Posted on 06/15/2008 12:16:25 PM PDT by Red Steel
WASHINGTON -- When the Supreme Court goes on recess at the end of this month, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy will be off to his summer teaching job in Salzburg, Austria. For the 19th year, he will teach a class called "Fundamental Rights in Europe and the United States" for the McGeorge Law School.
He tells his American and European students that the belief in individual freedom and the respect for human dignity transcends national borders. There is, he once said in an interview, "some underlying common shared aspiration" in legal systems that protects the rights and liberties of all.
That international perspective was on display Thursday as Kennedy spoke for the Supreme Court in extending legal rights to the foreign military prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. "Security subsists too in fidelity to freedom's first principles. Chief among these are freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to the separation of powers," Kennedy said.
The 5-4 ruling highlighted the sharp divide over the law and the war on terrorism. The dissenters, agreeing with the Bush administration, said foreigners captured abroad in the war on terrorism had no rights in American courts.
Justice Antonin Scalia dissented with the decision "to extend the right of habeas corpus on alien enemies detained abroad by our military forces in the course of an ongoing war." The ruling "warps our Constitution," he wrote in his dissent.
The majority, led by Kennedy, was more in tune with the views across Europe and of civil libertarians in this country, who have condemned the prison at Guantanamo Bay as a "legal black hole" where foreigners are shackled and held in harsh conditions without due process of law. The justices in the majority said that when U.S. authorities take someone into
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Since the Haditha Marines stood on their constitutional rights despite the accusations of civilian officials, commanding generals, investigators and prosecutors, all acting under their constitutional oaths - honest men all of them - are the Haditha marines jerk-offs too?
You should write fiction stories because that’s what you are full of.
Hollywood loses millions making movies with your anti America leftist garbage. Yet they kepp on making them.
Just like you keep making assinine asertions that can’t be argued because they are so far out in the land of make believe and paranoia.
on their own terms, the proceedings in Yamashita and Quirin, like those in Eisentrager, had an adversarial structure that is lacking here. See Yamashita, supra, at 5 (noting that General Yamashita was represented by sixmilitary lawyers and that “[t]hroughout the proceedings . . . defense counsel . . . demonstrated their professional skill and resourcefulness and their proper zeal for the defense with which they were charged”); Quirin, supra, at 23–24; Exec. Order No. 9185, 7 Fed. Reg. 5103 (1942) (appointing counsel to represent the German saboteurs)
What happened to the Haditha marines is fiction and ravings of a leftist loony paranoiac? I am sure that they would be delighted to hear that.
Can’t make sense of what you just said.
What you and your fellow travellers don't understand is a simple logical proposition. If you can deny a habeas corpus hearing to just one individual, then you can deny it to everyone. You will counter, but these guys are alien enemy combatants detained on foreign soil and have no constitutional rights. But you fail to see the circularity of your argument. The logical trap in this is that until you can force the government to make the case that they are being held on lawful grounds, you cannot know that they are alien enemy combatants. You assert that they must be because you can trust the military. But this is the same military, the same legal group, that has sworn under oath that they had sufficient evidence to charge and try the Haditha marines. So either you believe that the Haditha marines are guilty despite being found innocent, or else you cannot trust sworn statements by senior military officials, at least not the ones answering to political appointees.
That is why we have an independent judiciary. It has nothing to do with war. We do not have ongoing combat operations in Guantanamo - hard to take I know.
Another point. It is not the habeas rights of enemy combatants that is being protected here. It is the habeas rights of every American citizen. It is your right to have a hearing to prove that you are an American citizen being unlawfully detained that is at issue. If you cannot get a hearing because someone claims you are classified as an enemy combatant, someone as trustworthy as the prosecutors who swore out charges against the Haditha marines, you cannot get a hearing to prove you are an American citizen.
It's called due process. It is your constitutional right and you want to throw it away. I care about my rights even if you want to trample on your own.
I am trying to save your constitution and you want to cheer on the jack booted thugs who want to trample on it.
You make things up.
I never said I was giving up my rights nor taking away anyone else’s rights.
Foreign combatants never have had constitutional rights and shouldn’t.
