Home | Community | Message Board


World Seed Supply
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Finally - Courts Rule For Guantanamo Bay Prisoners' Rights
    #2191528 - 12/19/03 09:48 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/12/19/courts/print.html

Two court rulings slam Bush's terror strategy

- - - - - - - - - - - -
David Kravets


Dec. 19, 2003 | SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Two federal courts ruled that the U.S. military cannot deny prisoners access to lawyers or the American courts by detaining them indefinitely, dealing twin setbacks to the Bush administration's strategy in the war on terror.

One of Thursday's rulings favored the 660 "enemy combatants" held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The other involved American citizen Jose Padilla, who was seized in Chicago in an alleged plot to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" and declared as an enemy combatant.

In Padilla's case, the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the former gang member released from military custody within 30 days and if the government chooses, tried in civilian courts. The White House said the government would appeal and seek a stay of the decision.

In the other case, a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base should have access to lawyers and the American court system.

The White House said the ruling was inconsistent with the president's constitutional authority as well as with other court rulings.

"The president's most solemn obligation is protecting the American people," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Thursday. "We believe the 2nd Circuit ruling is troubling and flawed."

An order by President Bush in November 2001 allows captives to be detained as "enemy combatants" if they are members of al-Qaida, engaged in or aided terrorism, or harbored terrorists. The designation may also be applied if it is "the interest of the United States" to hold an individual during hostilities.

The Justice Department this week said such a classification allows detainees to be held without access to lawyers until U.S. authorities believe they have disclosed everything they know about terrorist operations.

But Padilla's detention as an enemy combatant, the New York court ruled 2-1, was not authorized by Congress and Bush could not designate him as an enemy combatant without such approval.

Michael Greenberger, a University of Maryland School of Law professor and former Clinton administration Justice Department official, said the government "is being painted into a corner that is not very favorable. How bad of a corner will be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court."

The court, Greenberger said, did not address the broader question of whether constitutional rights would be violated if Bush had congressional authority to designate somebody as an enemy combatant.

Padilla, a convert to Islam, was arrested in May 2002 at Chicago's O'Hare airport as he returned from Pakistan. Within days, he was moved to a naval brig in Charleston, S.C. The government said he had proposed the bomb plot to Abu Zubaydah, then al-Qaida's top terrorism coordinator, who was arrested in Pakistan in March 2002.

In ordering his release from military custody, the court said the government was free to transfer Padilla to civilian authorities who can bring criminal charges. If appropriate, Padilla also can be held as a material witness in connection with grand jury proceedings, the court said.

Padilla's lawyer, Donna Newman, did not immediately return a telephone message for comment.

Chris Dunn, a staff attorney with the New York Civil Liberties Union, called the ruling ``historic.''

"It's a repudiation of the Bush administration's attempt to close the federal courts to those accused of terrorism," Dunn said.

Thursday's 2-1 decision out of San Francisco was the first federal appellate ruling to rebuke the Bush administration's position on the Guantanamo detainees who have been without charges, some for nearly two years. The administration maintains that because the 660 men confined there were picked up overseas on suspicion of terrorism and are being held on foreign land, they may be detained indefinitely without charges or trial.

The Supreme Court last month agreed to decide whether the detainees, who were nabbed in Afghanistan and Pakistan, should have access to the courts. The justices agreed to hear that case after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the prisoners had no rights to the American legal system.

"Even in times of national emergency -- indeed, particularly in such times -- it is the obligation of the Judicial Branch to ensure the preservation of our constitutional values and to prevent the Executive Branch from running roughshod over the rights of citizens and aliens alike," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the majority.

Stephen Yagman, the Los Angeles civil rights lawyer who filed the suit on behalf of Libyan detainee Faren Cherebi, said if the decision survives, the government "has to put up some evidence that there is a reason to hold these people and charge them, or give them up."

Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo said the government's position is that "U.S. courts have no jurisdiction over non-U.S. citizens being held in military control abroad."

