News – The Supreme Court has ruled that President Bush overstepped his authority when he ordered military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and Geneva convention.
Randall: This story links to FoxNews's coverage of the Supreme Court rulings, and around the web the ruling seems to be a hot topic. CNN's coverage paints a similar picture, but around the blogopshere, as usual, you've got both the left and the right weighing in.
2006-06-29 13:27:40
Finally, a step (hopefully the first of many) enforcing the rights of the individual over the intentions of this administration. Folks interested in finding out more about what this administration has done to encroach upon not only the rights of "war criminals" but also to American citizens, please check out the film sponsored by the American Civil Liberties Union, "Unconstitutional-The War on our Civil Liberties." It's past time America formed a consensus on the ideals for which this country has stood for nearly it's entirety, and made sure they are not only represented, but ensured. Forget party politics folks, this issue is bigger than a mere liberal or conservative victory. Get educated- before it's too late!
You all miss the point. Al Queda and the rest of the so called peaceful religion has declared war on those of us that do not follow thier distorted beliefs. By conferring rights on them as if this were some sort of civil discourse endangers all of us. Including those of you on the left who want to pretend that everybody "loves" us. We are all targets of Islamofascists and a few lawyers in high positions affording them rights is a serious miscalculation. You will all be screaming that the government should have done somethine when the next attack comes. Wake up and recognize the enemy. It is fascism in the cloak of religion. But then again, you on the left never met a fascist you didn't love.
Treaties such as the Geneva Convention requires treatment to signatories. How the Taliban or Al queda can qualify for protection shows again that this has nothing to due with the rule of law and everything to do with liberla agenda. we are less safe today than yesterday. Muslin extremeists have a long and notable history exapmple the origins of the term Assassin and its close association with hashish smoking. Taliban opium, deprivation of an education to women, no civil rights, not traditional freedoms in their countries and now thi absurd decision. Souter, Kennedy are abominations shame on George I.
what do we do with these killers now? put them all up in hotels on the on our dime? or maybe thses people that want them freed can offer to put them up at their house. they were all captured on the battle field trying to kill our elite forces during war. remember the war we are fighting? remember 9-11-2001? when another 9-11 happens, we will all see this in a different light.
When are we going to wake up and realize that these are not Americans and not your average criminal?! Read Al Qaeda's manual. They train these people to kill "infidels"... that's you and me! They also train them to claim they are being tortured as soon as they are captured (and apparently they've trained the left-leaning media to report their claims)! These guys down in Guantanamo are getting treated better than our own American prisoners, eating meals that cost more than my lunch will cost me today. All this, on our tax dollars! And we're going to keep paying until our justice system works to get these people tried and convicted.
These people aren't your run-of-the-mill criminals. They are highly dangerous, brainwashed, trained criminals! We let them out and they will be right back with Al Qaeda attacking us again (we've already done this a few times). We cornered the head of the 9/11 attacks and didn't arrest him because he was here "legally". WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!
As I read the posted comments it is obvious that some have forgotten Americans believe people are innocent until proven guilty. I find it hard to believe, after everything that has happened, that anyone would just take the administration's word that everyone in that "camp" is guilty. These are the same people that said without a doubt that there were/are WMDs present in Iraq and used that "evidence" to plunge our country into war.
I feel that trials should have been held LONG ago. The guilty should be punished to the MAXIMUM extent possible, and IF there are any innocent people there, they should be released and possibly compensated because of the amount of time that has passed. Imagine for a minute spending 5 years in those conditions because of somebodies mistake.
They are all trying to play us to get out so they can get back to killing more of us. Scream they are being mistreated so the tender harted will come to their rescue. Wrong place wrong time POO POO to that. If so then let the trials begin. When something like that happens here it's settled in the courts. Is President Bush suppose to just sit on his hands and do basiclly nothing? Look at how they treat our soldiers, or how they want to come here and kill as many of us Americans as can. I say treat them as they treat us.
Most of us have no idea whether these are really bad guys or not. Just what the administration tells us. The very reason we have courts and trials in the light of day is to prevent abuses. Secret and out of the public eye has been an unrelenting theme of this republican administration. The last time things were like this was the Nixon administration. As a confirmed moderate, it is amazing to me how many people wish to blindly defer to the wisdom of George W. "ignore my DWI" Bush as opposed to the courts. I trust the people of our country, not the proposed masters who think they know better than us.
