Bush Second President to Restore Rights

[Xaquin44]

Im just not totally sold on the idea that a non citizen is to be extended all of the courtesy's of a citizen.

The rights of a citizen aren't forefront in my mind so much as the rights of a prisoner. There should be no question of the crime before holding a person for 6 years.

If there is enough evidence, charge them, convict them, and then toss them in jail.

 

[Ken King]

Ken King, as always, your posts are to the point and filled with good information that causes people to think before posting,
yet I ask,
were the laws in the constitution meant to cover the non citizens when it was written?
were the citizens even citizens prior to the writing of the constitution, or did that single document make them citizens.

Did the English armies have protections under the constitution of the united states?

Im just not totally sold on the idea that a non citizen is to be extended all of the courtesy's of a citizen.

Reading the decision you will find precedent of common law principles within the discussion where the writ of habeous corpus has been foundationally grounded for centuries. Application of that principle and prohibition of its suspension is one of the few principles laid out within the meat of the Constitution. Applying it to those that are not our citizens nor citizens of the nations or governoring groups that we are at conflict with seems appropriate and in line with what has been previously established.

 

[PsyOps]

Ken King, as always, your posts are to the point and filled with good information that causes people to think before posting,
yet I ask,
were the laws in the constitution meant to cover the non citizens when it was written?
were the citizens even citizens prior to the writing of the constitution, or did that single document make them citizens.

Did the English armies have protections under the constitution of the united states?

Im just not totally sold on the idea that a non citizen is to be extended all of the courtesy's of a citizen.

I would have to say that when the constitution was ratified, those that chose to be citizens were, as long as they were standing on American soil. Many laws have been enacted since then that more definitively defines an American citizen. I'm not so sure I have seen any sort of grandfather clause in the constitution that would extend rights to non-citizens, especially captured enemies during time of war.

Every American that cares about their rights should be outraged at this. Especially our military. They had to face down their barrels on the battlefield and now they are going to be given the same rights as they have.

This really says a lot about those we have entrusted to protect and enforce our Constitution. These justices have proven they are not interested in Consitutional law; they only serve their own interests. And it confirms our legal system, at every level, is in chaos.

 

[Ken King]

I would have to say that when the constitution was ratified, those that chose to be citizens were, as long as they were standing on American soil. Many laws have been enacted since then that more definitively defines an American citizen. I'm not so sure I have seen any sort of grandfather clause in the constitution that would extend rights to non-citizens, especially captured enemies during time of war.

Every American that cares about their rights should be outraged at this. Especially our military. They had to face down their barrels on the battlefield and now they are going to be given the same rights as they have.

This really says a lot about those we have entrusted to protect and enforce our Constitution. These justices have proven they are not interested in Consitutional law; they only serve their own interests. And it confirms our legal system, at every level, is in chaos.

Excuse me but those that are involved in this decision are Bosnians, from what I can determine they have never taken up arms against our troops, and were never in Afghanistan during any of our actions there. In fact they were arrested, held, investigated and then released by Bosnian officials that determined that there was no evidence to support their arrests for allegedly plotting to blow up the US Embassy in Sarajevo.

 

[Lenny]

Let me guess...

The rights of a citizen aren't forefront in my mind so much as the rights of a prisoner. There should be no question of the crime before holding a person for 6 years.

If there is enough evidence, charge them, convict them, and then toss them in jail.

...I'll bet you're a Democrat. They are the only ones who continue to insist this is a law-and-order activity in Iraq. Just like Bill and Hill tried to find a statutory reason to take Osama Bin Laden when Somalia offered his to us.

 

[RadioPatrol]

They're not US citizens, certainly. But they're in our "system"...our legal and/or military judicial system. The laws that apply to these systems also apply to prisoners in those systems.

Another thing, a decision was made to not classify these prisoners as POW's, as then the Geneva convention would apply. That's where the term "enemy combatants" applies, in this instance. (At least that's my understanding of it.)

what system .... they are not on US Soil in any Federal or State Prisons ........

