guantanamo no mo

Rum, beer, women, movies, nice websites, gaming, etc., without interrupting the flow of martial threads.

guantanamo no mo

Postby nianfong on Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:05 pm

why hello habeas corpus. glad to see you back again. :)
Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees
In rebuke to administration, suspects may appeal in U.S. civilian courts

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25117953/

updated 2:53 p.m. PT, Thurs., June. 12, 2008

WASHINGTON - In a stinging rebuke to President Bush's anti-terror policies, a deeply divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign detainees held for years at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have the right to appeal to U.S. civilian courts to challenge their indefinite imprisonment without charges.

Bush said he strongly disagreed with the decision — the third time the court has repudiated him on the detainees — and suggested he might seek yet another law to keep terror suspects locked up at the prison camp, even as his presidency winds down.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the 5-4 high court majority, acknowledged the terrorism threat the U.S. faces — the administration's justification for the detentions — but he declared, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."
Story continues below ↓advertisement

In a blistering dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Bush claims detentions are needed
Bush has argued the detentions are needed to protect the nation in a time of unprecedented threats from al-Qaida and other foreign terrorist groups. The president, in Rome, said Thursday, "It was a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented." He said he would consider whether to seek new laws in light of the ruling "so we can safely say to the American people, 'We're doing everything we can to protect you.'"

Kennedy said federal judges could ultimately order some detainees to be released, but he also said such orders would depend on security concerns and other circumstances. The ruling itself won't result in any immediate releases
Last edited by nianfong on Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
nianfong
Administrator
 
Posts: 4575
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 10:28 am
Location: SF Bay Area

Re: guantanamo no mo

Postby Muad'dib on Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:09 pm

Thomas is a retard, Alito is an unknown at this time, but I am looking forward to reading Scalia's dissent. Say what you want about his politics, his decisions are some of the best written, reasoned and lucid pieces I've had the pleasure to read.
I am no longer allowed to make statements regarding international politics in a public forum.
User avatar
Muad'dib
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1536
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 1:53 am

Re: guantanamo no mo

Postby I-mon on Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:01 am

"Several Republican lawmakers called it a decision that put foreign terrorists' rights above the safety of the American people."

words fail me.
User avatar
I-mon
Great Old One
 
Posts: 2953
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 12:19 am
Location: Australia

Re: guantanamo no mo

Postby Ian on Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:37 am

"right to appeal to U.S. civilian courts to challenge their indefinite imprisonment without charges."

It's not even like they're opening the gates and letting hundreds of terrorists run rampant. They're giving Guantanamo detainees the right to appeal. Is that really so bad? ::)


"Justice Antonin Scalia said the decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Yeah, so will bathtubs, slippery floors, alcohol, fast food, automobiles... and statistically they're far more potent. What's his point? That we should sacrifice our liberties out of fear?

Someone should take the UDHR and staple it to his forehead.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.



"Bush claims detentions are needed
Bush has argued the detentions are needed to protect the nation in a time of unprecedented threats from al-Qaida and other foreign terrorist groups."

Fair enough. AFTER each and every one of them gets a fair trial.
Last edited by Ian on Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ian

 

Re: guantanamo no mo

Postby Darth Rock&Roll on Fri Jun 13, 2008 5:40 am

Bush does not have the authority to lead america into a fascist police state existence which is what gitmo represents under rule of law.
Coconuts. Bananas. Mangos. Rice. Beans. Water. It's good.
User avatar
Darth Rock&Roll
Great Old One
 
Posts: 7061
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 4:42 am
Location: Canada

Re: guantanamo no mo

Postby Michael on Fri Jun 13, 2008 6:08 am

Bush already gave himself authority, literally, in writing, in law more than two years ago, to be the absolute dictator of the USA. If you doubt me, a very quick read of one or two pages from PDD 51 will reveal if I am correct.

The gitmo thing is a joke. This is the third time the Supreme Court has rebuked Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, and they are still dragging their feet, although the number of prisoners has been reduced. At this point, arguing about gitmo's legitimacy is negotiating for what you already have. Gitmo was always illegitimate. Almost seven years later and further discussion is just weakening the Supreme Court, which may have been one of their goals.
"but we’re going to hunt down that last point-one percent and say: ‘you’ve gotta get inside, you gotta cut it out, and you gotta distance.’” —Mayor Garcetti
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 12902
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: 自由 国家

Re: guantanamo no mo

Postby Darth Rock&Roll on Fri Jun 13, 2008 6:48 am

Bush overstepped his authority and the republican congress and senate at the time weakened the actual constitutional provisions by allowing him to do so.