MacnMary: Wow. "My one & only post," yet you have posted (at least on this particular thread) FOUR TIMES! Furthermore, none of your statements have had any specific opinion on the supreme court's decision. They have just attacked other people who support logic, so you can complain about the Bush Administration without offering anything constructive! Hats off to all who acknowledge that we are have been, are, and will be fighting a non-conventional creed of anti-infidel (I DID NOT SAY ANTI-AMERICAN). I think that that this supreme court decision is correct, as was the decision to keep these animals at GTMO to begin with. How are both decisions correct? Because back then, the public sentiment was to lock them away for now, deal with the war, then conduct military judicial proceedings because they are war criminals. Why different now? Because people like MacnMary scream and yell that it's all Bush's fault. Wake up people. This isn't a dictatorship. Thank GOD, Gore wasn't pres on 9/11.
When people think about how bad we are treating the enemy combatants at GITMO and not giving them their so called rights, shouldn't they also remember our two US soldiers recently captured and within a few days physically tortured and then executed. I think our two US soldiers deserved a heaven like GITMO.
It is too bad that many American people have forgotten that if they walked into the GITMO prison that these guys would do anything to kill them.
Philrob100: "Ignore my DWI..." Kinda like Kennedy's "Ignore my drunken car accident that killed that girl in Florida!" Oh, wait... Bush's dUi didn't kill anyone. I'm sorry. Bad reference.
Are you saying that Bush's dUi is grounds to eliminate the planned tribunal proceedings and set these AlQueda/Taliban operatives free?
I was not aware that the Supreme court passes judgments based on a person's private record.
We can argue almost every politician's past until we're blue in the face. Until you learn to answer the question at hand, we will be stalled in a partisan pi$$ing contest.
So, is the supreme court right or not? Was the original decision to house these AQ/Taliban folks in isolation at GTMO until such time as a decision for legal proceedings could commence correct? Yes and Yes. My opinion.
To each his own.
That's why I LOVE THE USA.
Where is good old common sense. Like it or not Islamic extremists have declared war on non-believers regardless of political leanings. They must be treated as enemies not as common criminals. It's just another example of lawyers in high places creating another opportunity to enrich thier profession. How many lawyers have boarded planes to gitmo since this decision. It's a guarantee ALL of them are members in good standing of the ACLU!
Our enemies may be WRONG in many ways, but if we treat them RIGHT, we have a much better chance for gaining their respect. Treating them wrong ways only makes us more like the way they are.
It would be an interesting experiment to surprise some captured terrorist by a very friendly treatment. What is your favorite food? How do you prepare it? (Then just bring that food and eat with the enemy.) Please tell me something about your family, etc.... Eventually even the most twisted minds can get untwisted after some very kind, caring and loving treatment. Eating with the enemy, talking with them in friendly ways, and sharing our common human challenges while looking for RIGHT solutions, can even bring more useful information rather than misleading information. Some of them may even become our friends, and no longer our enemies, if we treat them RIGHT! Otherwise, we are not better than they are.
Remember the first BIG military terror killing over 150,000 innocent people in Japan.
9/11 didn't start this. The Iran hostage crisis started it in the70's. Now,30+ years later,some blame Bush for EVERYTHING! If you place the blame on a president, you must include Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, and THEN GWBush. Like I said earlier, this country is NOT a dictatorship. It is NOT run by one person. If you want to blame Bush, that's your prerogative. I blame him as much as I do the rest of our congress people, as much as I do the other nations of the world, whether they fight with us, against us, or just sit back and wait to cah in. It comes down to this: Militant extreme fundamentalists have taken it upon themselves to KILL everyone who does not specifically believe as they do. They happen to be muslim. Not ALL musims are out to kill infidels. Just the extreme fundamentalists. I understand this. The rest of the world needs to understand this. But so many choose to nitpick our administration which is trying to protect Americans, right OR left!
It is hard to give constructive criticism to those with closed minds. I support the Afghan campaign. The Iraq campaign is founded on "misinformation". WMDS? opps 'someone' told Bush what he wanted to hear, not his fault. Mobile bio weapons lab? same response. Uranium for bombs? same response. 9-11 hijackers came from Iraq? opps, wrong again. Bush wanted to invade Iraq on 9/13/01,(Woodward's book), he needed justification and his toadies manufactured it for him, giving Bush 'plausable denialbilty'. What can you expect from someone who is president only because the majority of the Supreme Court had been appointed by his daddy, or while he was V.P.
Gyula, maybe you should frisk them before they hug you with their suicide bomber vest! Get real! These people aren't interested in your psychobabble they want to KILL you and every American. JayMan is correct in asserting this has been going on since the Iran hostage crisis. 9/11 was the end result of your approach to these barbarians taken by all the previous administrations -- Democrat and Republican.
BIG flaw in logic - these are prisoners of war.
They are not covered under the justice system.
The Geneva Convention everyone keeps citing spells out how to treat POWs.
Basically they are held until the completion of hostilities or until they are no longer a threat.
