Gitmo Prisoners Allowed Appeal to US Courts

nice to know.

Gee whiz! In spite of Bush and his buddies maybe we aren't fascists after all

Excellent article Debra.

This is good news. And to think George thought he could break the law.

Isn't it great to be rediscovering the law.

Good news ala-akbar!!! Allah the great you saved your Jihad warriors to live and kill again. You are truly great we jihadist were caught on the battlefield killing americans and little kids with bombs.Allah, I hope I can please you soon,I would like to dedicate a school bus filled with little "infadels" and blow it up for you. Of course if this happens its W.'s fault.

Micky D. -- If someone is guilty, don't you trust our court system to indict, try, and convict them? If someone is not guilty, should we be detaining them?

this is really good news!!

The Constitution is "the law of the land". Everything else is a rule that is supposed to protect your rights under the law. If it doesn't it is supposed to be abrogated and "considered as if it had never been written"

While I for one am glad, albeit surprised, to see the show of hands in favor of their constitutional rights being upheld the law is still not being adhered to or enforced.

Many administrations and numerous govt. officials break the law on a daily basis and are not held accountable for their crimes. This does have an effect on all of us wether or not we know it or want to believe it.

Unfortunately a good number of cases in the courts of America are not "judged on their own merits" and too many rights of citizens are violated by our courts with two words that many have been lead to believe as being legal and just. "Case Law". There is no such law. "Case law" and "precedent" are nothing more than words that are used to excuse judges and attorneys' for systematically violating the rights of people usually on a class basis and often time their is no reference to either the rules, the law or the facts of the case that led them to their "legal opinion". A.K.A. "Legislating from the bench" i.e "gay rights", "women's rights", "abortion rights" etc. The mere existence of these perceived "rights" or any reference to their existence indicates that somehow these groups are either:
1. not people
2. have not been born or naturalized as citizens of the US
3. believes that someone else has the authority and has allowed them to deny them their basic liberties and constitutional rights.
4. Article 14 doesn't apply to them or is superseded by some unconstitutional rule.

Regardless of the choice above somewhere along the line numerous judges had to look the other way and allowed these crimes to continue.

If the Christian's in CA get their way the entire constitution will be about worthless as this will create another "precedent" and that precedent will be that our country is "respecting the establishment of religion" and will be forcing everyone to conform to these beliefs. All though it is common place no state rules or constitutions are supposed to be stronger than the federal unless they strengthen your rights.

As we have seen recently in the Texas CPS case illegal search, seizures and detention is becoming more acceptable by our society. Guilty until proven innocent. These people have been and are still being illegally punished and placed into servitude yet have not been charged with any crimes. Teenage pregnancy and promiscuity are rampant in TX and throughout the US and a good number of CPS and DOJ employees included.

Criminal Apprehension

The NYPD, The FBI, and the CIA are all trying to prove that they are the best at apprehending criminals. The President decides to give them a test. He releases a rabbit into a forest and each of them has to catch it.

The CIA goes in. They place animal informants throughout the forest. They question all plant and mineral witnesses. After three months of extensive investigations they conclude that rabbits do not exist.

The FBI goes in. After two weeks with no leads they burn the forest, killing everything in it, including the rabbit, and they make no apologies. The rabbit had it coming.

The NYPD goes in. They come out two hours later with a badly beaten bear. The bear is yelling: "Okay! Okay! I'm a rabbit! I'm a rabbit!"

(author unknown)

Well now US courts wage war as well. I guess the Generals are out of a job. I guess there's no need for the military to have the UCMJ anymore. I guess the troops will have to document that unlawful enemy combatants are actually engaging them on the field of combat before engaging them to make sure that they are guilty.

"Excuse me you there shooting at me. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Ok do you understand these rights I've read to you? You do? Ok lets start fighting"

Yea let's bring them home because it won't be long before they cannot do their job because of the hoops they will have to jump through.

The troops are there to fight not collect evidence while engaging in battle.

There's a reason that there is a military judicial system and civilian judicial system. Fighting an engagement is different from civilian crimes.

Charles M. -- The people held at Gitmo were taken miles from the locus of combat and placed on a US facility. Most were in a legal limbo -- only a few had any sort of indictment or were being given a trial. There is a difference between apprehending someone in the course of war and doing it during other activities ... and there are detainees in Gitmo who were apprehended separate from a war zone who have not been shown to have ties to the activities of war.

This ruling simply gives them a method of determining if there are charges against them and requires accountablility for that state. I suspect there will be indictments that remain in the military system (i.e. known military leaders). You are right -- the warriors probably should be tried in a miltary system. For those without a demonstrated tie, however, national security issues are tried in the US Federal Court system.

What the Supreme Court did was say that we are a country of laws and persons, to be treated fairly, must not remain in limbo.

D.B.D. - There are a lot of faults in the system, but its what we've got. The Supreme Court just said today, "it applies". Hopefully, there will be progress toward better adherence in other areas as well.

"And who knows which is which and who is who?"
waters

Apparently the only reason for the UCMJ these days is because Halliburton can't get the TP to them... at any cost.

If the generals and JCS did their jobs the burning Bush that we are following through the desert would be in such a tribunal for treason.

809. ART. 9. IMPOSITION OF RESTRAINT
(d) No person may be ordered into arrest or confinement except for probable cause.

810. ART. 10. RESTRAINT OF PERSONS CHARGED WITH OFFENSES
Any person subject to this chapter charged with an offense under this chapter shall be ordered into arrest or confinement, as circumstances may require; but when charged only with an offense normally tried by a summary court-martial, he shall not ordinarily be placed in confinement. When any person subject to this chapter is placed in arrest or confinement prior to trial, immediate steps shall be taken to inform him of the specific wrong of which he is accused and to try him or to dismiss the charges and release him.

