Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nuclear1 on July 12, 2008, 05:50:27 pm
-
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/court_sides_with_gitmo_detaine.html
In a body-blow to the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that prisoners held at the Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have a constitutional right to challenge their detentions in civilian federal courts.
The administration had argued that the military commission system set up by the Pentagon to try suspected terrorists provided enough to satisfy constitutional requirements. The court Thursday disagreed, introducing an element of uncertainty into what happens next regarding the 270 or so remaining detainees held at Guantanamo.
...
"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times," Kennedy wrote.
...
"The Supreme Court has finally brought an end to one of our nation's most egregious injustices," said Vincent Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, the public interest group that brought suit on behalf of 37 detainees in the case. "It has finally given the men held at Guantánamo the justice that they have long deserved. By granting the writ of habeas corpus, the Supreme Court recognizes a rule of law established hundreds of years ago and essential to American jurisprudence since our nation's founding. This six-year-long nightmare is a lesson in how fragile our constitutional protections truly are in the hands of an overzealous executive."
-
Why do they keep taking rights from civilians to terrorists?
-
I'm still not convinced this is entirely appropriate it, since they basically constitute POWs only without a government...but POWs get to go home when the war's over. There's no clearcut end to this one and you can't keep them indefinitely. Neither military nor civilian law was designed for this circumstance so who's to say this actually means anything positive will be accomplished?
-
Well they've managed to keep them for nearly 7 years without trial. I'm sure they'll take another 7 before they put them on civilian trial and hope they just die of old age before a sentence is actually handed down.
Oh and before someone starts giving us that whole "They're all terrorists" crap I'll point out that several of them were released without charge after being held for years.
-
Is there even a set list of prerequisits that someone needed to be in order to be a "suspected terrorist" and thrown in Guantanamo?
i.e. have any of them been accused of an actual crime?
-
Having someone say you're a terrorist while collecting the bounty on terrorists seems to be enough.
-
But they're all terrorists !!!11!! :p
Seriously though, I think the 'Mech has a good point. They don't have a country to return to, and this "War on Terror" is not a war that will end.
-
Is there even a set list of prerequisits that someone needed to be in order to be a "suspected terrorist" and thrown in Guantanamo?
i.e. have any of them been accused of an actual crime?
Some. Then again, it's not necessarily possible to define a crime properly for all of them because as I said, some of them are POWs without a government (or without a government anymore), and so the question of their status is more than a little nebulous.