USSC Blunder

[Libsmasher]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365851,00.html

The supreme court ruled that the islamofascists at Gitmo have a right to habeas corpus. The decision was 5-4, with the alleged swing vote stevens supporting the libs. This is a monumental and breath-taking rewriting of hundreds of years of constitutional jurisprudence - never before would such persons be entitled to the writ, which has ALWAYS been limited to three classes:

1. US government dealings with US citizens in the US.
2. US government dealings with US citizens abroad.
3. US government dealings with non-citizens in the US.

The result for the IFs, after possibly a few more years of legal process, is that the government will let them go, so that they can go back to the middle east and once again murder women and children and kill US servicemen. That's because the US would have to give up military secrets and sources in order to try these people as if they were just someone who robbed the local 7-11.

But beyond this, the implications of the can of worms the court opened are beyond limit: Why can't now anyone detained in Iraq (or anywhere else) by the army seek the writ? And if this part of the constitution can be applied to foreigners in foreign lands, what else can? Due process? (Eg, a hearing must be held for an IF on the battlefield.)

The court has gone WAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY out of it's purview with this, intruding on the fine points of the president's power to conduct a war.

The broadest final point from this is - the USSC, envisioned by the Founders as a sort of minor, junior partner branch of government, continues its expansive reach and control into america, and needs to be reined in.

 

[Bunz]

never before would such persons be entitled to the writ, which has ALWAYS been limited to three classes:
1. US government dealings with US citizens in the US.
2. US government dealings with US citizens abroad.
3. US government dealings with non-citizens in the US.

Except what the Bush administration created, which is non-US citizens held in a third country.

The result for the IFs, after possibly a few more years of legal process, is that the government will let them go, so that they can go back to the middle east and once again murder women and children and kill US servicemen. That's because the US would have to give up military secrets and sources in order to try these people as if they were just someone who robbed the local 7-11.

WRONG, what will happen is that they will be provided with an avenue to prove they are no terrorists, or they are. If they are deemed to be, due what you will with them, if not, let them go. Unfortunately, those after being locked up for years on end without any due process, because the Geneva Convention has been decided to no longer apply to them, they are pissed off and more likely to strike again. This is the fault of the policy of the Bush Administratin.

But beyond this, the implications of the can of worms the court opened are beyond limit: Why can't now anyone detained in Iraq (or anywhere else) by the army seek the writ? And if this part of the constitution can be applied to foreigners in foreign lands, what else can? Due process? (Eg, a hearing must be held for an IF on the battlefield.)

Firstly, I think you already know the fallacy in your argument. In Iraq those detainees have legal protection to decide who is guilty and not. But I am one who thinks that, despite what has happened, that America needs to hold to its principals and contitution and apply it evenly.

The court has gone WAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY out of it's purview with this, intruding on the fine points of the president's power to conduct a war.

The Bush Administration needs to be your target. They are the ones out of line with historical precedence concerning this. Imagine if the Nazis captured were sent to a third country to be held indefinately. Even Saddam Hussein, and Rudolph Hess got thier day in court.

The broadest final point from this is - the USSC, envisioned by the Founders as a sort of minor, junior partner branch of government, continues its expansive reach and control into america, and needs to be reined in.

Your idea of a minor junior branch is in my feelings wholly underestimated. We have three equal but separate branches of government. Executive, Judicial, and Legislative. This would mean to me, that if Roe V Wade were overturned, it would be done under a minor branch of government. This argument holds zero water.

 

[Libsmasher]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
never before would such persons be entitled to the writ, which has ALWAYS been limited to three classes:
1. US government dealings with US citizens in the US.
2. US government dealings with US citizens abroad.
3. US government dealings with non-citizens in the US.

Except what the Bush administration created, which is non-US citizens held in a third country.

More total nonsense from you - the US has always held prisoners in foreign wars in foreign countries, starting with the War of Independence and every war since.

Quote:
The result for the IFs, after possibly a few more years of legal process, is that the government will let them go, so that they can go back to the middle east and once again murder women and children and kill US servicemen. That's because the US would have to give up military secrets and sources in order to try these people as if they were just someone who robbed the local 7-11.