It’s as simple as that.
This has nothing to do with Haditha which as sad as the case is, it is going through the system and the results so far seem good.
The same left wing looneys behind Haditha are behind giving constitutional rights to foreign combatants. They’re also behind stopping surveilance and information gathering techniques.
In short they are against everything needed to fight this war and you are on their side.
It’s really quite simple, either you are for the US or you are against the US.
All your talk and strawman garbage means nothing but confusion.
Actually the left is another front in the war and as such treasonous.
At some point you have to make a decision as to which side you are on.
Civilian courts are impractical to handle these terrorists as are large numbers of Prisoners of War (POWs). Would you be so eager to put them in our justice system if the GITMO terrorists numbered in the tens of thousands as have enemy POWs have in the past? No, that would be impractical. The viewpoint you are taking is the same as the Democrats have taken, that we are not at war and that the terrorists are just common criminals for our court system. Do you believe in the same premise as the Democrats do here?
So here we are. The Supreme Court has commanded us to treat foreign terrorists captured in foreign lands, held in detention on foreign soil, like US citizens who have committed crimes with due process of US law. This decision by the Supreme Court will get more innocent people killed because Kennedy wants to play kissy-face with Euros in some Salzberg, Austria school who apparently have the same viewpoint as Kennedy has.
You and your knee jerk unthinking brain dead version of conervatism is so full of it I don't know where to start. You guys all start off, apparently, not having an f'in clue what a hebeas corpus hearing is about. That is where the US government has to demonstrate under oath and cross examination that the scumbag terrorist they intend to hold for the duration is actually a scumbag terrorist and not a US citizen caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. That is all, that is it, no more. The US government is simply required to provide some evidence that the scumbag terrorist is actually a scumbag terrorist, case closed, end of story, the guy gets to rot in detention for the durations.
So here we are. The Supreme Court has commanded us to treat foreign terrorists captured in foreign lands, held in detention on foreign soil, like US citizens who have committed crimes with due process of US law
It has commanded no such thing. It has only required that the scumbags and specifically the scumbags being held in Guantanamo have the ability challenge their status as scumbag terrorists in a neutral adversarial hearing.
Furthermore, if you unplug your ears and listen, the reason we have this is because the last time the SC said that there has to be a neutral adversarial proceeding, the Congress passed the DTA and the Secretary of the Navy then wrote implementing regulations that made it, not a neutral adversarial proceeding, but a kanagaroo court. My constitution does not empower suits who never served a day in uniform, acting as a secretary of the navy, to hold kangaroo courts.
You want to get angry with someone for precipitating all this. Get angry with the suit. It looks like it is all on him.
How do you know they are foreign combatants, until you hold a hearing on the record where the other guy gets to state his case? It isn't hard. When you surrender the right for a detainee to demonstrate that he is not an enemy combatant, then you surrender your own right to demonstrate the same. It is as simple as that. You claim well it cannot happen to me because I am a US citizen. Without habeas rights you have no f'in right to prove that you are a US citizen. It is that simple.
The same left wing looneys behind Haditha
Left wing looneys did not prefer charges against the Haditha marines. Very senior military commanders advised by senior JAG officers did. It is that simple. Did civilian officals weigh in because they didn't like bad press? Of course, and that is the problem. It is a big problem for you, because the civilian officials who did this are the same folks in this administration you are trying to defend.
You can't have it both ways.
Ultimately, one would hope that when the islamists realize that taking up arms against an American soldier is a suicide mission, the attacks will diminish. By the same token, when an attack is promulgated, the severity will be considerable. The result is more American deaths just as Scalia proposed.
My bottom line is: if you are not a citizen of the USA and you are captured breaking our law or endangering a USA citizen, you have only one right: the right to not be executed on the spot (because that is God's law). After that, as far as I am concerned, praying to whatever animal or miscreant you believe in is your only hope.
Your paranoid looney lefty rantings are a waste of time.
You go in circles like a dog chasing his tail.
As long as it keeps you from doing a damage fine.
from doing any damage
It is God's law to execute noncitizens? My god is conservatism in trouble.
Bump for later reading.