Courts really have nothing to do with it.
These are not internees, not criminals, not accused of crimes. They POWs.
The fact that they don't wear a uniform with insignia, merely highlights the difficulty of fighting a war against terrorists who are bound by common beliefs and have as a target - you, me and anyone else they can get in their sights.
Yeah, war sucks and people get killed. But going to work at the WTC was a dream job too. That has changed.Do you want it to happen to you too?
JayMan, I disagree with one small point of your previous post. The silence of ALL muslims speaks volumes for them. If they are as they say a "peaceful" religion. Let them prove it by turning against those fascists that have corrupted their so called faith. This is a big world we all must share. Only Tony Blair has had the courage to speak this truth. No other politician or religious leader has had the courage to do so. And, the left in Britain villifies him as severely as they do Bush. The left just wants to pretend that this enemy does not exist. Yet they will be the first to cry that the government has failed them when the next attack comes. And it will come unless we all wake up to this reality.
I know these guy's in Al Qaeda are mean nasty SOB's of the highest order, But no matter what. They deserve a day in court, a lawyer. Even the nastiest of serial murderers have their day in court. I am sure that we don't have to put up the appearance of a trial (once called a kangaroo court). My Question is this... Why is the administration so afraid to let the "detainees" have a fair trial in a regular court?
The main focus is this, as I see it: the Supreme Court, which ,considering its makeup, would have been more likely to have supported Bush's actions, and yet they did not. This would lead me, at least, to believe that the arguments against Bush's actions must have been legally compelling.
Another point, in responding to other statements in this forum, is that, without a legal trial (i.e., legal in the sense that the accused have adequate defense and are able to confront their accusers), how can anyone reasonably state that they are guilty? Just because they were detained? That's the same sort of logic that prevailed in the old South. Persons of color were arrested, with no other evidence than the color of their skin, and subsequently found guilty. A typical juror response might have been that they had to have been guilty, otherwise the police would not have arrested them.
Or is it really true that "The only good Indian is a dead Indian"? Or in this case a Middle Easterner?
The main focus is this, as I see it: the Supreme Court, which ,considering its makeup, would have been more likely to have supported Bush's actions, and yet they did not. This would lead me, at least, to believe that the arguments against Bush's actions must have been legally compelling.
Another point, in responding to other statements in this forum, is that, without a legal trial (i.e., legal in the sense that the accused have adequate defense and are able to confront their accusers), how can anyone reasonably state that they are guilty? Just because they were detained? That's the same sort of logic that prevailed in the old South. Persons of color were arrested, with no other evidence than the color of their skin, and subsequently found guilty. A typical juror response might have been that they had to have been guilty, otherwise the police would not have arrested them.
Or is it really true that "The only good Indian is a dead Indian"? Or in this case a Middle Easterner?
Good thing this isn't 1944 or we would all be goose stepping in about a year. Just hope we aren't on our knees praying to Mecca by 2008. You people are so lost, but if we lose this War you all will be the first to curl up and surrender and people like W and myself will still be fighting. You make me sick. What died in you and who took your pride to make you hate America and freedom. Your either with us or against us and that is that. So have it your way you massess of ignorant and we may see lady liberty wearing a veil.
WoW! I can't believe all of the bull that is coming out of everybodies mind... Now even some of the so called American people are sideing with the enemy. You let just one of those brain washed or brain dead people in your home and see if you can sleep with both eyes closed. "IF" you wake the next morning and still have all of your family at the very least "Alive", count your blessings. Because as soon as that person is freed no matter if they were an enemy or not. Now they have a bone to pick with us. They are mad and if someone is going to give there family a great sum of money and they get to martyr themselves and have virgins in the afterlife, what do you think will happen then. There are a lot of places were they can just blow the hell out of themselves and take as many of us americans with them as they can or as are inocent of nothing more than being in this country to be somewhat free. And my guess is we won't have the afterlife that we were planning on either. Just WoW! wake up!
Not a member? Sign-up today!
krundel
fyuuuuut
adrielh791966
daviannewton651975
darwinm701977
articletdy
getbackerzoo
shehnshah
otto
uncogito
korsetter
jessicabouch
camions
Okzana
grandpabt
chicagostanford
lasscape
moemebe
msaleem
JasonChiang
mkewls
Jacfoth
Ecyrb
LesterQ
kecher
morris
kidcharlemagne
Bowkie
RobertL
ripcord
silver48buk
Karina
Charmless
hexix
RayS
jim camp
karyant
Vehre
Fabienne
promotours
celly
Engineerflyer69
eztobfree
kewpie448
rdonaz
hannonfamily
macaer
92)
Now if they will only curtail some of his other excesses!