6 Jun 12 2008 at 7:16 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
From Scalia's dissent:

And today it is not just the military that the Court
elbows aside. A mere two Terms ago in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld,
548 U. S. 557 (2006), when the Court held (quite
amazingly) that the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 had
not stripped habeas jurisdiction over Guantanamo petitioners’
claims, four Members of today’s five-Justice majority
joined an opinion saying the following:
“Nothing prevents the President from returning to
Congress to seek the authority [for trial by military
commission] he believes necessary.
“Where, as here, no emergency prevents consultation
with Congress, judicial insistence upon that consultation
does not weaken our Nation’s ability to deal
with danger. To the contrary, that insistence
strengthens the Nation’s ability to determine—
through democratic means—how best to do so. The
Constitution places its faith in those democratic
means.” Id., at 636 (BREYER, J., concurring).1
Turns out they were just kidding.


He's a **** who essentially stands for the opposite of everything I believe in, but he's at least amusing in a petulant child sort of way.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#7 Jun 12 2008 at 7:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Honestly that's what I thought should be done six years ago.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#8 Jun 12 2008 at 7:18 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Honestly that's what I thought should be done six years ago.


Yeah, good for rule of law, not so good for most of the detainees.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#9 Jun 12 2008 at 7:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

Honestly that's what I thought should be done six years ago.


Yeah, good for rule of law, not so good for most of the detainees.



**** em. They're obviously guilty.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#10 Jun 12 2008 at 7:27 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

They're obviously guilty.


They're obviously not protected by the Geneva Conventions or the Constitution. Gbaji told me. Only citizens are protected by the Constitution.


Ahahha. Sorry. I wish I had search so I could pull that thread up again.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#11 Jun 12 2008 at 7:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Well, here's one.

I started this one, typical troublemaker.

Here's another.

This one got deleted or locked or something.

There's more, but that should get you started.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#12 Jun 12 2008 at 7:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts


Yes Samira...you found four threads so that we could work on making another thread about the same thing...this is keeping with Asylum tradition.

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#13 Jun 12 2008 at 7:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Nexa wrote:


Yes Samira...you found four threads so that we could work on making another thread about the same thing...this is keeping with Asylum tradition.

Nexa


Repetition is reassuring.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#14 Jun 12 2008 at 7:46 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

No. They are not. A foreigner commiting an act of war against the US is *not* committing a crime within the US. He's an enemy. He can be detained and held "for the duration" of the conflict. Depending on his actions, he may face varying conditions. And he can certainly risk dying while actively engaged in said operations. However, he most certainly is *not* a criminal.


Not in the sense of habeus corpus, due process, etc. You are horribly confused if you think so.



Ahh.

Thanks, tiny Filipina secret Pelosi niece.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#15 Jun 12 2008 at 7:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
The vote was 5-4, with the court's liberal justices in the majority.
All the more reason to vote Democratic this year.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#16 Jun 12 2008 at 8:00 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

All the more reason to vote Democratic this year.


No kidding. Stephens is constantly punching the Grim Reaper in the face shouting "one more year!"

Maybe we'll get really lucky and Scalia will die of a heart attack or something after Obama wins and Thomas and Alito will be forced to study law.


____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#19 Jun 12 2008 at 8:29 AM Rating: Decent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
hielojh wrote:
Fortunately I don't think the US will elect a racist muslim president so there's a good chance Mcain will be able to appoint some judges that actually follow the constitution instead of legislating from the bench.


And it's just the liberals putting Muslim into people's mouth when it's not what they said, right Gbaji?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#20 Jun 12 2008 at 8:38 AM Rating: Decent
hielojh wrote:
Fortunately I don't think the US will elect a racist muslim president so there's a good chance Mcain will be able to appoint some judges that actually follow the constitution instead of legislating from the bench.


AH HA HA HA HA HA HA *gasp* AHAHAHAHAHAHA

Let me see here...
Racist? When has he ever said anything racist?
Why would it matter if he was a Muslim our Constitution allows freedom of religion and I don't recall one of the requirements for being eligible for running for president as being Christian
Yes we can only hope that the new judges will actually follow the Constitution instead of allowing the president and executive branch from doing blatantly illegal things IE:Warrentless wiretapping, denying people habeas corpus, denying the right of a fair trial, refusing to allow executive members to testify and writing signing statements to laws explaining how they don't apply to him

Edited, Jun 12th 2008 12:42pm by Planks
#21 Jun 12 2008 at 8:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
hielojh wrote:
Fortunately I don't think the US will elect a racist muslim president
Me neither. But we're talking about this coming election. The one Obama is going to win.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#24 Jun 12 2008 at 9:26 AM Rating: Good
hielojh wrote:
plankdom,

Quote:
Warrentless wiretapping


Don't you mean intercepting communique coming from known terrorists sponsors? That's right you don't know what you're talking about so continue to parrot the liberal media talking points, it's got to be easier than thinking for yourself.
Oh I do know what I am talking about, but it is you who isn't thinking

Our Constitution guarantees the right to be secure in your "persons, houses, papers, and effects" without a warrant

Last I checked that amendment applies to "the people" it did not specify citizens and did not exclude foreigners living in the US.

Also has any admin done a sock check on this guy? The nonsensical name, flaming and trolling makes me wonder
#25 Jun 12 2008 at 9:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
The Planks of Doom wrote:

Also has any admin done a sock check on this guy? The nonsensical name, flaming and trolling makes me wonder


huh? It's just Varus.

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#26 Jun 12 2008 at 9:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
hielojh wrote:
Obama win? LOL.. Of course you predicted Kerry last time around.
So how do you think Fred Thompson will do in the general? Hold any more fundraisers for him lately? Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 303 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (303)