Bush Second President to Restore Rights

[Ken King]

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:



Then:



Then later it has:



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

Are all of the detainees combatants? Did they all take up arms against our troops? Do a little more research and check the merits briefs submitted to the court in this case. Then find and check out the Combatant Status Review Board Decision of 21 Sept 2004 dealing with Boumediene. Do you honestly feel that he makes the cut for being held indefinately along with the actual combatants?

In the initial remarks of the syllabus the following statement is made where it is recognized "that detaining individuals captured while fighting against the United States in Afghanistan for the duration of that conflict was a fundamental and accepted incident to war." Those not caught fighting and not in the country of conflict seem to be those that the decision applies to, at least for me and my reading of that inferrence.

 

[PsyOps]

Are all of the detainees combatants? Did they all take up arms against our troops? Do a little more research and check the merits briefs submitted to the court in this case. Then find and check out the Combatant Status Review Board Decision of 21 Sept 2004 dealing with Boumediene. Do you honestly feel that he makes the cut for being held indefinately along with the actual combatants?

In the initial remarks of the syllabus the following statement is made where it is recognized "that detaining individuals captured while fighting against the United States in Afghanistan for the duration of that conflict was a fundamental and accepted incident to war." Those not caught fighting and not in the country of conflict seem to be those that the decision applies to, at least for me and my reading of that inferrence.

I’m not disputing whether they should be held indefinitely. I am disputing the manner in which this is getting resolved.

When Bush went to the USSC for a suggestion on how to deal with these captured combatants this is what they came up with. This is nothing more than political backpedaling and pandering. It’s obvious by the split decision. I have no problem with fixing the issue of these prisoners getting some sort of day in court or solution to their captivity. But giving them rights in our courts is not it. I am appalled that “suspected” terrorists, enemy combatants, non-Americans should be afforded the same rights to hearings and trials as you and me.

 

[Ken King]

I’m not disputing whether they should be held indefinitely. I am disputing the manner in which this is getting resolved.

When Bush went to the USSC for a suggestion on how to deal with these captured combatants this is what they came up with. This is nothing more than political backpedaling and pandering. It’s obvious by the split decision. I have no problem with fixing the issue of these prisoners getting some sort of day in court or solution to their captivity. But giving them rights in our courts is not it. I am appalled that “suspected” terrorists, enemy combatants, non-Americans should be afforded the same rights to hearings and trials as you and me.

Captured combatants? Is that what you, as an alleged reasonable person, would classify Boumediene?

I have no problem with combatants being held to the end of the conflict without benefit of a trial, that has been a standard forever. I just don't see Boumediene as anything close to a combatant and for him, and any others situated like him, I feel they need a chance to be heard by a non-military decision making body like a habeas court to determine, with due process, if they are in fact combatants.

 

[Ken King]

I am appalled that “suspected” terrorists, enemy combatants, non-Americans should be afforded the same rights to hearings and trials as you and me.

Then you would be surprised that this process is long rooted in our history.


In RASUL ET AL. v. BUSH the following was stated in the courts opinion

Congress has granted federal district courts, “within their respective jurisdictions,” the authority to hear applications for habeas corpus by any person who claims to be held “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U. S. C. §§2241(a), (c)(3).

The statute traces its ancestry to the first grant of federal court jurisdiction: Section 14 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 authorized federal courts to issue the writ of habeas corpus to prisoners “in custody, under or by colour of the authority of the United States, or committed for trial before some court of the same.” Act of Sept. 24, 1789, ch. 20, §14, 1 Stat. 82. In 1867, Congress extended the protections of the writ to “all cases where any person may be restrained of his or her liberty in violation of the constitution, or of any treaty or law of the United States.” Act of Feb. 5, 1867, ch. 28, 14 Stat. 385. See Felker v. Turpin, 518 U. S. 651, 659–660 (1996).

Oh and just so you know that court decision was 6-3 in this ruling.

 

[PsyOps]

Oh and just so you know that court decision was 6-3 in this ruling.

Everything I'm reading states it was a 5-4 decision

Fox

Reuters

Yahoo

Huffington Post

MSNBC

 

[Ken King]

Everything I'm reading states it was a 5-4 decision

Fox

Reuters

Yahoo

Huffington Post

MSNBC

Except for what I clearly wrote above, in that post I was talking about the previous opinion of RASUL ET AL. v. BUSH and not BOUMEDIENE ET AL. v. BUSH, pay attention please.