GITMO Detainees Can't Challenge in U.S. Courts

Discussion in '2007 Archive' started by carpro, Feb 20, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,941
    Likes Received:
    296
    http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/20/D8NDHGF01.html

    Court: Detainees Can't Challenge Cases

    Feb 20 10:47 AM US/Eastern


    By MATT APUZZO
    Associated Press Writer

    EXCERPT

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- Guantanamo Bay detainees may not challenge their detention in U.S. courts, a federal appeals court said Tuesday in a ruling upholding a key provision of a law at the center of President Bush's anti- terrorism plan.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that civilian courts no longer have the authority to consider whether the military is illegally holding foreigners.

    Barring detainees from the U.S. court system was a key provision in the Military Commissions Act, which Bush pushed through Congress last year to set up a system to prosecute terrorism suspects.
     
  2. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, that's interesting. The Commander-In-Chief has no civilian oversight in his detentions?

    I suppose the Supreme Court will get this if they choose to take it.
     
  3. El_Guero

    El_Guero
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Carpro

    Thanks for posting this!

    It is great when our Constitutional system does what it is supposed to.

    Specifically, protect Americans from our enemies - foreign and domestic.

    God bless you and yours

    Wayne


     
  4. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree !:thumbs:
     
  5. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    GITMO Detainees Can't Challenge in U.S. Courts

    ...that is how it should be. :thumbs: to the Supreme Court.
     
  6. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    That was just the 3-judge Court of Appeals; it hasn't gone to the Supreme Court yet. In the two Gitmo cases before, the SCOTUS ruled for the detainees.

    I don't think prisoners, who may or may not have done anything (how can we tell without a basic hearing), should just disappear into a black hole.
     
  7. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,941
    Likes Received:
    296
    SCOTUS ruled in a prior case that enabling legislation was needed. The legislation is now in place. It will be interesting to see if they rule according to the legislation this time.
     
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    They aren't "prisoners" as we normally think of them, are they? They are illegal combatants who took up arms against the US. Under our constitution, they have no right to our court system. IMO, given our budget issues, our tax dollars should not be spent tying up our courts on people who are not a part of our system of government.
     
  9. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    They're imprisoned, some for over 5 years with no charges.

    Says who? It was determined that roughly 5% at Guantanamo Bay were actually captured on the battlefield by US forces. The whole point of habeas corpus is to determine what the charges are and if they are sufficient. Two hundred have already been let go without being charged with any crime and nearly four hundred remain.

    That's arguable as we are holding them on territory, the military base, that we control. The Military Commissions Act did strip the detainees, if you prefer, of the statutory right to habeas corpus, but not necessarily of the constitutional right. That will probably be decided by the Supreme Court unless Congress amends the Act before then.
     
  10. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are countless people who were not "detained" becuase they were not deemed to be illegal combatants. I don't know what the legal ins and outs are, but when you decide to take up arms, you get what you get. The smart thing would have been for these people to not fight, but to join the war against terrorism. To me, that seems like a no-brainer.
     
  11. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who's footing the bill for their indefinite detainment?
     
  12. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    This entire GITMO situation is a disgrace.
     
  13. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    5% of them were armed on the battlefield. The other 95% were turned for bounty or revenge, turned over by Afghani or Iraqi forces, were simply in the wrong place (Afghanistan or Iraq) or were somehow deemed suspicious.

    Why do you think that most of them had taken up arms against the US? I mean, what makes you think that they did, the other 95%?
     
  14. 777

    777
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,157
    Likes Received:
    61
    This might smoke him out.

    SCOTUS said the other plan didn't have enough congressional oversight, this one does.
     
  15. npc

    npc
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's fascinating to see Christians advocate that our country do whatever it takes to protect Americans, including violating basic political rights such as habeas corpus.
     
  16. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have never personally heard of political rights.
     
  17. 777

    777
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,157
    Likes Received:
    61
    That's what those two Border Agents are saying.

    They are captured terrorists that have no constitutional rights, sucks for them they're not all Mexican drug-smugglers, then your president would cut them a deal.

    I do think the US is letting the GITMO prisoners put on too much weight, however.
     
  18. npc

    npc
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then perhaps you would like to make a quick trip to Wikipedia to aquaint yourself with the basics.

    Several people have already been released from Guantanamo after officials admitted they weren't terrorists. We don't know how many more of the prisoners still being kept are just as innocent, because they have not gotten due process. Do you have any evidence that the mistakes that led to detainment of several innocent people as "terrorists" won't be made again?

    I'm glad you take an interest in U.S. politics (though I infer you aren't a citizen); I suggest you familiarize yourself better with our Constitution.
    I absolutely support bringing justice to terrorists. Where I disagree with the more fundamentalist Christians is whether we should do that by due process, or simply scoop up and lock away potential terrorists.
     
    #18 npc, Feb 23, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 23, 2007
  19. 777

    777
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,157
    Likes Received:
    61
    Good to see you got your priorities straight!

    Okay, I'll familiarize myself better when it if you promise read the thing!

    Then perhaps you would like to make a quick trip to Wikipedia to aCquaint yourself with the basics!
     
  20. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    That refers to servicemen - US citizens or residents serving in the military; ironically it is they who have the right to habeas corpus suspended.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...