WRONG, what will happen is that they will be provided with an avenue to prove they are no terrorists, or they are. If they are deemed to be, due what you will with them, if not, let them go. Unfortunately, those after being locked up for years on end without any due process, because the Geneva Convention has been decided to no longer apply to them, they are pissed off and more likely to strike again. This is the fault of the policy of the Bush Administratin.

Absolutely false. The millenia-long custom is to hold enemy combatants for the duration of hostilities, not up to some arbitrary time limit.

Quote:
But beyond this, the implications of the can of worms the court opened are beyond limit: Why can't now anyone detained in Iraq (or anywhere else) by the army seek the writ? And if this part of the constitution can be applied to foreigners in foreign lands, what else can? Due process? (Eg, a hearing must be held for an IF on the battlefield.)

Firstly, I think you already know the fallacy in your argument. In Iraq those detainees have legal protection to decide who is guilty and not. But I am one who thinks that, despite what has happened, that America needs to hold to its principals and contitution and apply it evenly.

You simply don't grasp it. Habeas corpus has always been applied to people picked up off the street by police. It has NEVER been used to spring prisoners of war.

Quote:
The court has gone WAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY out of it's purview with this, intruding on the fine points of the president's power to conduct a war.

The Bush Administration needs to be your target. They are the ones out of line with historical precedence concerning this. Imagine if the Nazis captured were sent to a third country to be held indefinately. Even Saddam Hussein, and Rudolph Hess got thier day in court.

Your Bushophobia is showing - I am talking about a broad historic legal mistake, and like most libs, you can't think past Bush. And it's ironic that you bring up Rudolph Hess - he was held for five years in the UK till the Nuremberg trials, which would have been illegal if the same USSC ruling applied in the UK back then.

Quote:
The broadest final point from this is - the USSC, envisioned by the Founders as a sort of minor, junior partner branch of government, continues its expansive reach and control into america, and needs to be reined in.

Your idea of a minor junior branch is in my feelings wholly underestimated. We have three equal but separate branches of government. Executive, Judicial, and Legislative. This would mean to me, that if Roe V Wade were overturned, it would be done under a minor branch of government. This argument holds zero water.

You are simply unschooled in the history of the court and how the Framers viewed it, and are proceeding from a "high school textbook" theory of US government history. Read up.

 

[GenSeneca]

I think this was the last straw for me....

The Left embraced defeat long ago and they have steadily been marching us into a corner. They have placed so many obstacles in the way, the next president will have to make a choice: Remove them, Aviod them, Deal with them, Finish castrating the Military and call it a day.

McCain will not be able to remove or avoid these obstacles but I hope he can deal with them.

This actually gives me a reason to vote McCain now... and that REALLY makes me mad

I don't like his policy positions at all, but at least the dude has an unquestionable love for our Military. I can say the same for Hillary too, she is quite the closet hawk. But Obama ... I mean, he's next door neighbors with Kucinich on the far left... and Kucinich's house is at the end of the street.

 

[Bunz]

More total nonsense from you - the US has always held prisoners in foreign wars in foreign countries, starting with the War of Independence and every war since.

Please do provide evidence of this.

Absolutely false. The millenia-long custom is to hold enemy combatants for the duration of hostilities, not up to some arbitrary time limit.

This is the United States of America. We are known to be the worlds leader in matter of human rights, why make exception for these idiots?

You simply don't grasp it. Habeas corpus has always been applied to people picked up off the street by police. It has NEVER been used to spring prisoners of war.

Because prisoners of war have been adminstrated under the Geneva Convention in modern times.

Your Bushophobia is showing - I am talking about a broad historic legal mistake, and like most libs, you can't think past Bush. And it's ironic that you bring up Rudolph Hess - he was held for five years in the UK till the Nuremberg trials, which would have been illegal if the same USSC ruling applied in the UK back then.

I dont know how long people have been held because that is generally held in secret. Which is part of suspending HB. The Nuremberg trials were upprecendented, and I have mixed feelings on the issue. I could name a bunch of other Nazi ministers to prove my point. Herman Goehring could be another. Point being, is the the United States of America is a land of justice and those who violate it are allowed a certain amount of defense. This is not to mean I want those at GITMO free, just held in compliance with the law. Which the USSC ruled in favor of.

You are simply unschooled in the history of the court and how the Framers viewed it, and are proceeding from a "high school textbook" theory of US government history. Read up.

