Supreme Court Sides With Terrorists

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by AAAintheBeltway, Jun 29, 2006.

  1. The Supreme Court has finally answered the question of how long it would take to issue a decision even more idiotic and destructive than its infamous Kelo case allowing corrupt municipalities to steal private land. Today the Court released its decision in the Hamdan case, and basically ruled that everything the Congress and administration had decided about trying al qaeda terrorists was wrong. See http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05slipopinion.html

    Probably the single most egregious feature of the opinion is the Court's contortions to avoid application of a law passed by congress that removed habeas corpus jurisdiction for these cases and substituted an appeal process in the federal appeals court in DC. As Justice Scalia's typically thorough dissent makes clear, the Court simply ignored prior precedent and improperly reached a decision directly contrary to the statute. The practical effect will be to flood the federal court system with hundreds of difficult cases involving al qaeda members. In addition, the Court's decision apparently will require the government to reveal confidential information to these terrorists. So for the brave afghans who helped us, good luck and keep that Ak-47 loaded because ql aeada will be paying you a visit, thanks to our Supreme Court.
     
  2. We should accept everything that "Iraq has WMDs and poses immediate threat to the US" administration tells us... absolutely, positively and not question anything they tell us. The court system should not interfere with the absolute power of king georgie boy. :D
     
  3. This ruling funny because for the last 6 years I have been told by people like you that king george is in complete control the supreme court :eek:
     
  4. They were going to try them before military tribunals, which is good enough for U. S. soldiers. Now I suppose the Court will dismiss their cases because they weren't read their Miranda rights. Certainly the government will have to pay for their lawyers and necesssary expenses in defending their cases.

    I think the ultimate effect of this decision is that they will now just be returned to the Afghan govenment. Wonder how much due process they'll receive there?
     
  5. You spread horse manure, in my opinion. I expect better from you. Rebuttal:

    The USSC has jurisdiction to hear a habeas corpus suit from any person located within the territorial jurisdiction of the USA, INCLUDING Guantanamo Bay (which has been expressly determined to be part of U.S. Territory, because the Writ of Habeas Corpus is a special exception from which the Congress cannot deprive the jurisdiction of the USSC (see Rasul v. Bush, 03-0334 (2004)).

    Although Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, with the obvious intent to prevent habeas Corpus petitions from Guantanamo detainees, after the USSC ruled that Guantanamo was within U.S. territory, the law is nevertheless valid to the extent that it directs the D.C. Circuit Court as the only court with jurisdiction over a habeas Corpus action for the detainees.

    However, as Congress cannot abrogate the USSC's appellate jurisdiction over a habeas Corpus action, the USSC has authority to accept expedited jurisdiction and evaluate claims of Guantanamo detainees in advance of any D.C. Circuit decision. So, while the USSC could have referred Hamdan's claim to the D.C. Circuit Court, it could not be required to do so, and it did not, and now it has ruled on the issue in favor of Hamdan's claim.

    Having removed the jurisdictional argument from the table, then next question, indeed the only question remaining is whether or not the President's military commissions provide due process of law in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which requires, inter alia, that the procedural rules the President promulgates for courts-martial and military commissions alike must be “uniform insofar as practicable,” 10 U.S.C. §836(b).

    In this case, there is not only no uniformity between a standard courts-martial and the President's military commission -- in fact, not even a claim by the Executive Branch that any uniformity need exist.

    As an example, the rules of evidence, present in any court martial, which are substantially the same as those present in U.S. Civilian courts, are completely abandoned in the President's military commissions to be replaced by ONE rule:

    Evidence is admissible if it “would have probative value to a reasonable person.” Military Commission Rule §6(D)(1). Under this test, not only is testimonial hearsay and evidence obtained through coercion fully admissible, but neither live testimony nor witnesses’ written statements need be sworn.

    In short, the President has managed a total "end run" around the Constitution, so as to provide the Guantanamo detainees with the sort of Kangaroo court process, which were it to be applied by some other nation against a U.S. citizen, would be found by every red blooded conservative to be a violation of everything held sacred.

    Doubtless, the conservative response to this is that terrorists don't deserve equal treatment to U.S. citizens. To that rebuttal, I can only say, that the only thing that separates the U.S. from the terrorists, is that we don't act like they do. For every step that we take to give them the sort of justice that they would give us, we become more like them.

    So if that's what you want -- to be just like your enemy, only the winner, of course -- then maybe your position is correct, i.e., the ends justify the means -- it doesn't matter how we win, as long as we win.

    And, there may come a time when our nation is so "against the ropes," that I would agree that winning is the only thing left.

    But, today is not that day. We are already beating the crap out of the enemy, and we can still well afford to show the world how real justice is done, so that the world will have something other than another terrorist regime to emulate.
     
  6. Ricter

    Ricter

    Uhh, what he ^ said! :D
     
  7. kent,

    The majority decided the habeas issue as a matter of statutory construction and not under the Suspension doctrine. The whole issue was whether they were deprived of jurisdiction in existing cases. If they would always have jurisdiction over a habeas appeal, there would have been no need to hear the case, since that was the dispositive issue. All congress has to do is provide a venue, not the full federal court system to prevent a Suspension Clause issue.

    As for the due process argument, these prisoners fall into a gray area. Clearly even the majority doesn't claim these prisoners are entitled to the full panoply of due process rights. The Court relied on the Geneva accords, which seem at first blush not to apply, at least according to Justice Scalia. By misinterpreting the application of the Accords, the Court has put the govenrment in the position of having to release these terrorists or reveal the identities of special forces operatives, informers, intelligence sources and methods, etc. No doubt liberals think that is a reasonable result, somehow analogous to releasing career criminals for minor procedural errors. A sensible Court would have applied traditional rules of deference to the Executive in conducting war and foreign policy and stayed out of this issue altogether.

    The practical effect going forward is that these types of detainees will be held in foreign prisons. They will end up with less rights and more brutality. But chalk up another victory for the liberal legal establishment and another loss for the country.
     
  8. The repubican position is not to be better than the enemy, not lead by example of our better way of life, but to match the enemy torture for torture, denial of rights for denial of rights, etc.

    I know that there is an appeal to hear a president stand up and say:

    "I will do whatever is necessary, break whatever law is necessary to defend you and our country" but the danger is too great to allow such megalomaniac thinking.

    If we can't win playing by the very rules we cherish, we shouldn't be playing this game at all.

    In reality, it will be our adherence to rule of law over emotionalism and breaking the rules that will lead to long term victory...

    We are the good guys, right? We don't need to break the law to win, or do we?
     
  9. You just don't get it.

    We can't just call them thugs and execute them, we have to demonstrate to the world that we have rules of evidence that we follow to prove the thuggery we claim.

    If we don't do this, we are no different than the former Soviet Union, Red China, or other totalitarian regimes who made claims, then punished without a chance for those who were accused to present their case.

    We are better than that, at least some of us are...

    Rule of law over emotionalism and end justifies the means thinking, PLEASE!

    The court didn't side with terrorists, it sided with the Constitution.

    Take your totalitarianism and shove it...

     
    #10     Jun 29, 2006