Supreme Court Awards Habeas Corpus To Guantanamo Detainees

oralloy wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It is one of the prime tenets of our country, that people are considered innocent until proven guilty, and not the other way around.

I imagine this will step up efforts to get the military tribunals going so they can be proven guilty.

The tone of this post suggests that all of the detainees will be found guilty because they are guilty.

Of course, none of our boys would ever have made a mistake about any of this. Naturally, the bounties which were paid to dirt-poor Afghans in the tribal areas of Waziristan would never have lead them to turn someone in for reasons of petty revenge or simple greed.

They're all guilty, we know this. If you don't believe me, just ask Oralloy.

Supreme Court Awards Habeas Corpus To Guantanamo Detainees

From what I hear, . . .

. . . about a third are war criminals, . . .

. . . about a third are POWs to be held for the duration of the war on terror, . . .

. . . and about a third are innocent civilians whose home countries are refusing to take them back.

Quote:

Supreme Court Awards Habeas Corpus To Guantanamo Detainees

It appears this new ruling may have been perceived as a sign of weakness by the detainees in Kandahar.

You know, the Taliban were really planning this biggest ambush on coalition forces for weeks.
The attack on the Kandahar prison, the ambush on US troops, small arms and rocket-propelled grenades, everything was ready.

Riiiight

Well, there's still some time to teach them the essentials about a constitution, laws, democracy ...

It is one of the prime tenets of our country, that people are considered innocent until proven guilty, and not the other way around.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It is one of the prime tenets of our country, that people are considered innocent until proven guilty, and not the other way around.

Cycloptichorn

So will you say that neither Bush or any other repub in power at the start of the Iraq war or now is guilty of any type of war crime?
After all, many on the left are saying that Bush is guilty.

Are you going to stand with me and say that they are guilty of nothing at all?

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It is one of the prime tenets of our country, that people are considered innocent until proven guilty, and not the other way around.

Cycloptichorn

So will you say that neither Bush or any other repub in power at the start of the Iraq war or now is guilty of any type of war crime?
After all, many on the left are saying that Bush is guilty.

Are you going to stand with me and say that they are guilty of nothing at all?

No. They're just presumed innocent until proven guilty.

old europe wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It is one of the prime tenets of our country, that people are considered innocent until proven guilty, and not the other way around.

Cycloptichorn

So will you say that neither Bush or any other repub in power at the start of the Iraq war or now is guilty of any type of war crime?
After all, many on the left are saying that Bush is guilty.

Are you going to stand with me and say that they are guilty of nothing at all?

No. They're just presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Nope, according to Cyclo they ARE innocent.

mysteryman wrote:

old europe wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It is one of the prime tenets of our country, that people are considered innocent until proven guilty, and not the other way around.

Cycloptichorn

So will you say that neither Bush or any other repub in power at the start of the Iraq war or now is guilty of any type of war crime?
After all, many on the left are saying that Bush is guilty.

Are you going to stand with me and say that they are guilty of nothing at all?

No. They're just presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Nope, according to Cyclo they ARE innocent.

Where did Cyc ever say that?

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:22 Post: 3273773
Yes, it protects those who are accused of terrorism, just as it protects those accused of any crime. It is one of the prime tenets of our country, that people are considered innocent until proven guilty, and not the other way around.

My first impression, after very diagonal reading of the opinions:

1) I don't have much patience with Robert's dissent, arguing that the military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay are an adequate substitute for federal courts as a processor of habeas corpus petitions. These commissions are kangaroo courts, and Roberts is disingenuous in pretending otherwise.

2) I do take Scalia's dissent serious though. He argues that prisoners of war never enjoyed habeas corpus privileges, so the plaintiffs never had a privilege for Congress to suspend in the first place. It may well be one of those opinions whose consequences I don't like as a point of human rights policy, but should have carried the day as a point of constitutional law.

3) There is no doubt that the Court's opinion is the one I want politically and morally. And Kennedy spends a lot of time arguing against Scalia's objections that habeas rights for prisoners of war do not extend the reach of the writ beyond its historically established boundaries. I'll have to examine the opinion more closely, and I hope Kennedy's historical arguments turn out to be sound.

old europe wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

old europe wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It is one of the prime tenets of our country, that people are considered innocent until proven guilty, and not the other way around.

Cycloptichorn

So will you say that neither Bush or any other repub in power at the start of the Iraq war or now is guilty of any type of war crime?
After all, many on the left are saying that Bush is guilty.

Are you going to stand with me and say that they are guilty of nothing at all?

No. They're just presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Nope, according to Cyclo they ARE innocent.

Where did Cyc ever say that?

I just quoted him, but if you want the exact post that fine also...

Quote:

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:22 Post: 3273773
Yes, it protects those who are accused of terrorism, just as it protects those accused of any crime. It is one of the prime tenets of our country, that people are considered innocent until proven guilty, and not the other way around.

oralloy wrote:

From what I hear, . . .

Uh-huh . . . and if Oralloy says it, it must be so.

oralloy wrote:

. . . about a third are war criminals, . . .

In your never-fails opinion, of course.

oralloy wrote:

. . . about a third are POWs to be held for the duration of the war on terror, . . .

For the duration, huh? And how are we to know when "Terror" surrenders? When will we know we have conquered "Terror?" You have viewpoints very convenient to the arguments of a government which habitually puts itself above the law.

Hey, i know ! ! ! Let's ask the Israelis--everyone knows there isn't a more fair-minded and compassionate bunch when it comes to dealing with Muslims.

oralloy wrote:

. . . and about a third are innocent civilians whose home countries are refusing to take them back.

And your evidence for all of this is?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91461526

"Also, the government has said roughly one-third of the detainees are not dangerous and have been approved for release to their home countries, but those countries don't want them, nor does any other country seem to want these people whom the U.S. once characterized as the worst of the worst."

My first impression, after very diagonal reading of the opinions:

1) I don't have much patience with Roberts's dissent, arguing that the military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay are an adequate substitute for federal courts as a processor of habeas corpus petitions. These commissions are kangaroo courts, and Roberts is disingenuous in pretending otherwise.

2) I do take Scalia's dissent serious though. He argues that prisoners of war never enjoyed habeas corpus privileges, so the plaintiffs never had a privilege for Congress to suspend in the first place. It may well be one of those opinions whose consequences I don't like as a point of human rights policy, but should have carried the day as a point of constitutional law.