The Defense Department announced Thursday that the Pentagon had appointed a military defense lawyer for a terrorism suspect held at Guantanamo. Salim Ahmed Hamdan of Yemen becomes the second Guantanamo prisoner to be given a lawyer. Australian David Hicks got a lawyer earlier this month and recently met with an Australian legal adviser.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: Finally - Courts Rule For Guantanamo Bay Prisoners' Righ [Re: Swami]
    #2191543 - 12/19/03 09:54 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Wouldn't it be easier to keep all of this in the other thread?


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Finally - Courts Rule For Guantanamo Bay Prisoners' Rights [Re: Swami]
    #2191672 - 12/19/03 10:43 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Do you always applaud a court's decision or just when you agree with it?

This isn't a smartass question. I am very serious.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/07/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 11 years, 2 months
Re: Finally - Courts Rule For Guantanamo Bay Prisoners' Rights [Re: ]
    #2191696 - 12/19/03 10:52 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Do you always applaud a court's decision or just when you agree with it?





Why would you applaud a decision you didn't agree with?


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Finally - Courts Rule For Guantanamo Bay Prisoners' Rights [Re: monoamine]
    #2191711 - 12/19/03 10:56 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

I want to hear Swami's answer first.  But thanks for asking. :smile:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: Finally - Courts Rule For Guantanamo Bay Prisoners' Rights [Re: ]
    #2191889 - 12/20/03 12:02 AM (12 years, 11 months ago)

*Disclaimer* This is not a Bush / Hitler comparison. It is about an abuse of power comparison.

I see cracks in the Constitution that deeply trouble me. The "knockless warrant" is one such violation as are the seizure laws wherein an innocent boat owner can have his yacht seized for a seaman possessing a joint.

I am a student of history. "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" is an amazing account of how Hitler first targeted the rights of small unfavorable groups such as Communists and then no one complained. Encouraged by this he kept expanding.

There was no declared war and thus there can be no declared peace. So these people they can be held indefinitely. This is wrong. What is so frightening about charging and trying these men?

I will fight this in the same way that there are chips in the right of free speech and right to assemble and protest. It is very dangerous to allow the line of unchecked political power to expand.

My best friend during the 911 attack was a Lebanese Christian who had been a loyal American for decades. However, he had the classic Arab look and was subject to much abuse. We used to go out every weekend. My white American friends were appalled that I would hang with him and thought it very dangerous. Ignorance is scarier than the threat of physical violence.

I sincerely hope this answers your question.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: Finally - Courts Rule For Guantanamo Bay Prisoners' Righ [Re: Swami]
    #2191918 - 12/20/03 12:15 AM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Swami writes:

There was no declared war and thus there can be no declared peace.

Wars are often declared by means other than a formal written declaration dropped off at the State Department.

The attack on the USS Cole was an act of war. An attack on a US embassy is an act of war. Driving airplanes into office buildings and the Pentagon is an act of war. The United States of America is at war with Al Qaeda and various other terrorist organizations. Those captured may rightfully be considered POWs.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: Finally - Courts Rule For Guantanamo Bay Prisoners' Righ [Re: Phred]
    #2191972 - 12/20/03 12:43 AM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Hiya pinky,

Last time I looked Afghanistan is not Al Queda. For generic Afghanis to be held, a War must be declared and they must be shown to belong to that organization. Otherwise let's let all accused people be held without legal representation and you know where that leads... It is fine until it happens to you.


http://www.fff.org/comment/com0204a.asp

Declaring and Waging War: The U.S. Constitution
by Jacob G. Hornberger, April 2002

"Again, reflect on the words of Madison: ?The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war [and] the power of raising armies. A delegation of such powers [to the president] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments. The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.?

Therefore, under our system of government although the president is personally convinced that war against a certain nation is just and morally right, he is nevertheless prohibited by our supreme law of the land from waging it unless he first secures a declaration of war from Congress. That was precisely why presidents Wilson and Roosevelt, who both believed that U.S. intervention in World Wars I and II was right and just, nevertheless had to wait for a congressional declaration of war before entering the conflict. And the fact that later presidents have violated the declaration-of-war requirement does not operate as a grant of power for other presidents to do the same.

