(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..

[cgk]

Tammy Bruce was on Larry Elder today talking about this. She says the Judge who wrote this ruling (Reinhart?) is married to the President of the Los Angeles Chapter of the ACLU.

Isn't that sweet?

[Republican Wildcat]

Correct...however, the 9th Circuit Court doesn't have jurisidiction because Cuba is not part of the 9th Circuit. They had absolutely no business issuing any ruling on this or even hearing the case.

The D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court would have jurisdiction to rule on this matter...and in fact are reviewing the cases, another reason why it was assinine for the 9th to be getting involved.

[Lawgvr1955]

I also have read the opinion and the dissent and believe that there is little question that the Supreme Court will take up this appeal, as they are already considering the very question themselves.

I believe that this decision of the 9th is a tempest in a teapot. Nothing is going to come of it. The decision was a waste of taxpayer time, trees for the paper and bandwidth.

[Republican Wildcat]

Well, they've already taken care of that, see. They ruled last week that one has a First Amendment right to assist terrorist organizations.

[P-Marlowe]

Where does the 9th Circuit get its authority to rule on the status of prisoners that are in Cuba? These are not residents of any of the states within the 9th Circuit and they are not being detained within the 9th circuit.

Because they are outside of the united states, only the Supreme Court would have jurisdiction to hear arguments in this case or to accept a writ.

the 9th is out of control. We need to get congress to impeach every one of them.

[sarasmom]

They are not POWs.They are illegal combatants.
We are properly exercising our options as to treatment of illegal combatants by interring them at GITMO, and processing them by military standards IAW the Geneva conventions.
We would also be properly exercising our legal options if we conducted military tribunals and executed the lot of them.
I dont understand why many people (not just you) fail to grasp or stubbornly ignore this simple fact.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

The morons from California have spoken. IMO, the sooner they die of horrible diseases the better for the country.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

I guess they ment COURT and I need to invest in glasses...

And we need to invest in guns'n'ammo. When the firestorm starts, these bastards will be the first to be eliminated.

[Sparta]

Anyway we can send these judges to Gitmo instead?

[k2blader]

Hoping to hear this being appealed in the near future.

[JoeGar]

The Ninth Circus does it again. Can you imagine the impact of this ruling during World War II? We would have needed a draft just to get enough lawyers to tell the POWs, "You have the right to remain silent."

[Clock King]

I don't know how I feel on this. I don't like the whole "enemy combatents" thing given that there IS NO CLEARLY DEFINED ENEMY! When is the war on terror going to be over? Never. When will they be released? Never. Are they all guilty? I doubt that. This issue needs to be discussed and not just accepted.

[Bad Dog2]

You're Wrong Clock King. US federal courts do not have jurisdiction of US military prisioners whether they are POWs, terrorists or foriegn combatants. They do not even have jurisdiction over US soldiers; that's why we have the UCMJ. The only civil authority over the US military is the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense.

9th Circuit Court = Traitors!

[ought-six]

"They are not unaccountable. They can be impeached."

But only for criminal actions. They cannot be impeached for misinterpreting, misapplying, or ignoring the Constitution (although they should be). They can be impeached for malfeasance in office, which, for a federal judge, is almost impossible to prosecute, since they have such broad protections. Nope, I'm afraid we are on the cusp of a judicial dictatorship.

[HiTech RedNeck]

The constitutional amendment proposed by Robert Bork would be interesting, namely that a supermajority of both houses of Congress may vote to overturn any Federal court ruling. Get a few stink rulings like this, and such an amendment will sail through.

[DugwayDuke]

"Many people believe we are in a state of declared war, which we are not."

And, many people, such as yourself continue to believe the fiction that we are not in a state of war. If you dispute the fact that we are not in a state of war, please provide the Constitutional references that support your position.