Laughabile.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Bunz, the first thing you've got to realize, in order for you to understand what is so wrong about his ruling, is that under the Geneva Convention (GCIII), Part 1, Article 4, Section 2, they are not granted the status of POW's.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

They are obviously not being commanded by somene who is resposible for their actions, they do not wear uniforms or other distinctive insignia or sign, and they do not conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war, which means that they are not entitled to protection under the Geneva Convention. The fact that we would even allow them the extremely comfortable conditions under which they are being held is in itself testimony to our "compassion" and "human rights", and only the most ardent "hate America first" people would even attempt to claim otherwise. These 'prisoners' are T E R R O R I S T S, and as such should consider themselves lucky to even be alive, as in my day, they would have been summarily shot, in the head, twice, on sight (or we might possibly have watied until after they divulged whatever information we could have beaten out of them in the first 20 minutes after their capture).

As to our POW camps overseas, is it your contention that we executed any and all prisoners we took during WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam? Please. I know of at least 4 POW camps that we ran during and after WWII, in Germany, as I visited what was left of them while stationed there. It is my understanding that there were more than a dozen more, but having not been to them, I cannot attest to that as a fact.

 

[Libsmasher]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
More total nonsense from you - the US has always held prisoners in foreign wars in foreign countries, starting with the War of Independence and every war since.

Please do provide evidence of this.

OBVIOUSLY the US held prisoners in, eg, europe in WWII.

Quote:
Absolutely false. The millenia-long custom is to hold enemy combatants for the duration of hostilities, not up to some arbitrary time limit.

This is the United States of America. We are known to be the worlds leader in matter of human rights, why make exception for these idiots?

I have NO idea what you're talking about. The US held tens of thousands of axis prisoners in the US in WWII for the duration of the war. Letting people go while a war is still on is what would be exceptional, indeed unprecedented.

Quote:
You simply don't grasp it. Habeas corpus has always been applied to people picked up off the street by police. It has NEVER been used to spring prisoners of war.

Because prisoners of war have been adminstrated under the Geneva Convention in modern times.

NOTHING in the conventions prohibits the standard practice of holding prisoners for the duration of hostilities. (It's also common sense - duhhhh ).

Quote:
Your Bushophobia is showing - I am talking about a broad historic legal mistake, and like most libs, you can't think past Bush. And it's ironic that you bring up Rudolph Hess - he was held for five years in the UK till the Nuremberg trials, which would have been illegal if the same USSC ruling applied in the UK back then.

I dont know how long people have been held because that is generally held in secret. Which is part of suspending HB. The Nuremberg trials were upprecendented, and I have mixed feelings on the issue. I could name a bunch of other Nazi ministers to prove my point. Herman Goehring could be another. Point being, is the the United States of America is a land of justice and those who violate it are allowed a certain amount of defense. This is not to mean I want those at GITMO free, just held in compliance with the law. Which the USSC ruled in favor of.

You are completely confused. The USSC made NEW LAW, which is strictly the purview of the people's legislative representatives. The USSC is out of control.

Quote:
You are simply unschooled in the history of the court and how the Framers viewed it, and are proceeding from a "high school textbook" theory of US government history. Read up.

Laughabile.

Won't read? I guess there's no helping the militantly ignorant.

 

[Libsmasher]

Excerpt from Justice Scalia's dissent on the IF habeas corpus case, discussing the consequences of previous releases from Gitmo, and the consequences of disclosures during HC hearings. Full opinion here:

http://theminorityreportblog.com/bl...ce_antonin_scalia_s_dissent_boumediene_v_bush

