Supreme Court Awards Habeas Corpus To Guantanamo Detainees

I may not favor either one, dys. I will favor what I think is correct.

Does that make me not a strict constitutionalist, no, got that?

if violating the Supreme Court was necessary, I would violate it to save the country.

Advocate wrote:

okie wrote:

Just a dumb question, if prisoners captured on the battlefield deserve the rights in a civilian court, how come are we trying to find and kill Osama Bin Laden? Since when can we try to kill suspects without arresting them and giving them a fair trial?

This may be a valid question. It would be great if we could capture and try him.

Keep in mind that, in a number of tapes and recordings, Osama has admitted his guilt relative to 9/11.

This may be a valid question.....?

Yes, among lots of valid questions basic to this fiasco. Is it up to okie to ask them, or is the court that out of touch? Unfortunately, they must be.

oralloy wrote:

It looked to me like they found fault with the process for appealing the CSRTs, not the CSRTs themselves.

That's an integral part of the package. In Hamdi, the SCOTUS said "give the detainees habeas or something that is the equivalent of habeas." Congress responded with the CSRTs and a limited right of appeal to the DC circuit court. In Boumediene, the supreme court said "not good enough."

McCain and Lindsay Graham will try to subvert the decision by creating a new National Court.

Another thought, cyclops, which the Supreme Court apparently did not think of, the very fact that we are rounding up civilian criminals, not enemies on the battlefield under the rules of war, it invalidates the presidents orders to send the military to Afghanistan to round up Al Qaida. After all, these are not enemies on a battlefield under the rules of war, they are criminals, common criminals, cyclops.

But I think it's probable that the habeas proceedings will merely confirm that a lot of the CSRTs got it right.

Why not? I remember reading about quite a few instances were people ended up in Guantanamo Bay because they were caught at the wrong time in the wrong place. Granted, these particular people were released after a couple of years. But why wouldn't there be more, and why wouldn't they challenge the legality of their detention, and appeal if they lose in the first instance?

okie wrote:

Another thought, cyclops, which the Supreme Court apparently did not think of, the very fact that we are rounding up civilian criminals, not enemies on the battlefield under the rules of war, it invalidates the presidents orders to send the military to Afghanistan to round up Al Qaida. After all, these are not enemies on a battlefield under the rules of war, they are criminals, common criminals, cyclops.

I don't think you understand the ruling.

The Supreme Court says it is OK to detain captured enemy fighters until the end of the war.

These habeas proceedings will be for the detainees to appeal their designation as an "enemy fighter" and claim they were just an innocent civilian who never took up arms.

oralloy wrote:

okie wrote:

Another thought, cyclops, which the Supreme Court apparently did not think of, the very fact that we are rounding up civilian criminals, not enemies on the battlefield under the rules of war, it invalidates the presidents orders to send the military to Afghanistan to round up Al Qaida. After all, these are not enemies on a battlefield under the rules of war, they are criminals, common criminals, cyclops.

I don't think you understand the ruling.

The Supreme Court says it is OK to detain captured enemy fighters until the end of the war.

These habeas proceedings will be for the detainees to appeal their designation as an "enemy fighter" and claim they were just an innocent civilian who never took up arms.

Since war was never declared, how would this nonwar be declared ended?

okie wrote:

Another thought, cyclops, which the Supreme Court apparently did not think of, the very fact that we are rounding up civilian criminals, not enemies on the battlefield under the rules of war, it invalidates the presidents orders to send the military to Afghanistan to round up Al Qaida. After all, these are not enemies on a battlefield under the rules of war, they are criminals, common criminals, cyclops.

I don't think you understand the ruling.

The Supreme Court says it is OK to detain captured enemy fighters until the end of the war.

These habeas proceedings will be for the detainees to appeal their designation as an "enemy fighter" and claim they were just an innocent civilian who never took up arms.

what is to prevent any or all of the detainees to argue they are innocent civilians,

in fact aren't all of them defined as civilians?

I think the justices voting for this are fairly clueless in terms of the mess they have now created. The chickens will come home to roost. I hope it doesn't involve too much blood before it is corrected.

I guess that means that we will be at war forever.

I will admit I don't understand the details, but ... I think the 4 justices voting in minority were absolutely correct.

okie wrote:

what is to prevent any or all of the detainees to argue they are innocent civilians,

Nothing. But I doubt their arguments will go very far if they have nothing to back them up.

okie wrote:

in fact aren't all of them defined as civilians?

No. They are defined as captured enemy soldiers.

okie wrote:

I think the justices voting for this are fairly clueless in terms of the mess they have now created. The chickens will come home to roost. I hope it doesn't involve too much blood before it is corrected.

I don't see any mess. The courts will just review the results of the CSRTs to see if any mistakes were made, and will then correct any errors they find.

oralloy wrote:

okie wrote:

in fact aren't all of them defined as civilians?

No. They are defined as captured enemy soldiers.

Then why this insane decision?