Don't confuse code with law. Codes are to protect the rights guaranteed by law and these are the codes that aren't being followed. Furthermore these tribunals are for war crimes and don't apply to enlisted soldiers engaged in combat according to humanitarian law.

(IHL essential rules)
Captured combatants and civilians who find themselves under the authority of the adverse party are entitled to respect for their lives, their dignity, their personal rights and their political, religious and other convictions. They must be protected against all acts of violence or reprisal. They are entitled to exchange news with their families and receive aid. They must enjoy basic judicial guarantees.

The people who agree that you can be held indefinitely without being charged of a specific crime are saying that human rights abuses are okay as long as it is America who is doing it. I feel safer already.

You are also saying that it is OK if it happens to you as well right?

Being that we seem to be able to mow down unarmed civilians (which is a crime) it is highly unlikely that they are taking prisoners who have not surrenders and are still engaged in combat. As is with much of the english language and America's butchering of it "enemy combatant" has taken on too broad of a definition and means whatever America wants it to mean at any given moment though engagement isn't part of the definition. They would be classified as lawful or unlawful combatants which indicate they were armed and engaged and the unlawful combatant is a civilian.

"Haven't you heard it's a battle of words the poster bearer cried"
waters

But if someone IS guilty I have absolutely no confidence in any of these circuses that they will be convicted and that the one who will be will most likely have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. History just keeps repeating itself.

Anyone paying any attention to what's been happening in our courts may know that one of the best opinions by Roberts to date has been about citizens defending themselves which is a constitutionally protected right. So it is sad that "you have a right to remain silent" was mentioned as that is a case in where a guilty person "Miranda" presented his own case and won which affirmed this rule that we call our "Miranda Rights" which really don't exist as a law but is rather a rule that protects our fifth amendment rights. They existed before Miranda but were blatantly ignored. ("Okay-! Okay-!! I'm a rabbit.) Miranda helped to make law enforcement use it, though it still isn't used properly.

The reason so many courts throughout the US want to abolish self representation is because because they claim it wastes too much time. Anyone who has ever sat in a court knows that that is the farthest from the truth. How many times do you have "recess"? Not too many I'm sure unless of course you're a kindergartner teacher. Law is not practiced in the majority of cases that go before the courts that is what wastes the time. The only people who present the law and the rules thereof as the evidence are usually those representing themselves and have also identified the incompetence and criminal activities of those who are supposed to uphold the law. Unfortunately often times they are guilty but must be set free. The only attorneys that do so are usually representing someone blatantly guilty of a high profile crime. Usually one that had a victim other than a leafy green plant.

A case that so blatantly shows our complacency with criminal activities of "law enforcement" in order to fabricate evidence is the OJ Simpson case. Who was ever arrested/charged or even fired for fabricating evidence in that case? Anyone?... Anyone? Beuller?

Part of that comes from Ronny McReagans unconstitutional executive order that basically says cops can commit crimes to entrap people. Unfortunately that doesn't do much for reasonable doubt when a jury can't tell what is real and what is fabricated. Because it has yet to be directly tried by any competent court it is still there and according to the constitution always has been and always will be a crime. It's original intention was for his still failing "war on drugs". If you can't find them plant them and if that doesn't work go out in the street and sell them and arrest whoever buys them.

envision whirled peas

Hi Debra C.

Although many attorneys, judges and the media try to make us think that the laws require years of school or some secret, fruit loop decoder ring the standard that is to be applied is "as any reasonable person would understand". You seem like a reasonable person so I would hope that you would understand that it doesn't really matter what the supreme court "says" if it doesn't agree with the constitution (read QQ's). Furthermore even in this case the SC has said it a bit too late. That is a problem. I don't think too many on this board would be saying it's okay if it were them. These people don't even have any possibility of redress of grievance (not that an American really does either) Many of these people have nothing because every other country has been invading them for a hundred years or so and a few years being locked up with some psychos making you roll in your own feces doesn't seem like it would help much either. If they were dogs the people allowing that to happen would be in prison. The founders of the constitution intended it to keep the gov. at bay. It even forbids the creation of another sovereign nation by our gov. no one seems to care especially not those who are supposed to be judicial one to another.

The fault is the people not the paper. What we've got is good if we take it back. "We the people" These people are committing serious crimes against even the citizens "under the color of law" and too many think it's okay.

Quotable Quotes from the SC.

"The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land, any law that is repugnant to the constitution is null and void of law".

"Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law".

"An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it has never been passed"

Progress is too late for me not to mention 200+ years is a bit pathetic.

You have another post asking how we got here. I got here through some NPR site. For years I had listened to Nina Totenberg and had a certain level of respect for her. Not anymore. If you are going to report on something you should at least know what you're reporting on and be able to provide insight other than popular or personal opinion. After I read all 50 of the united states codes comparing it with the constitution I realized her reporting was hollow and pointless and that many reports she made failed to let us know that the decision was completely void of law or that it was constitutional and how or why. It's not that difficult to research the law (constitution) or the rules (USC) that are supposed to prevent them from making erroneous opinions void of law. A legal opinion is supposed to be the facts of the case applied to the constitutionality of the events that occurred. Who's rights are being violated by who and how.


"Gonna have a three ring circus someday..."