The Worst President in History?

Debra Law, you have highlighted the basic disagreement we have here. I don't think it is insane at all. I would most definitely disagree with you. Terrorists are engaged in acts of war, as an organized group of people in order to defeat this country. Many of them are caught in foreign locations, connected with some plot or terrorist action with the ultimate aim not being the breaking of laws to further their own private motives, but rather the defeat of the United States. I do not believe that most people would ever consider this as simply a criminal action. It constitutes an act of war.

As pointed out, the people involved have placed themselves in that position, not us, and by virtue of how they are operating, the Geneva Convention does not protect them. It is only our benevolence that causes us to try to treat them humanely and according to the Geneva Convention.

In regard to attempting to use the criminal court system to handle the problem, one only needs to recall the O.J. trial and multiply that by a few hundred, or a few thousand, and compound the fact that admissable evidence would be constricted by the usual complications, and one can imagine how impractical that would be. At least that is my opinion. Perhaps as an attorney, you see lots of potential for your profession?

The prisoners in Gitmo are indeed being processed. Perhaps they do not like the pace involved. I am sure that they don't know about the skills of our esteemed lawyers, both governmental and private, who can make endless motions to delay, delay and delay.

Well, its better than having your head cut off without trial!!

So, what is happening

quote:



Q&A: US Supreme Court Guantanamo ruling


Prisoners can now go to court
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay can take their case that they are unlawfully imprisoned to the American courts.

BBC News Online looks at the issues involved.

What did the Supreme Court say?

The overall ruling of the court was: "United States courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay."

The court then described how this should happen. It accepted the argument from lawyers from the Center for Constitutional Rights that the Federal District Court in Washington DC (to which the case was first brought) does have jurisdiction to hear the prisoners' petition, under the "habeas corpus" law, that they are held "in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States."

What is habeas corpus?

Habeas corpus is a Latin phrase meaning: "You have the body." It is the name given to an ancient legal device under English common law (a mixture of judge-made laws, precedents and statutes). Habeas corpus was continued in American law after independence.

If a writ of habeas corpus is issued by a court, the person holding a prisoner (the "body") must bring the prisoner to the court and justify the detention. It has been a basic instrument under which courts in common law systems have protected citizens against wrongful imprisonment.

Why did the Supreme Court rule in the prisoners' favour?

The court was divided 6-3. The majority opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens and hinged on the definition of "sovereignty." He argued that, even though Cuba retained "ultimate sovereignty", the United States exercised, in the words of the lease from Cuba, "complete jurisdiction and control" at Guantanamo Bay.

Therefore federal jurisdiction applied there and "aliens, no less than American citizens, are entitled to invoke the Federal courts' authority."

The court rejected an argument that a case arising out of World War II should be followed in this instance (see below), saying that the two were quite different.

Justice Stevens quoted a predecessor on habeas corpus: "Executive imprisonment has been considered oppressive and lawless since [King] John, at Runnymede, pledged that no free man should be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, or exiled save by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."

The majority was formed by the liberals on the court, joined by the "swing" justices. One of the latter, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, said that the US government could not have a "blank check" even in time of war.

What did the minority on the Court say?

The minority opinion, on behalf of the three core conservatives, was written by Justice Antonin Scalia.

He based his argument on the "Eisentrager" case. This arose out of the arrest in China of a number of Germans agents accused of helping the Japanese after the surrender of Germany in World War II.

Their leader, who called himself Lothar Eisentrager though his real name was Ludwig Ehrhardt, had hired himself to the Japanese after the German surrender. He was sentenced to life in a prison in Germany but appealed for a writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court ruled that this did not apply because he was an alien outside US sovereign territory. He was eventually freed anyway under an amnesty.

Justice Scalia said that the "carefree" court's "spurious" ruling on Guantanamo was a "wrenching departure from precedent" and "boldly extends the scope of the habeas statute to the four corners of the earth."

The consequence, he said, was "breathtaking." It enabled "an alien captured in a foreign theater of active combat to petition the Secretary of Defense." It brought the "cumbersome machinery of our domestic courts into military affairs".


Is this the end of the prisoners' "legal black hole"?


It should be the beginning of it, though getting access to the US courts does not mean the prisoners necessarily getting their freedom. But they do now have much more of a legal status and the courts might order a full clarification.


The Defense Department announced (on 7 July) that nine more prisoners will face trial by military commission, bringing to 15 the number of prisoners who will be tried in this way.

On 7 July, the Pentagon announced that cases would be reviewed by military tribunals. Why?


The Pentagon is responding to the Supreme Court ruling and is trying to pre-empt any criticism from a US court. It is setting up three-officer review panels to determine whether a prisoner is a combatant.


This is supposed to happen under Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention which states that if there is doubt as to whether someone was a combatant, a "competent tribunal" should determine his status. The conventions have not been applied to the Guantanamo prisoners, so the panels, provision for which exist in US military law, were not convened. The decision to set them up now does not mean that Washington is suddenly going to apply the conventions but it is following them more closely.