What about the congressional resolution that granted President Bush the power to wage war against unnamed nations and organizations that the president determines were linked to the September 11 attacks? Doesn?t that constitute a congressional declaration of war? No, it is instead a congressional grant to the president of Caesar-like powers to wage war, a grant that the Constitution does not authorize Congress to make."

In case I did not directly answer MM's question: I applaud any ruling that IMHO upholds the U.S. Constitution.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineenimatpyrt
addict
Registered: 11/05/03
Posts: 498
Last seen: 12 years, 11 months
Re: Finally - Courts Rule For Guantanamo Bay Prisoners' Rights [Re: Swami]
    #2192775 - 12/20/03 01:21 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Anyone wanna place bets on the response if this occurs...

Lets say that these people are tried under RICO laws, they are part of a criminal conspiracy that attacked and killed Americans. They trained at the same camps, and they have the same leader. Under RICO laws, thy are just as guilty, so, all of them are tried in US courts, found guilty by 12 jurors, and sentanced to death. How many cheerful liberals will we hav that say "Finally, a trial for them"? Any? Doubtful.


--------------------
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Finally - Courts Rule For Guantanamo Bay Prisoners' Rights [Re: enimatpyrt]
    #2192911 - 12/20/03 03:25 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

If the US had any faith that the cases against these people would stand up in court they would all have been tried by now.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineenimatpyrt
addict
Registered: 11/05/03
Posts: 498
Last seen: 12 years, 11 months
Re: Finally - Courts Rule For Guantanamo Bay Prisoners' Rights [Re: Xlea321]
    #2192959 - 12/20/03 03:48 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

I see alex, does that mean that if these people are tried in a civilian court, found guilty by 12 Americans, and sentanced to years in prison, you would cede that it was done properly, and thus, it is correct and that full US rights had been extended these people?

In your thread that will, i'm sure, attempt to derail this thread, try to answer the question at least once if ya could, thanks.


--------------------
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 22,840
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
Re: Finally - Courts Rule For Guantanamo Bay Prisoners' Rights [Re: enimatpyrt]
    #2193290 - 12/20/03 07:12 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

They should all be released so that they can go kill American Servicemen.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Finally - Courts Rule For Guantanamo Bay Prisoners' Rights [Re: enimatpyrt]
    #2193310 - 12/20/03 07:29 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

enimatpyrt said:
Anyone wanna place bets on the response if this occurs...

Lets say that these people are tried under RICO laws, they are part of a criminal conspiracy that attacked and killed Americans. They trained at the same camps, and they have the same leader. Under RICO laws, thy are just as guilty, so, all of them are tried in US courts, found guilty by 12 jurors, and sentanced to death. How many cheerful liberals will we hav that say "Finally, a trial for them"? Any? Doubtful.



While I'm generally opposed to the death penalty, I will be satisfied if they get a fair trial.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Finally - Courts Rule For Guantanamo Bay Prisoners' Rights [Re: Swami]
    #2193573 - 12/20/03 10:23 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Not direct, but an interesting answer.

So you must disapprove of FDR's actions regarding the internment camps of the Japanese. Correct? Then would you also agree that FDR's actions in that instance were worse than our president's? You seem to use numbers to determine the egregiousness of an offense. (Your thread about 1,000,000 Americans still imprisoned under the administration of our president confirm that.)

If that is so you should admit that FDR's actions were also like Hitler's and a violation of the Constitution you hold so dear.

Do think that the normal liberty should be temporarily restricted in times of emergency?

Here's my take on it. Please address the above issues before you land on this one. I do not hold the Constitution of the United States to be an infallable document. As I have stated before I do not rely on the second amendment to provide me with the right to defend myself. I claim that right by birth via natural law.

The Constitution was flawed in many respects. It denied women and blacks suffrage, it made no provision for the Natives that already possessed much of the land at the time of its writing and it didn't address slavery. The list goes on and on.

Algore, Bush's opponent declared the Constitution to be a "living document". That should have sent a chill up your spine. But somehow I don't think it did.

Some may cling to the Constitution but I prefer to look to the philosopher's aid to help me understand justice. I prefer Locke over Jefferson and Madison.