In the long term, then, the Court’s decision today accomplishes
little, except perhaps to reduce the well-being
of enemy combatants that the Court ostensibly seeks to
protect. In the short term, however, the decision is devastating.
At least 30 of those prisoners hitherto released
from Guantanamo Bay have returned to the battlefield.See S. Rep. No. 110–90, pt. 7, p. 13 (2007) (Minority Views
of Sens. Kyl, Sessions, Graham, Cornyn, and Coburn)
(hereinafter Minority Report). Some have been captured
or killed. See ibid.; see also Mintz, Released Detainees
Rejoining the Fight, Washington Post, Oct. 22, 2004, pp.
A1, A12. But others have succeeded in carrying on their
atrocities against innocent civilians. In one case, a detainee
released from Guantanamo Bay masterminded the
kidnapping of two Chinese dam workers, one of whom was
later shot to death when used as a human shield against
Pakistani commandoes. See Khan & Lancaster, Pakistanis
Rescue Hostage; 2nd Dies, Washington Post, Oct.
15, 2004, p. A18. Another former detainee promptly resumed
his post as a senior Taliban commander and murdered
a United Nations engineer and three Afghan soldiers.Mintz, supra.
Still another murdered an Afghan
judge. See Minority Report 13. It was reported only last
4 BOUMEDIENE v. BUSH
SCALIA, J., dissenting
month that a released detainee carried out a suicide bombing
against Iraqi soldiers in Mosul, Iraq. See White, Ex-
Guantanamo Detainee Joined Iraq Suicide Attack, Washington
Post, May 8, 2008, p. A18.
These, mind you, were detainees whom the military had
concluded were not enemy combatants. Their return to
the kill illustrates the incredible difficulty of assessing
who is and who is not an enemy combatant in a foreign
theater of operations where the environment does not lend
itself to rigorous evidence collection. Astoundingly, the
Court today raises the bar, requiring military officials to
appear before civilian courts and defend their decisions
under procedural and evidentiary rules that go beyond
what Congress has specified. As THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s
dissent makes clear, we have no idea what those procedural
and evidentiary rules are, but they will be determined
by civil courts and (in the Court’s contemplation at
least) will be more detainee-friendly than those now applied,
since otherwise there would no reason to hold the
congressionally prescribed procedures unconstitutional. If
they impose a higher standard of proof (from foreign battlefields)
than the current procedures require, the number
of the enemy returned to combat will obviously increase.
But even when the military has evidence that it can
bring forward, it is often foolhardy to release that evidence
to the attorneys representing our enemies. And one escalation
of procedures that the Court is clear about is affording
the detainees increased access to witnesses (perhaps
troops serving in Afghanistan?) and to classified information.
See ante, at 54–55. During the 1995 prosecution of
Omar Abdel Rahman, federal prosecutors gave the names
of 200 unindicted co-conspirators to the “Blind Sheik’s”
defense lawyers; that information was in the hands of
Osama Bin Laden within two weeks. See Minority Report
14–15. In another case, trial testimony revealed to the
enemy that the United States had been monitoring their
Cite as: 553 U. S. ____ (2008) 5
SCALIA, J., dissenting
cellular network, whereupon they promptly stopped using
it, enabling more of them to evade capture and continue
their atrocities. See id., at 15.

WAY TO GO - LIBS ON THE SUPREME COURT

 

[Jarlaxle]

There is a very clear solution to this, that is one hundred percent according to the Geneva Conventions. It is in two parts:

1) All prisoners held at Guantanamo should be immediately shot as spies.
2) No further prisoners should be taken, simply shoot them.

 

[Libsmasher]

There is a very clear solution to this, that is one hundred percent according to the Geneva Conventions. It is in two parts:

1) All prisoners held at Guantanamo should be immediately shot as spies.
2) No further prisoners should be taken, simply shoot them.

I have offered a "humane" alternative - the US should announce that not being a state actor doesn't relieve islamofascists from fighting with an identifying uniform, at least with an insignia patch, and that combatants not having such visible identification will be shot onn the battlefield if captured. If such persons are to be given the protections of the geneva conventions, why don't ALL rules of warfare apply to them?

 

[PLC1]

It would be a lot easier to carry on a war if it weren't for all those pesky freedoms and the desire on the part of the libs for a democratic government, wouldn't it?

Why not just suspend the SCOTUS for the duration, suspend the Congress too while we're at it, and give King George an unlimited tenure? A president for life who doesn't have to worry about such details as courts, habeus corpus, and advice and consent would be able to carry out an invasion and occupation with far less fuss and muss that has been the case with Viet... I mean Iraq.

We could even allow the government to take over the news media. That way, we could tell people that the war in Iraq is the war on terror, and was started by the attack of 9/11. We could tout all of the victories, ignore the defeats, summarily execute anyone who even might possibly be on the other side, and eventually take over the Middle East.

And, by all means, just keep the people who have been sold to the military for the duration of the war. They are POWs, sort of, even if they aren't under the Geneva Conventions. So what if the war lasts another hundred years? Hey, they won't live that long anyway.

So what if we have no credibility in the struggle for human rights. We must win the war at all costs.