The prisoners' lawyers are likely to argue in court that the panels are not enough and that the detainees should be properly charged or set free.


Whatever happens in the District Court is likely to be appealed in a procedure which could go on for many months.


end of quote--

The Supreme Court has ruled- the process is in motion and,as the last line states-

'Whatever happens in the District Court is likely to be appealed in a procedure that COULD GO ON FOR MANY MONTHS"


These prisoners will be released and allowed to return home when Hillary Rodham Clinton is elected President.

If you had the slightest clue about anything, you might make some sense. Apparently, you're the one who doesn't read cases. You haven't demonstrated that you understand the history and significance of the Padilla case or how it relates to anything we're talking about.

A war is an armed conflict between NATIONS. When a group of people, rather than a foreign nation, conspires to bomb a building in this country, that is not an act of war, that's a crime punishable by the criminal laws of this nation.

Timothy McVeigh and his co-conspirators conspired to bomb the federal courthouse in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995. That was not an act of war, that was a crime. McVeigh was prosecuted in accordance with our criminal laws and was given the death penalty.

When the World Trade Center was bombed on February 26, 1993, the crime was investigated and the criminal culprits were arrested and charged in accordance with our criminal laws. In May 1994, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Mahmud Abouhalima and Ahmad Ajaj were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the World Trade Center bombing.

On May 8, 2002, the FBI arrested Jose Padilla. On July 9, 2002, President Bush declared that Padilla was an "enemy combatant" and ordered that he be transferred to MILITARY custody. He languished in MILITARY custody for many years while his lawyers challenged the government's authority to hold him without charging him with a crime.

The government vehemently claimed authority to hold Padilla in MILITARY custody for years on the accusation that Padilla was a "dirty bomber." Padilla's case is procedurally complicated, but finally wound its way to the Supreme Court for a decision. One week before the government's brief was due to be filed with the Supreme Court, the government decided to EVADE JUDICIAL REVIEW of its alleged authority to detain a designated "enemy combatant" indefinitely without charging him with a crime. The government transferred Padilla to CIVILIAN custody to stand trial on charges that he violated the CRIMINAL laws of this nation.

(NOTE: The government obtained an indictment in Florida alleging crimes that had no connection to the original allegation that Padilla was a "dirty bomber.")

As demonstrated by the government's decision to transfer Padilla into CIVILIAN custody in order to evade judicial review by the Supreme Court of its MILITARY custody----not even the government buys its own bullshit.




Terrorism by individuals or groups of individuals is a CRIME. Persons accused of crimes must be charged and tried in our criminal courts of law.

People whom our government imprisons must either fall into one category or another. They are either accused criminals entitled to know the charges against them and entitled to a speedy trial before a jury or they are POWs entitled to the protections of the convention.

There is no legally-recognized category of "limbo-land detainees" who must rely solely on "our benevolence."




You don't like the result of the O.J. trial so you want to throw away our criminal justice system? Despite Bushco's attempts to turn our country into a de facto dictatorship, the United States of America is NOT a country where people may be legally placed in MILITARY custody and held indefinitely on the whim of the military commander.

In this country, the evidence that the government presents in attempt to deprive you of your liberty or life must be reliable. Evidence obtained by torture is unreliable. The tortured "witness" is likely to say anything his interrogator wants him to say in order to escape the pain of torture. You might find this evidentiary restriction somewhat complicates your desire to imprison people whom the presidents says are "bad," but it's hardly an impractical requirement for our courts of JUSTICE.

The current wave of terrorism has a zero percent chance of 'defeating' our country, not in the military sense. Where do you get the evidence for this claim that this is the aim of the terrorists?

Cycloptichorn

Cyclo, These wing-nuts that continue to use the fear factor doesn't even understand the difference between a war and a crime - clearly delineated by Debra.

It's like saying that all the Tim McVeighs of this world is having a war against the US, and we'll lose that war. How ignorant!

Terrorists are of the minority in this world, no matter where they live. Most people abhor terrorists, because they kill innocent people without regard to who they kill.

This world has had terrorists within and without most countries. To declare they will "win" is about as ignorant as they come.

Terrorism can be defined as ANYBODY who resist the state. Either you except "Liberty, Justice and democracy" as the state defines it or you are a terrorist. War declared against a noun that can be applied to anybody and everybody?

Domestic terrorist, Islamic terrorist, Christian terrorist, Right-wing terrorist, left-wing terrorist, etc,etc.

The same people that define terrorism declare war against it.

War is peace, Freedom is slavery.

I realize that Debra LAW is one of the most brilliant lawyers of our time but, I must respectfully point out that the end of the article that I referenced says:

start of quote

It should be the beginning of it, though getting access to the US courts does not mean the prisoners necessarily getting their freedom. But they do now have much more of a legal status and the courts might order a full clarification.


The Defense Department announced (on 7 July) that nine more prisoners will face trial by military commission, bringing to 15 the number of prisoners who will be tried in this way.