 

[RadioPatrol]

Otherwise, what does being a "citizen" really mean anyway?

Not a DAMN thing ......... open borders give it all away .....

Yesterday, in a five to four decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the 270 prisoners, held for more than six years for alleged links with al-Qaida and the Taliban, have a constitutional right to take their cases to civilian courts on the U.S. mainland.

not in the US, but getting constitutional protection UFB ...

Like Daniel Perle or Nick Berg got constitutional protection ...

oh what they got exactly what the Koran says to do with infidels ....

 

[BOP]

I don't understand? Why would they have their rights restored? duh. Enemies of the US. Let's see....maybe they should be in prison for life.

Because everyone has more rights under the U.S. Constitution than us mere citizens: illegal aliens, gang bangers from central America, terrorists azz-hats, foreign combatants, hardened criminals, Iraqi insurgents...everybody.

You should be more tolerant and understanding.

 

[Xaquin44]

...I'll bet you're a Democrat. They are the only ones who continue to insist this is a law-and-order activity in Iraq. Just like Bill and Hill tried to find a statutory reason to take Osama Bin Laden when Somalia offered his to us.

you bet wrong.

and they aren't in Iraq anymore.

if they've been held for 6 years now, why haven't they been brought to trial and formally charged as most all war criminals are?

I'm not saying they're innocent or anything, I just don't see why they're in limbo at the moment.

 

[Xaquin44]

what system .... they are not on US Soil in any Federal or State Prisons ........

conveniently

 

[Ken King]

what system .... they are not on US Soil in any Federal or State Prisons ........

While Cuba is a soveriegn nation the treaty giving us GITMO and the fact that we have held complete control over it for about 100 years and that it is a US Naval facility makes it about as US as anything can be.

and they aren't in Iraq anymore.

if they've been held for 6 years now, why haven't they been brought to trial and formally charged as most all war criminals are?

I'm not saying they're innocent or anything, I just don't see why they're in limbo at the moment.

The detainees that the decision applies to are those that are from Bosnia and have never been shown to have been in Iraq or Afghanistan. If I properly understand the decision the enemy combatants from Iraq and Iran that are in custody at GITMO do not have the ability to a habeous writ while hostilities are ongoing.

 

[RadioPatrol]

move them ........

yesterday ....

to an undisclosed location ....

for their protection ...

sticking them @ GitMo was a mistake IMHO .....

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

No longer War on Terror

J.D. Johannes believes that the Supreme Court decision yesterday granting habeas corpus to unlawful combatants for the first time in our nation’s history requires a slight nomenclature change. With American troops now expected to act as policemen instead of warriors, the produce of the Outside the Wire documentary series says “war on terror” is no longer applicable:

The U.S. Supreme Court, by granting the Writ of Habeas Corpus to enemy combatants, has declared the the war on Islamic Terrorism over.
It should now be properly phrased the criminal investigation of Islamic Terrorism.
​

He includes a clip from his documentary to demonstrate the only agents of habeas corpus on the battlefield — the US military:

The 5-4 decision reverses over 200 years of American war precedent, as well as turn the Geneva Convention on its head. Unlawful combatants now have more rights than POWs, whom the GC forbids access to civilian courts. POWs facing war-crimes charges have to be tried in military tribunals, not civil courts, but terrorists somehow now have better standing than those captured in uniform.

War on terror now the criminal investigation of Islamist naughtiness?

I agree.

