Posted on 04/04/2009 6:12:19 AM PDT by kellynla
A federal judge has taken the fateful step of ruling that three of the 600 prisoners at Bagram air base in Afghanistan have rights under the U.S. Constitution. This is dangerous folly.
One can only pray that higher courts reject Judge John Bates' premise that noncitizens are not barred - as long thought - from contesting war captivity abroad in American civilian courts.
While Bates emphasized the distinct circumstances of the three, he built his holding on the notion that U.S. control of Bagram gave prisoners a leg up on getting into court.
Activists who have taken up the cause of the detainees were ecstatic. Tina Foster, of the International Justice Network, said the Bates ruling would extend "to any place where the United States seeks to hold individuals in a legal black hole."
Presidents Bush and Obama - yes, Obama - argued against opening our courts to terror suspects abroad. But Bates drew his reasoning from the 2008 Supreme Court decision that foolishly granted Guantanamo detainees habeas corpus rights.
At the time, it was thought the effects of that case would go no further than Gitmo. That base in Cuba was seen as American territory for constitutional purposes because the U.S. controlled it under a long-term lease.
But now Bates has said the military has an "objective degree of control" at Bagram, putting prisoners, in effect, on U.S. soil. Then he applied a "functional, multi-factor, detainee-by-detainee test" to gauge rights.
He gave three detainees - two Yemenis and one Tunisian - access to federal courts because they had been apprehended elsewhere and taken to Afghanistan.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
So as an american you cannot sue someone you think has harmed you if the court says you have no standing yet foreign armies can have access to our courts.
Can this be appealed?
“Can this be appealed?”
yep
It is time for these judges to be taken care of. The men in black are ruining this country along with the SOB we have for a president.
The enemy within will always be more destructive than any foreign entity.
I’m guessing the end result will be less and less live ones leaving the field of battle...not such a bad thing in the end.
And believe it or not, this smack-off was appointed by Bush II!
Will our soldiers and Marines have to shout Miranda rights across the battlefield before engaging the enemy?
I now know how proud Britons felt as their great country was nibbled down by the traitorous left.
I can't speak for the other services, but I expect the Corps will go back to the ol’ school SOP of “shoot first & ask questions...if anyone is left alive”
Semper Fi,
Kelly
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.