On 7 July, the Pentagon announced that cases would be reviewed by military tribunals. Why?


The Pentagon is responding to the Supreme Court ruling and is trying to pre-empt any criticism from a US court. It is setting up three-officer review panels to determine whether a prisoner is a combatant.


This is supposed to happen under Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention which states that if there is doubt as to whether someone was a combatant, a "competent tribunal" should determine his status. The conventions have not been applied to the Guantanamo prisoners, so the panels, provision for which exist in US military law, were not convened. The decision to set them up now does not mean that Washington is suddenly going to apply the conventions but it is following them more closely.


The prisoners' lawyers are likely to argue in court that the panels are not enough and that the detainees should be properly charged or set free.


Whatever happens in the District Court is likely to be appealed in a procedure which could go on for many months.


end of quote--

The Supreme Court has ruled- the process is in motion and,as the last line states-

'Whatever happens in the District Court is likely to be appealed in a procedure that COULD GO ON FOR MANY MONTHS"


These prisoners will be released and allowed to return home when Hillary Rodham Clinton is elected President.

**********************************************

It almost sounds like the article is saying that the prisoners are indeed getting access to the courts but are not necessarily getting their freedom.

Maybe the legal genius Debra LAW can explain what that means---

Access to the court without necessarily getting their freedom--

Could that possibly mean that "Whatever happens in the District Court is likely to be appealed in a procedure that could go on FOR MANY MONTHS??


That is why I said that the next president of the United States, Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the one to give the Prisoners at Gitmo amnesty.

Try to get your head out of the sand. Where have you been?

Mr.Cyclopitchorn says:

"The current wave of terrorism has a zero percent chance of "defeating" our country, not in the military sense.

Mr. Cyclopitchorn wisely added the modifier, "not in the military sense"

Why?

Our country can be defeated by terrorists!!

The Scenario:

a. The present Iraqi legislature cannot quell the violence and is disbanded

b. Saddam is released and again becomes Iraq's leader.

c. Saddam brings order to the country through the most brutal and repressive methods as he did after Desert Storm.

d. Saddam decides to get even with the USA'
'
e. A "nuclear device" planted by Iraqi terrorists explodes in one of our major cities causing hundreds of thousands of deaths.


Some of the people on the left are so imbued with hatred for Bush that they would place us at risk for the scenario above.

People like BernardR doesn't even keep up with the major media news; Saddam is now standing trial, under guard, and his chances of surviving are almost nil. Where do these ignorant bastards come from in our country? They are home grown like the terrorists.

We come from tax paying, law abiding citizens, from families that fought for your freedom to spout your stupidity and that have supported schools and universities where you can become the intelligentsia elite, whereby you can consider all of the rest of us out here fools, or the terms you prefer to use. Contrary to your wishes, we still vote.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/23/dobbs.may24/index.html

and Jesus could come back any minute, martians could land, we could all get cancer, any number of world leaders including bush could be the anti-christ and Taylor Hicks is probably the next american Idol.

We are beset by horrendous possibilities at every turn. That's the way the cookie crumbles.

Oh ya, within weeks Saddam will have nuclear weapons. Why they're so easy to build a high school kid could do it. You can make one of those things in the back of a van, or maybe one of those deadly mobile labs Saddam is suppose to have had.

That's a hysterically funny scenario, Bernie. You should try your hand at science fiction. Or become a White House speech writer.

At least I don't accuse people of things they haven't done with papers they don't read on threads they've never posted to. F*ckst*ck.

I am totally destroyed--Mr. Imposter refers to "ignorant basta**s. and Mr. Hingehead charges f*ckst*ck. I must admit I have no notion as to how to begin to answer such intelligent and erudite arguments.

Those who would belittle my comments about Saddam returning do not recall that Iraq was defeated in Desert Storm and Iraq was placed under sanctions. That meant little to Saddam since he was able to get around the sanctions easily( See Kofi Annan and "Food for Oil")

Recently, the Sunni Moslims, who belong to the same sect as Saddam, and whose members were in charge of all of the major offices in Iraq despite the fact that they comprised only 20% of the Iraqi populace, have been blowing themselves and other Iraqis up at a horrific rate.

The Iraqi parliament would be able to declare peace at hand were it not for the Sunni sicide bombers. One must ask--what is their aim?
It is obvious that they wish to return to power. And if they did it is certain that there would be a return to dictatorship in Iraq. Those who think that Iraq could not buy a nuclear weapon in short order with their oil riches are fooling themselves.

They would use the weapon on the USA at their first opportunity!!!

I read this thread carefully back to page 35. I cannot find the person that quoted the times out of context. I named "hingehead" for that error. I must apoligize to Hingehead if he did not quote the Times out of context. However, my charge, no matter who did quote the Times out of context, still stands. It is always better to reference the entire editorial so that all of it can be read, otherwise, parts of it which may modify other parts are missed.

But if you make such a fundamental error can we trust anything you say?