 

[This_person]

J.D. Johannes believes that the Supreme Court decision yesterday granting habeas corpus to unlawful combatants for the first time in our nation’s history requires a slight nomenclature change. With American troops now expected to act as policemen instead of warriors, the produce of the Outside the Wire documentary series says “war on terror” is no longer applicable:

The U.S. Supreme Court, by granting the Writ of Habeas Corpus to enemy combatants, has declared the the war on Islamic Terrorism over.
It should now be properly phrased the criminal investigation of Islamic Terrorism.
​

He includes a clip from his documentary to demonstrate the only agents of habeas corpus on the battlefield — the US military:

The 5-4 decision reverses over 200 years of American war precedent, as well as turn the Geneva Convention on its head. Unlawful combatants now have more rights than POWs, whom the GC forbids access to civilian courts. POWs facing war-crimes charges have to be tried in military tribunals, not civil courts, but terrorists somehow now have better standing than those captured in uniform.

War on terror now the criminal investigation of Islamist naughtiness?

I agree.

Now it's easier, and more encouraged, to just shoot 'em up front......

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

I posted this because I wasn't really sure if we were holding enemy combatants better or worse than if they were POWs. Seems like we were treating them better with more rights.

Crickets from the left.

 

[Xaquin44]

The detainees that the decision applies to are those that are from Bosnia and have never been shown to have been in Iraq or Afghanistan. If I properly understand the decision the enemy combatants from Iraq and Iran that are in custody at GITMO do not have the ability to a habeous writ while hostilities are ongoing.

ah, I thought someone had said it applied to all of them. Regardless, war criminals are usually charged, tried, and sentenced. Why not in this case?

they have evidence right? It's not even that I really think these people are innocent or something, it's just not how our legal system is supposed to work.

 

[PsyOps]

Excuse me but those that are involved in this decision are Bosnians, from what I can determine they have never taken up arms against our troops, and were never in Afghanistan during any of our actions there. In fact they were arrested, held, investigated and then released by Bosnian officials that determined that there was no evidence to support their arrests for allegedly plotting to blow up the US Embassy in Sarajevo.

Help me out here. What does this have to do with US Constitutional law? And who are you saying never took up arms against our troops in Afghanistan, the prisoners in Gitmo?

Here's the bottom line, the door has been open for any non-US citizen to claim rights under our constitution. There is no provision for this in our constitution. To what degree are you willing to go with this? I believe something should have been done about the situation; but not bringing them here, as non-citizens and non-tax-payers, in our courts, at the tax-payer’s expense.

The other thing that bothers me is this whole setup was suggested by the USSC in the first place and agreed upon by our Congress and president. Now the courts come along and said “Congress, Mr. President, you no longer have wartime authority”. And you don’t find this the least bit disturbing? And the fact that the court was virtually split on this should tell you there might just be a problem with the decision.

 

[Ken King]

ah, I thought someone had said it applied to all of them. Regardless, war criminals are usually charged, tried, and sentenced. Why not in this case?

War criminals, yes, but combatants are typically held until the hostilities have ended and then repatriated without trial. That should be what happens to the majority of those being held.

they have evidence right? It's not even that I really think these people are innocent or something, it's just not how our legal system is supposed to work.

Evidence? Since BOUMEDIENE is the named individual in the case at question lets look at why he is being held. According to the review board it is alleged that he;

1) is an Algerian that since 1990 has traveled to hotspots in the Middle East and eastern Europe.
2) has on multiple occasions provided subsistance to Bensayah Belkacem.
3) Belkacem is known as an Al Qaida operative.
4) he has given conflicting statements regarding Belkacem.
5) he hired a legal representative for a person that was arrested for allegedly being a terrorist.

Now don't get me wrong, I think that most of those held belong there, but in this instance it doesn't look like they have much if anything against the man. When the detainment first started the Presidents order said;

Sec. 2. Definition and Policy.

(a) The term "individual subject to this order" shall mean any individual who is not a United States citizen with respect to whom I determine from time to time in writing that:
(1) there is reason to believe that such individual, at the relevant times,
(i) is or was a member of the organization known as al Qaida;
(ii) has engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit, acts of international terrorism, or acts in preparation therefore, that have caused, threaten to cause, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy; or
(iii) has knowingly harbored one or more individuals described in subparagraphs (i) or (ii) of subsection 2(a)(1) of this order;

Now traveling to a region as early as 11 years before the terrorists attacks, giving someone food/water or hiring a lawyer doesn't seem to make the grade for classifying them as subject to the order. The review board however determined that based on the information they claim to have that he has supported Al Qaida.