How many days have you served in uniform? How much time have you spent "in country" in a war?
I haven’t served but I still understand more than you.
Jimmy Carter, John Kerry, John Murtha, and many others served and look at what idiots they are.
Reagan, FDR, and others never served and look at how real they were.
You served, good for you, you still are paranoid and it affects your reasoning.
Well, my son, let those who are more experienced explain the facts of life in the military to you. You recall,I pointed out that it was the Secretary of the Navy who issued an order turning the Guantanamo DTA proceedings into a kangaroo Court.
Well, it is the same pork-seeking suit of a Secratary of the Navy who is front and center in the Haditha motion to dismiss for command influence. You can read all the facts in Col. Chessani's Motion to Dismiss. The same Secretary of the Navy is so busy trying to get pork for Northrop, his former employer (bio) out of Murtha's committee that he would dishonor these marines (follow the dots: Murtha - pork - former Northrop official Secretary of the Navy - Unlawful Command Influence in Haditha).
According to Kennedy's Guantanamo opinion, p 37-38, it was this same Secretary of the Navy whose implementing regulations messed up the DTA process so badly that it failed to meet minimum legal standards.
the procedural protections afforded to the detainees in the CSRT hearings are far more limited, and, we conclude, fall well short of the procedures and adversarial mechanisms that would eliminate the need for habeas corpus review. Although the detainee is assigned a “Personal Representative” to assist him during CSRT proceedings, the Secretary of the Navy’s memorandum makes clear that person is not the detainee’s lawyer or even his “advocate.” See App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 06– 1196, at 155, 172. The Government’s evidence is accorded a presumption of validity. Id., at 159. The detainee is allowed to present “reasonably available” evidence, id., at 155, but his ability to rebut the Government’s evidence against him is limited by the circumstances of his confinement and his lack of counsel at this stage.
I hope it is finally clear that it is this spinless pork-seeking suit of a Secretary of the Navy who screwed up Haditha and who screwed up Guantanamo, and not just my paranoia that is drawing the line between the two.
You have two opposing forces at Guantanamo
You have the US Government that wants to try the detainees in military commissions and would have done so long ago back in 2002-2003. Except that they have been bogged down in litigation by the leftist lawyers. And this litigation has nothing to do with habeas corpus. This litigation claimed these detainees must be tried in US courts, not military tribunals (commissions). We have very valid reasons for wanting these trials done in military courts. For the same reason that our courts find spy cases so difficult because the US Government is forced to make public top secret information to get a conviction.
Force number two is the leftist lawyers. It is their actions that have delayed military trials....Then they turn around and cry habeas corpus. They created the habeas corpus problems!! Then bring on litigation about unlawful detention (habeas corpus)
the procedural protections afforded to the detainees in the CSRT hearings are far more limited, and, we conclude, fall well short of the procedures and adversarial mechanisms that would eliminate the need for habeas corpus review. Although the detainee is assigned a “Personal Representative” to assist him during CSRT proceedings, the Secretary of the Navy’s memorandum makes clear that person is not the detainee’s lawyer or even his “advocate.” See App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 06– 1196, at 155, 172. The Government’s evidence is accorded a presumption of validity. Id., at 159. The detainee is allowed to present “reasonably available” evidence, id., at 155, but his ability to rebut the Government’s evidence against him is limited by the circumstances of his confinement and his lack of counsel at this stage.
Prisoners of war are detained by definition. They await military tribunals that your communist/leftist lawyers blocked at every turn. Because they want these proceedings done in Federal court in the USA with maximum media circus effect.
There are no federal courts in Guantanamo or any other of our military bases
The Pentagon announced changes last week to the military tribunals that it has been trying to set up at the Guantanamo Bay naval base -- for years now -- to try terrorist suspects on war crimes charges. The tribunals, known as commissions, so far have been a total failure. Not a single detainee has been actually been put on trial. The system has been mired in litigation. There are serious problems of fairness and appropriate process for defendants who could face long prison terms or even the death penalty. The administration's changes improve the system in subtle but important ways, moving it closer to the system of courts-martial by which the military tries its own soldiers. But they don't entirely fix the problems.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/06/AR2005090601705.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.