Foreign Terrorists Have Constitutional Rights

The positive results from this decision will be less prisoners of war. Less money spent transporting them around the world.

 

Kudos to the U.S. Supreme Court. :thumbs:

 

Just another example of why we need a conservative president.

 

Yes! :thumbs:

It is unbelievable, but expected, that the right-wingers or anyone else should not be glad this decision was rendered by the Supreme Court.

 

Hmmmm......

I'm against it, bacause it means we would give people like Hitler & his Nazis access to our criminal courts. We have enough trouble keeping our own violent criminals in jail, with all the liberals wanting them to have a second chance.

Like I said, this will mean a lot less prisoners. good news.

 

For those interested here is the decision:

www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1195.pdf

 

This was a stupid decision by the Supreme Court with the only recourse now being a Constitutional ammendment or a future reversal by a better court that clearly defines and deliates the rights of prisoners of war. It's too bad we can't use our legislative branch like we should. A generation or two ago this matter would have never been questioned. It's going to be a gold mine for trail lawyers, reporters, and terrorists. It's going to be bad for the nation.

 

Cato Scholar Comments on Boumediene v. Bush Supreme Court Ruling

Timothy Lynch, director, Project on Criminal Justice:

Today the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that affirms the "Great Writ" of habeas corpus. The Bush Administration has tried to keep the courts from reviewing its wartime policies. By warehousing prisoners outside of the United States, at Guantanamo, Bush's lawyers argued that habeas corpus was simply unavailable to any prisoner at that facility. The Supreme Court rejected that claim decisively when it said the test for determining the scope of habeas corpus "must not be subject to manipulation by those whose power it is designed to restrain." The president and the military will continue to have leeway to initially decide which terrorism suspects need to be arrested and jailed, but they do not have a blank check to jail anyone for all time. Even in wartime, the Constitution's separation of powers principles remain in effect and, as the Court noted, "few exercises of judicial power are as legitimate or as necessary as the responsibility to hear challenges to the authority of the Executive to imprison a person."​

 

Except that the administration insists they aren't prisoners of war, despite insisting that they're the enemy in The War On Terror. Funny how that works.

This is an excellent decision. Someone in American custody should absolutely be allowed to avail himself of the American justice system if he believes his treatment to be in violation of the law. If it is illegal, then clearly it should be remedied. If it's not illegal, then he isn't going to get anywhere.

 

​

A 5/4 split decision is not what I would call "decisive".

 

Any suggestions?

 

The thread title is somewhat disingenuous, no? These are not 'foreign terrorists', they are individuals suspected of having committed acts of terrorism who are not US citizens. None of them has been convicted of any crime

 

And of course that is because the military tribunals have never been allowed to proceed. Can't very well convict anyone that way.

 

Well, since no viable conservative candidate is in the race, we do what we can to keep the worst possible scenario from occuring, electing an extreme left liberal democrat. I believe at least 2 Cupreme Court justices will retire in the next 4 years. Electing a Republican would force those liberal justices to die in office. They won't retire.

Hold your nose and vote for McCain. It beats the alternative by miles and miles.

 

Northfork is invaded by outsiders and interveners defend them from hanging. So... call for The Rifleman!

 

Supreme What?

Maybe some of these Justices, and some of the politicians and peace ativists need to spend a weekend housed in a cell with these torrorists. It would be interesting to see if their liberal attitudes change.

 

[SIZE=+1]The term prisoner of war has both a generic and a specific meaning. In the generic sense they are prisoners of war. In the specific sense they are not lawful enemy combatants. The problem is that most people don't understand the difference nor the basis of the privileges - not rights - we've granted prisoners of war. This is one area where the Supreme Court is absolutely wrong! They've extended rights of citizens to [/SIZE][SIZE=+1]privileges[/SIZE][SIZE=+1] we reserve to give or not give to prisoners of war depending upon their legal status. This worked just fine for generations but suddenly at the time its become so critical to properly apply it the Court has yanked that ability away from both the Executive and Legislative branches. That's a big loss for our country. It's a terrible and shameful decision by the Court that increasingly thinks it's business is to legislate and administer the law.[/SIZE]

 

You have the patience of Job, Dragoon. :BangHead: