Posted on 12/01/2009 6:10:23 PM PST by Munz
Lawyers for a terrorism suspect once held at Guantánamo Bay who is now facing prosecution in Manhattan asked a judge on Tuesday to dismiss his case on the ground that his nearly five years in detention denied him his constitutional right to a speedy trial.
(Excerpt) Read more at cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Aaaaannnnnndddd, it’s on.
the only “right” jihad terrorists (should) have is to choose between being buried alive in the bloody refuse from a slaughterhouse for pigs, or else to be fed to sharks at sea
BTW, what constitutional rights? Sickening.
He's going to walk. And it's going to be all Bush's fault.
And the American public might just be dumb enough to buy it.
Who here DIDN’T know this was coming???
I don’t know where this meme that Constitutional Rights are for CITIZENS started but its patently untrue.
The First Amendment refers to the rights of the people not citizens.
The Second Amendment refers to the rights of the people not citizens.
The Fourth Amendment refers to the rights of persons.
The Fifth Amendment refers to the rights of persons.
Now the Fourteenth Amendments speaks of both citizens and persons.
“...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Because the Privileges and Immunities clause refers to citizens, Congress and the President can make laws which treats citizens and non-citizens differently, such as Medicaid, welfare, or any government benefits whatsoever.
But since the second half speaks of persons and not citizens, no one may be deprived of their Due Process and Equal Protection protections.
____________________
The issue here isn’t whether non-citizens have constitutional rights, the issue here is whether unlawful enemy combatants are to have constitutional rights.
Under the Geneva Convention, before an enemy combatant may be punish, he must have a hearing before a “regularly constituted court”, but it is clear that enemy combatants don’t enjoy all the rights accorded to non-combatants.
The Supreme Court have stated, on every occasion when this issue has been presented to them, that enemy combatants do not enjoy the full spectrum of Constitutional rights.
In “Hamdi v. Rumsfeld”, the Supreme Court in a plurality found that the US government has the right to hold indefinitely unlawful combatants but did find that detainee who were US citizens have the right to have a hearing before an impartial judge.
_______________
What’s amazing here is that the Obama Administration has granted these unlawful/enemy combatants full due process and equal protection rights, when the law clearly find that they shouldn’t.
And what is really frightening is that yes if these terrorist are given full rights they should have their cases dismissed since their rights have been clearly violated.
We KNEW this was gonna happen.
I knew it...
(Obamanation!!!)
The ironic thing is that the judge will probably rule against this, and we can now be held indefinitely without trial until the gov’t gets around to prosecuting us. In some way, we are all losers with this case, we either cut him loose, and keep constitutional protections for a speedy trial, or we try him and we will set a precedent where we are not going to be entitled to a speedy trial. Man, they really can’t be this stupid, can they?
Can they really be this stupid?
Yes they can.
I don’t know how prosecutors get around things like speedy trial and Miranda. That’s why war criminals are tried in military tribunals, and then shot.
(sarcasm tag) OK. Case dismissed. $190 fine plus $30 court costs. Next case....Golfer running from crazy wife with a 9 iron hit a fire hydrant while barefoot. $164 dollar fine. Next case.... (/sarcasm tag)
Obama is a traitor. He is a usurper. We must remove him from office in order to prevent the death of many thousands.
If I was the judge, I would grant this request based upon the law. Besides, these defendants are currently being held without charge before this court.
Correct.
Do a Google search on “Oba-Hussein” and see the multitude of related articles from http://AntiMullah.com
cheers
Unintended my A##. Everyone knew this was coming. If it doesn’t get tossed on this basis, then next will be the Miranda rights violation.
BUSH'S FAULT !!!
In this high-profile terrorism we have the citizens of the US verses an outside threat. In order to get a conviction, portions of the constitution and our legal code will have to be ignored because our military does operate like a law enforcement agency.
Now take this into the future. Once the precedence has been set, will my legal rights be violated because I am perceived as a threat to the US government?
I would rather have this scum let go than to have our legal system compromised.
Now it begins.
Then again, our nation's president was friends with a Pentagon bombing terrorist who admits to being "guilty as sin yet free as a bird".
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.