Supremes: Guantanamo Prisoners may Challenge Detention in U.S. Courts

Actually T_J contrasted rather than compared. You're welcome!

 

It is good to see the American system prevail. Now we can see in a fair fashion which of these guys is guilty of something. As we know many of the others have already been released even with the limited rights they had under the military justice system.

This decision is another small step toward restoring America's image in the world.
Now that the whole rationale for Gitmo, an attempt to deprive these folks of Habeas Corpus is finished, it is time to restore our image even more and shut down Gitmo. Let's put these guys in a prison in the US while we sort out who did what.

 

I think we should just make all of the Americans. Then they would stop hating us.

 

He brought up the idea of the comparison to terrorists when nobody else did at all.

 

... but he contrasted them where others were being more inclusive, a.k.a. comparing.

 

Can some of you guys help me understand some of this stuff? Exactly how are the guys in Guantanamo classified? And does that make a difference with regard to their rights?

For example, if we are talking about criminals in the U.S. then they absolutely need every protection the US Constitution affords them regardless of how scummy they may or may not be. That's the way it is and the way it ought to be.

However, if they are Prisoners of War (POWs like during WWII) then why should they get lawyers? Did we give the German and Japanese POWs lawyers? I thought we just held them until the war was over then let them go. If we are truly in a shooting war and they are enemy combatants then shouldn't we treat them just the same as we did in WWII?

Or are they people who committed crimes (i.e. not soldiers) against the U.S. on foreign soil. Then what do we do with them?

I realize this is tricky and a unique situation as clearly we are in a shooting war but, unlike wars in the past, the enemy is not a sovereign state but loosely organized militias with a common cause.

If they are POWs then I have no problem with Guantanamo. If they are criminals then they should get proper representation. If they are something in between then we need to figure something out!

One thing is for sure, we do need to figure out the best way to handle these guys that is in the best interests of national security and respects basic human dignities.

Here is where I'm probably going to get crucified by some of you guys: I think the people in charge of our security (i.e. the Bush administration) are not evil guys looking for ways to torture people for some sadistic reason. I think they genuinely want to do everything they can to prevent another 9/11 and to keep Al Queda on the ropes. They are in new territory with regards to how to classify these types of enemies and are doing what they think is right to accomplish a very difficult mission.

Now are the doing the "RIGHT" thing? Time and the courts will tell and obviously everyone has their opinions but, in the end, I don't envy the people we put in charge (be that Bush, McCain or Obama) because we are expecting them to keep us safe and, at the same time, we are making them follow all the logical and sensible rules that "good guys" should follow. If there is another major attack by someone who was in Guantanamo but was released because his lawyer got him off no one is going to say "well that's okay because letting him go was the right thing to do". And if a Democrat is in office the Republicans will point fingers and if a Republican is in office vice versa. It will be very political and very sad.

 

Well I guess the questions are, how are enemy combatants defined, where were these guys picked up, what rights do you have as US citizen vs. someone with a work visa or however these guys who were picked up are classified as.

 

I don't think you meant it this way, but the way you set this up it's almost as if you think the denizens of Guantanamo were apprehended on US soil. Some few were... surely, but virtually all came from Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

More people wanted gore than bush.

 

No, others didn't enter the troops into the conversation at all. IT was only TJ

 

Gore tried to steal the election by having votes counted?

 

And that is where we can see the difference between Bush and Obama. Obama didn't stop anyone from counting all the votes. Bush on the other hand...

 

You actually believe this?

 

I guess my mistake was in thinking that the troops were part of "us."

Yes, it is all elliptical, but if you read the response by air langhi it seems to admit that the rights of terrorists are more important than military success.

 

That's bogus. The rights of prisoners some of whom are not terrorists, don't interfere with troop success. Prisoners in a prison don't cause troops across the world to not succeed.

The whole argument is incredibly dishonest.

 

Bull. The 7-2 vote was on the method of recounting. It was followed by a 5-4 vote finding that no remedy for counting the votes could be found by the arbitrary date of December 12 and thus, the vote count stood as is. It was the latter 5-4 vote that decided who would be President, with Bush arguing that recounts should stop and Gore arguing that even if the method of recounting was inequitable, a proper recount should take place. That the Supreme Court inserted itself into this argument when there was a perfectly acceptable Constitutional solution (where Bush would have been named President by the House) will remain a black mark in the Court's history.

Also, it was another 5-4 vote that stopped the recount originally.

So, it was two 5-4 votes, organized thugs, and a bunch of shenanigans from Brother Jeb's administration that allowed Bush to steal the election from Al Gore.

And I should note that Party contests are not anything close to the same as general elections. If Republicans really believed this, they'd open up all their primary contests to all voters instead of just registered Republicans.

 

When we cause the folks across the world-- like our behavior at Gitmo has done-- to lose respect and hate us more we actually decrease the chances of the troops succeeding. Here the troops are, not just fighting, but trying to win hearts and minds in the Middle East while our Gitmo policy undermined that effort.


The Bush gang screwed up big time. Six years ago they could have looked like the good guys and obeyed the rule of law. They created incredible bad will around the world. Now they are ordered to do the right thing, but will get no credit for it, though the S.Ct. has belatedly begun to turn the tide for us getting back our respect as a law abiding nation.

 

You might want to read that Wiki article again and pay attention to the word I bolded.