We were attacked, you know, not by Iraq, of course, but who cares about small details like that?

 

[Libsmasher]

It would be a lot easier to carry on a war if it weren't for all those pesky freedoms and the desire on the part of the libs for a democratic government, wouldn't it?

Why not just suspend the SCOTUS for the duration, suspend the Congress too while we're at it, and give King George an unlimited tenure?

Talking about "easy" - instead of contributing to, eg, the debate on the proper scope of habeas corpus, you pop in just long enough for your usual brief mental masturbation. REALLY - you should do that in private. Ugh.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I want to Declare Bush a Enemy combatant. So much easier then Impeaching him. If we did that could jail him, never charge him, no layers, nothing for years.....at least in his idea of Justice and Democracy

 

[BigRob]

I want to Declare Bush a Enemy combatant. So much easier then Impeaching him. If we did that could jail him, never charge him, no layers, nothing for years.....at least in his idea of Justice and Democracy

Go for it, impeach him. I bet you will be a huge fan of President Dick Cheney.

 

[Federal Farmer]

It would be a lot easier to carry on a war if it weren't for all those pesky freedoms and the desire on the part of the libs for a democratic government, wouldn't it?

Whose freedoms? It really would be easier if Democrats could finally figure out that a "democratic government" is the worst possible form of government. Nothing like 51% of the people being able to subjugate 49% of the population by popular opinion and mob rule.

Why not just suspend the SCOTUS for the duration, suspend the Congress too while we're at it, and give King George an unlimited tenure? A president for life who doesn't have to worry about such details as courts, habeus corpus, and advice and consent would be able to carry out an invasion and occupation with far less fuss and muss that has been the case with Viet... I mean Iraq.

Well, suspending Habeas Corpus during wartime isn't exactly unprecedented. Everybody's favorite President, good ole` "honest Abe" did it during the Civil War (although he forgot that Congress is the only ones allowed to do that...OOPS). It would also be helpful to remember that Habeas Corpus doesn't apply to POW's, and until now, never has.

The thing I believe you've overlooked is the fact that the United States Congress assembled, by a majority of 373 to 156, passed Public Law number 107-243, known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, which was signed by the President, and became our FORMAL "Declaration of War" against Iraq, all in complete accordance with the US Constitution. There is your "advice and consent"

We could even allow the government to take over the news media. That way, we could tell people that the war in Iraq is the war on terror, and was started by the attack of 9/11. We could tout all of the victories, ignore the defeats, summarily execute anyone who even might possibly be on the other side, and eventually take over the Middle East.

Fortunately for us, the Republicans have no problem allowing the Press to report what they will. Now the Democrats on the other hand are screaming about some "fairness doctrine" in an effort to silence public debate.

As to your insinuation about "defeats", exactly what "defeats" are you referring to?

And, by all means, just keep the people who have been sold to the military for the duration of the war. They are POWs, sort of, even if they aren't under the Geneva Conventions. So what if the war lasts another hundred years? Hey, they won't live that long anyway.

As soon as you prove that any of the prisoners at Club Gitmo have in fact been "sold to the military" and were not "illegal enemy combatants" as defined under GCIII, I'll be the first one to stand right next to you and demand they be released. Thus far, the military has done exactly that, and even messed it up over 30 times in their efforts to be "fair" and give the "benefit of the doubt" to our guests.

So what if we have no credibility in the struggle for human rights.

According to whom? YOU? And exactly what metric are you using to measure our "credibility" when it comes to human rights? Mayhaps if you were really concerned about "human rights", you'd be spending your time looking at the real offenders, and not feigning faux indignation at your own nation.

We must win the war at all costs.

Yes we must, because we saw what happens when we fail to complete our mission, and we end up having to send our forces BACK to the desert, not for 100 hours like the first time, but for over 5 YEARS. As my grandfather used to say, "if you put your hand to the plow, you finish the row".

We were attacked, you know, not by Iraq, of course, but who cares about small details like that?

You're right, but then again Germany didn't attack us on Dec. 7, 1941, and neither did the Italians, or the Vichy French, but we kicked the crap out of them! Where's your "righteous indignation" about that? Where's your "righteous indignation" about our declaring war on Germany in 1917 when they hadn't attacked us?

Your protestations are, to say the least, intellectually flawed.