Cheers,

MM


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: Finally - Courts Rule For Guantanamo Bay Prisoners' Righ [Re: Swami]
    #2193599 - 12/20/03 10:40 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Bush Declares 2nd Circuit Judges 'Enemy Combatants'

(2003-12-19) -- In the wake of yesterday's decision by a U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals panel ordering the government either to release accused dirty bomber Jose Padilla or to try him in civilian court, President George Bush today declared two judges on the Court to be 'enemy combatants'.

The judges, who both ruled against the Bush administration in Padilla v. Rumsfeld, have been flown to the U.S. military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"These judges are a threat to our freedoms and our way of life," said Mr. Bush in a brief written statement. "In the war on terror, the battlefield has no boundaries and we can't wait until there's an imminent threat to executive privilege before taking action."

The judges will be held incommunicado for an unspecified period, or until the Supreme Court overturns the Circuit Court ruling. The prisoners of war will, of course, receive daily visits from a Muslim chaplain.



http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/001435.html


pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Finally - Courts Rule For Guantanamo Bay Prisoners' Rights [Re: Swami]
    #2193691 - 12/21/03 12:03 AM (12 years, 11 months ago)

now would be a good time for a secret commando unit to sneak in and shoot the lot of the fucking islamic scum.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Finally - Courts Rule For Guantanamo Bay Prisoners' Rights [Re: enimatpyrt]
    #2193755 - 12/21/03 06:07 AM (12 years, 11 months ago)

if these people are tried in a civilian court, found guilty by 12 Americans

Your alternative being what? Execute anyone you feel like?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,233
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 15 days, 2 hours
Re: Finally - Courts Rule For Guantanamo Bay Prisoners' Rights [Re: Swami]
    #2193995 - 12/21/03 04:28 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

In my opinion, there is absolutely no logical reason why these captives have not been given due process. Swami is correct in saying that no war was declared on Afghanistan, just on one particular group. It seems to me that 'freedom', 'liberation' and 'justice' are just buzz words that have no real meaning to the current administration...


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinemntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation
Male User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 1 year, 3 days
Re: Finally - Courts Rule For Guantanamo Bay Prisoners' Rights [Re: Rono]
    #2194008 - 12/21/03 04:32 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

What internation laws apply to groups that have no boarders or soveriegn land. What legal recourse does a country have against them?


--------------------
Be all and you'll be to end all


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Finally - Courts Rule For Guantanamo Bay Prisoners' Rights [Re: mntlfngrs]
    #2194851 - 12/22/03 02:15 AM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Depends if they've commited a crime or not. Attacking devastated stone-age countries like Afghanistan you arn't going to find nice neat columns of men in expensive military uniforms. Does that mean everyone who fights you is a "terrorist"?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Supreme Court rules against medical marijuana Agent Cooper 2,773 12 09/10/12 10:36 PM
by MEEZIE
* FISA Court Ruled Warrantless Wiretaps of Foreigners Illegal, prompting FISA Amendment johnm214 330 0 09/03/07 11:16 PM
by johnm214
* Supreme Court Rules Cities May Sieze Homes
( 1 2 3 all )
Pirate_Patrick 2,476 40 06/29/05 12:34 PM
by automan
* U.S. Supreme Court rules it's okay for local governments to use eminent domain to seize property for JaguarWarrior101 534 2 06/24/05 01:41 PM
by Phred
* Bush's response to Supreme Courts ruling on Guantanimo elbisivni 490 3 06/12/08 11:19 PM
by Chemy
* Supreme Court ruling: police may now use drug sniffing dogs during routine traffic stops SWEDEN 1,885 15 01/29/05 07:00 PM
by Swami
* Supreme Court Rules Against Executing Minors
( 1 2 3 4 all )
dblaney 3,549 76 03/25/05 01:42 PM
by Somaton
* US supreme court quashes illegal guantanmo trials carbonhoots 760 5 07/01/06 08:44 AM
by niteowl

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
2,495 topic views. 1 members, 1 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Kraken Kratom
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.105 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 16 queries.