It seems that being a republican is un-american on so many levels by virtue of this pretty much dictatorial administration.

He (GWB) should not have even been put in the position he is in.

I hope Dennis gets that impeachment ball rolling strong just so it is a matter of record that Bush and his gang are nothing more than the hooligans, thieves and criminals that they have demonstrably acted as for two terms.
Coconuts. Bananas. Mangos. Rice. Beans. Water. It's good.
User avatar
Darth Rock&Roll
Great Old One
 
Posts: 7061
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 4:42 am
Location: Canada

Re: guantanamo no mo

Postby steelincotton on Fri Jun 13, 2008 8:14 am

Scalia is a scumbag. A pure political lackey for George Bush. The man is the most ignorant and arrogant buffoon I've ever heard and seen speak.
steelincotton
Huajing
 
Posts: 360
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:29 am

Re: guantanamo no mo

Postby Michael on Fri Jun 13, 2008 8:46 am

Hi Steel,

Dude, you're going to blow your "Most Improved Post'er of the Year Award" :) if you let Scalia get to you. I disagree with probably all of his "civil liberty" opinions, but he does have some good points. For example, I agreed with the majority opinion of the court against rape becoming a federal crime because of the interstate commerce clasuse, and Scalia was with the majority. Just trying to say that even Scalia (or Bush for that matter) is not 100% bad 100% of the time.

Everybody has their perspective, which appears legitimate in their eyes, so we have to respect that. End of sermon, LOL.

Have fun,
Michael
"but we’re going to hunt down that last point-one percent and say: ‘you’ve gotta get inside, you gotta cut it out, and you gotta distance.’” —Mayor Garcetti
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 12902
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: 自由 国家

Re: guantanamo no mo

Postby steelincotton on Fri Jun 13, 2008 8:58 am

Ok Micheal. You make a good point. It's just that I saw the interview with him and he came off so downright obnoxious that it made my blood boil. That, and the whole thievery of Al Gore's victory, and Scalia said when questioned about the "decision" - Get over it! It sounded just like his buddy Dick Cheney. I'm sure he's a bright guy, but I have no patience for neo-cons.
Last edited by steelincotton on Fri Jun 13, 2008 8:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
steelincotton
Huajing
 
Posts: 360
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:29 am

Re: guantanamo no mo

Postby Bär on Fri Jun 13, 2008 8:59 am

Habeus Corpus - FUCK YEAH!
User avatar
Bär
Great Old One
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:28 am

Re: guantanamo no mo

Postby TaoJoannes on Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:51 pm

nianfong wrote:In a blistering dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."


Well, as another asshat once famously quipped

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
oh qué una tela enredada que tejemos cuando primero practicamos para engañar
User avatar
TaoJoannes
Wuji
 
Posts: 875
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 3:40 am
Location: Cocoa Beach, Fla

Re: guantanamo no mo

Postby Michael on Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:13 pm

Hey guys, sorry to rain on your parade but habeus corpus is still dead according to PDD 51 and the Military Commissions Act. It hasn't yet been invoked as far as we know under these particular statutes from 2006, at least not that has been revealed to the public, but with top secret renditions going on (relatively frequently if you follow the sightings of the various CIA Gulfstreams logged by airport watchers around the world), and the govt telling us it's only non-US citizens, why in the world would we believe them? Two Canadians have been taken down, and later released, and one of them went to gitmo. Then there's the German who was kidnapped by the CIA during a vacation in the former Yugoslavia that the US Supreme Court told he had no recourse. Lots of evidence that this has become common place. Italy has warrants out for something like 26 CIA agents for their roles in recent kidnappings, etc., etc.

PDD 51 is about the President invoking dictatorial powers (it's short, read for yourself) in times of emergency, the emergency being anything under the sun, and is called a "continuation of govt in time of crisis" order. Previous "continuity of govt" regulations have existed for a long time, going back at least to Rex84 in 1984, and are detailed blueprints for martial law, and even the regulations themselves are top secret, so we don't know if they provide for unlimited detention. Secret courts using secret rules to secretly put people in secret prisons. IMO, the boldness of Bush/Cheney in their use of gitmo could indicate that this is just the surface coming into view, the tip of the iceberg.
"but we’re going to hunt down that last point-one percent and say: ‘you’ve gotta get inside, you gotta cut it out, and you gotta distance.’” —Mayor Garcetti
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 12902
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: 自由 国家

Re: guantanamo no mo

Postby Ben on Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:18 pm

I am so happy to hear this. I brings back an ounce of faith in the system.
Never confuse movement with action.
-Ernest Hemingway
Ben
Great Old One
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 3:11 pm
Location: Canton, GA


Return to Off the Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests