(3-judge panel, 9th Circuit) Rules ALL GITMO detainees must have access to an attorney

Fox

[Dog]

AP via Fox news alert..

Lord help us from the judges..

[kkindt]

Ignore them and see what happens - that's what I say to Bush and crew - just ignore this 9th district ruling as if it is not relevant since these persons are NOT on American soil and the judges only have jurisdiction on American soil. Let these judges get their own police, own army and enforce their foolishness.

[Thane_Banquo]

I suggest President Bush put the Gitmo detainees before military tribunals post haste, and have them convicted and immediately executed, in order to prevent the 9th circus from ruling that the detainees should be given federal entitlements, homes in Malibu, and Congressional Medals of Honor.

[kkindt]

That's a great idea - then will the 9th district hold our President in 'contempt' of their court? And if so Bush could say "Yes, I hold the 9th district in utter contempt"

[lepton]

By the ususal rules of reciprocity in international affairs, if the US is allowed to go to foreign countries and seize people and hold them without trial, other countries will do the same to us.

If they invade the United States, I would fully expect such seizing. No warrants to search fox-holes. No reading of Miranda rights when shooters taken into custody. You seem to not realize that wars have been fought for centuries, and that there are long-established rules on this stuff. On the other hand, being a soldier and fighting under command of a nations authorities is not considered a crime and they may not be punished - though these POWs may be held. That unmarked combatants (illegal) may be summarily executed is a measure to protect non-combatants from direct action against them by combatants.

That so many people regard this issue in a historical vaccuum, and seem to further disregard the particulars of the cases, makes me question their basic mental competence - especially how vigourous they hold their opinions..

The gray area is in circumstances such as Jose Padilla - though the precedent is that he could indeed be held as an enemy combatant - his being part of a foreign military force. He cannot be further punished (such as required to to perform labor beyond taking care of themselves, nor required to compensate for upkeep) though until he is charged.

[BikerNYC]

Now the 2nd Circuit has held that Padilla must be released from military custody, saying that a US citizen may not be siezed on US soil as an enemy combatant. He must be transferred to civilian custody and may be held as a material witness as a grand jury considers charges.

This is good. I don't trust our government when it takes citizen and holds them indefinately without access to lawyers. It shocks the conscience, actually. It's something Saddam would have done and I'm sure did do.

[OldFriend]

If ever there was a need for RECESS APPOINTMENTS....the time is now.

[CyberAnt]

9th circus is CALIFORNIA.

Why on earth are they even giving a ruling on anything anyway ..?? I suspect the 11 member 9th Circuit will meet and issue another ruling .. which they have done so many times before it's getting embarassing!

[gitmo]

The problem with claiming France is there are all those French people in the way...any chance we could move them all to Gitmo? Then we could hire polite people to run Eurodisney.

HEY! Don't ruin Gitmo. I'll never get back there, but don't destroy my memories.

[highlander_UW]

HEY! Don't ruin Gitmo. I'll never get back there, but don't destroy my memories.

Well...maybe if we rename Gitmo as France, and France as Gitmo the French will never realize they've been relocated, and you can still have "a" Gitmo...does that work for you? At least you can have some ok vinyards in your new Gitmo.

[Redwood71]

Wait now, I thought these guys were under Military arrest.

---

If we had stored them on non-United States land, Guantanamo is a US reservation, they would have had no rights. However, since they are on United states soil, and thanks to some liberal judge years ago, it was determined that people have certain inaliable (pardon the spelling) rights when they get on US soil. Just like illegal aliens making it to US soil and having rights. If they had been stored in, say, Turkey, the 9th circuit would not have had jurisdiction. I'm not happy about it, but this is their outlook.

Merry Christmas

[Redwood71]

Wait now, I thought these guys were under Military arrest.

---

If we had stored them on non-United States land, Guantanamo is a US reservation, they would have had no rights. However, since they are on United states soil, and thanks to some liberal judge years ago, it was determined that people have certain inaliable (pardon the spelling) rights when they get on US soil. Just like illegal aliens making it to US soil and having rights. If they had been stored in, say, Turkey, the 9th circuit would not have had jurisdiction. I'm not happy about it, but this is their outlook.

Merry Christmas

[af_vet_1981]

As part of the War on Terror and in order to save our Republic we need to impeach and remove judges.

[cdrw]

I read the opinion and the dissent. I am not an attorney so I really don't know the laws involved. But after you get passed all their arguments about what the definition of "is" is in order to conclude that Gitmo is sovereign US territory, they seem to be arguing the principle that there should be / are no circumstances under which the US Govt can detain people indefinitely without due process.

Okay. On an emotional level I can see that principle. But ... these people are illegal combatants and its my understanding that we may have had the legal right, under international treaty and US laws of war, to summarily execute them without ever taking them prisoner. The concept of legal due process for people making illegal war against us seems absurd to me.

The principle they argue seems to hold that if they had landed a 10,000 strong army in southern California and commenced military operations against us, all while wearing civilian clothes and not acting under the command of a state army, that each and every one of them would be entitled to protections under our courts and could hire lawyers to argue that they were just innocent bystanding illegal aliens awaiting their new CA drivers licenses and matricula cards. All because they happened to be on US soil.

Would we actually have to provide due process for invaders? Is there no body of law or international treaty that prevents detained combatants from using the very protections they are fighting against to further their cause?

I can see an absolute requirement that US citizens taken into custody in the US have an unquestioned right to due process. I can see that no government should have the right to conduct rifle shot abductions on foreign soil. But with regards to combatants in a war zone I just can't believe there is no law allowing us to detain people for military purposes as the military sees fit.

[jwalsh07]

Yes but there outlook is incorrect. The treaty between the US and Cuba specifically states:

The Guantanamo Lease
(i) The Lease Recognizes the "Continuance of Ultimate Sovereignty" by Cuba Over Guantanamo.

The majority concluded "that, at least for habeas purposes, Guantanamo is a part of the sovereign territory of the United States."

Which implies that for the Ninth Circuits political purpose GITMO is not sovereign under Cuba but for all other purposes it is.

Lunacy.

[Abundy]

Hey - I'd been told long before this ruling that Gitmo was US soil. I was misinformed.

I fail to see how, if there is a lease that states Cuba retains sovereignty over the leased land, any US Court other than a military tribunal can assert jurisdiction over anyone on Gitmo.

And no, I'm not reading the opinion. The only sense I've ever seen that came out of the Ninth Circus is the dissent in Locklear when the Court refused the request for an en banc review.

[Redwood71]

AS much as I'd love for that to work, the sovereignty of the land is based upon the same type of lease the feds use for land many times inside the conus. It is considered a reservation rather than a territory or a homestead. This is how the real owners can retake the land upon forfeiture of the lease but remain corporate to its use during US Federal occupation. It also creates a very cheap settlement on buildings or installed property the Feds have to sacrifice depending upon the terms of the lease and whether they adhered to it. You're so right, lunacy.

[oceanview]

when Islam surrenders, they can go home.

[Republican Wildcat]

Aside from the merits of this ruling...this same matter is already being reviewed by the Supreme Court. It is ridiculous that the 9th Circuit would issue a ruling. These people not only issue embarrassing rulings, but they also act unprofessionally.

[Republican Wildcat]

Well, it is a non-ruling, and a disrespectful one to the Supreme Court which is already reviewing the matter of the Gitmo detainees.

It's nutty the 9th Circuit would make a ruling with the Supreme Court already having the matter under review.

[McGavin999]

I think the people who live outside the 9th Circuit should get together and file suit against them. They are undercutting America at every turn, writing laws instead of interpreting laws, and now they are endangering the American people.

I also think we all need to get together and have the 9th Circuit broken up. I'd be perfectly happy if their jurisdiction was restricted to San Francisco and a new circuit could be established to cover the rest.