Those pesky things called 'rights'

Squiggy

Squiggy

ThunderDick
Court: Terror Suspects Must Get Lawyers
1 hour ago
By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - A federal appeals court ruled Thursday for the first time that prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba should have access to lawyers and the American court system.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' 2-1 decision was a rebuke to the Bush Administration.

The administration maintains that because the 660 men held there were picked up overseas on suspicion of terrorism and are being held on foreign land, they may be detained indefinitely without charges or trial.

The Supreme Court last month agreed to decide whether the detainees, picked up in Afghanistan and Pakistan, should have access to the courts. The justices agreed to hear that case after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the prisoners had no rights to the American legal system.

The San Francisco appeals court, ruling Thursday on a petition from a relative of a Libyan the U.S. military captured in Afghanistan, said the Bush administration's indefinite detention of the men runs contrary to American ideals.

"Even in times of national emergency _ indeed, particularly in such times _ it is the obligation of the Judicial Branch to ensure the preservation of our constitutional values and to prevent the Executive Branch from running roughshod over the rights of citizens and aliens alike," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the majority.

"We cannot simply accept the government's position," Reinhardt continued, "that the Executive Branch possesses the unchecked authority to imprison indefinitely any persons, foreign citizens included, on territory under the sole jurisdiction and control of the United States, without permitting such prisoners recourse of any kind to any judicial forum, or even access to counsel, regardless of the length or manner of their confinement."
Click to expand...
 
Now that our anger is beginning to subside maybe cooler heads will prevail. Everyone deserves justice and justice is not justice if fairness is not interwoven. I just read another story from the Washington Post that was discussing the abuse of many of these suspects in NY following 9/11. The patriot act is causing many of these problems as well.
 
It's about damn time. How can someone cry out for "Justice" for those killed in the 9/11 attacks out of one side of their mouths and then deny "justice" to those suspected of taking part.

Judge, jury and executioner...no way to live.
 
Similar vein


Court: U.S. citizen isn't ‘enemy combatant’

NEW YORK - President Bush does not have power to detain an American citizen seized on U.S. soil as an enemy combatant, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday in a decision that could force a man held in a "dirty bomb" plot to be tried in civilian courts.In a 2-to-1 ruling, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the detention of Jose Padilla was not authorized by Congress and that Bush could not designate Padilla as an enemy combatant without the authorization.
Click to expand...


http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3748660&p1=0
 
About time, too.

When I first saw this, I thought it may be about the brouhaha in Florida over the manger scene and the menorah. Go figure. ;)
 
freako104 said:
its all in the Constitution for them to have lawyers. why would it be otherwise for them?
Click to expand...


Its not. But Bush has Ashcroft working on ways to get rid of that silly constitution...
 
Squiggy said:
Its not. But Bush has Ashcroft working on ways to get rid of that silly constitution...
Click to expand...

They're trying to give them a 'military' trial. Seems that, if they call you an 'enemy combatant', rather than an accomplice to murder, then they can do just what they're doing. The only problem is that there was never a war declared by congress, so the president is going around it through use of his mandate as commander of the armed forces, and calling them 'unlawful combatants'. He can't call them POW's because of the undeclared war, and the fact that POW's are supposed to be paid a 'scrip' for the time they are held. Check the Geneva Convention on POW's for a full explanation of prisoner's rights and the responsibilities of their captors.
 
So this makes you happy? Wow. Next you'll be wanting Moussaoui over for dinner, maybe to babysit your kids. It's a victory for terrorism. You'd rather give a terrorist 'rights' and have them free to scurry around and plot more dirty bombs and planes into buildings? We are at war. Terrorists have pledged to assault our "life, libery, and pursuit of happiness" and these black robed brown-nosers in San Francisco have conspired to open the door for them. Gitmo detainees, Padilla a.k.a. al Muhajir, and Moussaoui garner sympathy from the Left, the true enemy within. We can be thankful that the 9th Circuit Court is the most overturned in our nation.
 
You should probably drop what you're doing and rush right down to your recruiting office and join the armed forces. After training they'll give you a gun and everything and you can go kill people because thats what you want to do. Don't waste your time sitting here arguing with us liberals. Take action! Show us how patriotic and brave and committed you are to this cause..DO IT!
 
The Other One said:
So this makes you happy? Wow. Next you'll be wanting Moussaoui over for dinner, maybe to babysit your kids. It's a victory for terrorism. You'd rather give a terrorist 'rights' and have them free to scurry around and plot more dirty bombs and planes into buildings? We are at war. Terrorists have pledged to assault our "life, libery, and pursuit of happiness" and these black robed brown-nosers in San Francisco have conspired to open the door for them. Gitmo detainees, Padilla a.k.a. al Muhajir, and Moussaoui garner sympathy from the Left, the true enemy within. We can be thankful that the 9th Circuit Court is the most overturned in our nation.
Click to expand...

What about the Joe Blow people that they picked up because they happened to be around arrest sites? What about those arrested on 'suspicion' only? No proof...just taken away because they gave the military doing the arrests a bad look, or spat on the ground in front of them? What about those recruited into the army, without choice, and arrested defending a building which happened to be housing terrorists?

There's no way to find out who you have in jail without asking them. It's fair play to have translators and lawyers there to make sure that the army prosecutors play by the rules. No torture-driven evidence. No forced confessions etc..

You'd want no less for captured Americans in Iraq, why give less to captured Iraqis?
 
Gato_Solo said:
Unfortunately, that statement was only the authorization to use force. Not a declaration of war. To be blunt, that whole statement was only to support the War Powers Act.
Click to expand...


Since the Constitution gives no blueprint for laying out the War Powers Act (use form 103a, section 4) then a use of force authorization is a declaration of war, especially since the President needs no such authorization just to use force.

It's become a political game. To phrase a document with the header of Declaration of War is a time bomb. That's why it's been used so infrequently by our glorious leaders. Yet we seem to have major combat at least once per generation. (roughly)
 
Gonz said:
Since the Constitution gives no blueprint for laying out the War Powers Act (use form 103a, section 4) then a use of force authorization is a declaration of war, especially since the President needs no such authorization just to use force.

It's become a political game. To phrase a document with the header of Declaration of War is a time bomb. That's why it's been used so infrequently by our glorious leaders. Yet we seem to have major combat at least once per generation. (roughly)
Click to expand...
But, according to the Constitution, only congress has the right to declare war. Not the president. The president can authorize small-scale force, but, according to 103a, section 4, any larger campaign requires congressional agreement. Since there was no formal vote for war, then, ipso-facto, those prisoners at gitmo cannot be legitimately called POW's. They can, however, be called unlawful combatants, but that still does not forbid them access to attorneys and the court system. If congress had declared war, as they should have been asked to do, then all this is moot. ;)
 
Gato_Solo said:
But, according to the Constitution, only congress has the right to declare war. Not the president.
Click to expand...


Back to the Authorization of Use of Force declaration then.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
Click to expand...
 
These points are all designed to confuse. How the hell can anyone be called an unlawful combatant for defending their country from aggressors? And then be taken prisoner and held in limbo in a third country...:confuse3: Can you imagine that happening to Americans? I said long ago, we're making up new rules as we go here. and some of them may come back to bite us on the ass...It worries me...:disgust2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top