1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Foreign Terrorists Have Constitutional Rights

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Revmitchell, Jun 12, 2008.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    39,131
    Ratings:
    +2,359
    Faith:
    Baptist
    (CNSNews.com) - In a major blow to the Bush administration, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have the right under the U.S. Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.


    More Here
     
  2. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,297
    Ratings:
    +35
    The positive results from this decision will be less prisoners of war. Less money spent transporting them around the world.
     
  3. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    39,131
    Ratings:
    +2,359
    Faith:
    Baptist
    They will just find something else to waste it on.
     
  4. KenH

    KenH Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Ratings:
    +0
    Kudos to the U.S. Supreme Court. :thumbs:
     
  5. carpro

    carpro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    21,775
    Ratings:
    +1,280
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Just another example of why we need a conservative president.
     
  6. dragonfly

    dragonfly New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,594
    Ratings:
    +0
    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.
     
  7. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,297
    Ratings:
    +35
    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.
     
  8. KenH

    KenH Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Ratings:
    +0
  9. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Ratings:
    +0
    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.
     
    #9 Dragoon68, Jun 12, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 12, 2008
  10. KenH

    KenH Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Ratings:
    +0
    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."​
     
  11. Analgesic

    Analgesic New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    Messages:
    439
    Ratings:
    +0
    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.
     
  12. carpro

    carpro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    21,775
    Ratings:
    +1,280
    Faith:
    Baptist

    A 5/4 split decision is not what I would call "decisive".
     
  13. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Ratings:
    +127

    Any suggestions?
     
  14. Matt Black

    Matt Black New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Ratings:
    +0
    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
     
  15. NiteShift

    NiteShift New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,034
    Ratings:
    +0
    And of course that is because the military tribunals have never been allowed to proceed. Can't very well convict anyone that way.
     
  16. carpro

    carpro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    21,775
    Ratings:
    +1,280
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    #16 carpro, Jun 13, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 13, 2008
  17. Alcott

    Alcott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,638
    Ratings:
    +327
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Northfork is invaded by outsiders and interveners defend them from hanging. So... call for The Rifleman!
     
  18. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    10,705
    Ratings:
    +379
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
  19. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Ratings:
    +0
    [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]
     
    #19 Dragoon68, Jun 13, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 13, 2008
  20. carpro

    carpro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    21,775
    Ratings:
    +1,280
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You have the patience of Job, Dragoon. :BangHead:
     
Loading...