Given that heresay is allowed before the commissions, that as of now no legal representation has been made available to the man, and that in the merits briefs before the Supreme Court it is suggested and not challenged that he was investigated and cleared of involvement of alleged terrorist activities by Interpol and US personnel when first arrested in Bosnia I find it possible that he might be as he claims, an innocent victim of circumstances. A habeas court could clear it up one way or the other.

 

[PsyOps]

The detainees that the decision applies to are those that are from Bosnia and have never been shown to have been in Iraq or Afghanistan. If I properly understand the decision the enemy combatants from Iraq and Iran that are in custody at GITMO do not have the ability to a habeous writ while hostilities are ongoing.

Help me out again Ken... Here is the finding. Where does it say that it is only talking about terrorists captured only in Bosnia? The finding only contains one reference to Bosnia that stated nothing of the sort. In fact it states:

In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U. S. 507, 518, 588–589, five Justices recognized that detaining individuals captured while fighting against the United States in Afghanistan for the duration of that conflict was a funda¬mental and accepted incident to war.

Then:

Petitioners are aliens detained at Guantanamo after being cap¬tured in Afghanistan or elsewhere abroad and designated enemy combatants by CSRTs.

Then later it has:

Interpreting the AUMF, the Department of Defense ordered the detention of these petitioners, and they were transferred to Guantanamo. Some of these individuals were apprehended on the battlefield in Afghanistan, others in places as far away from there as Bosnia and Gambia. All are foreign nationals, but none is a citizen of a nation now at war with the United States.

So it seems the finding applies to enemy combatants captured anywhere in the world, but particularly Afghanistan. :shrug:

 

[Ken King]

Help me out here. What does this have to do with US Constitutional law? And who are you saying never took up arms against our troops in Afghanistan, the prisoners in Gitmo?

Constitutional Law? Article 1 Section 9 "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." It seems that according to the review board documents that the petitioner in this case in fact never took up arms against the US

Here's the bottom line, the door has been open for any non-US citizen to claim rights under our constitution. There is no provision for this in our constitution. To what degree are you willing to go with this? I believe something should have been done about the situation; but not bringing them here, as non-citizens and non-tax-payers, in our courts, at the tax-payer’s expense.

The other thing that bothers me is this whole setup was suggested by the USSC in the first place and agreed upon by our Congress and president. Now the courts come along and said “Congress, Mr. President, you no longer have wartime authority”. And you don’t find this the least bit disturbing? And the fact that the court was virtually split on this should tell you there might just be a problem with the decision.

The door was opened 4 years ago in the Hamdi case, which was why the MTA came about in the first place. The provision of our Constitution are there in the checks and balances of the separation of powers and the judicial review that laws crafted are constitutional.

Your argument as to the expenses I find somewhat ludicrous, we have already transported them thousands of miles, are feeding them, are staffing the prison, supporting all aspects of their lives and conducting the tribunals all at expense to us, the tax payer.

Now have you read the decision in the case? If not I suggest that you do as nowhere does it suggest that the President nor Congress have wartime authority. Enemy conbatants can be taken and held. What the decision suggests and found is that the habeas writ is grounded in the foundation of our system of law and has been common law for centuries, that we fairly deal with those that are believed to be criminals and afford them with an opportunity to be heard when the person's basic contention is that they have been wrongly accused. After six years of detention some of these people have not had that opportunity.

Close decisions of the court are will be a fact of life, there have been many decisions that I do not agree with but do you know what? There is no requirement for any specific "super majority" to determine the rule of law as reviewed by the Supreme Court. We live with what we get until a future court revisits the situation.