Comments on: 5 of 9 Justices Support Basic Civil Rights for Detainees

By: Supreme Court vs. New Deal’s NIRA

Supreme Court vs. New Deal’s NIRA — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 22:48:16 +0000

[...] 5 of 9 Justices Support Basic Civil Rights for Detainees [...]

By: GreenDreams

GreenDreams — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:59:36 +0000

Citizen, they don't want to classify them as POWs because we are not treating them in accord with Geneva convention, hence the new designation “enemy combatant”

By: CitizenKang

CitizenKang — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:32:09 +0000

Point one, yay for habeus corpus.

Point two, why don't we simply classify (at least some of) these people as POWs, give them their rights under the Geneva Conventions and then keep them safely off the playing field until the end of this war?

I realize that may be a long time, but at least the Red Cross could see to it they're humanely treated, and we'd be following our own, and international law without releasing potential terrorists.

I'm sure my reasoning must be flawed (else why haven't we done this?) but could someone please explain how?

By: Slamfu

Slamfu — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:05:08 +0000

All I can say is A-M-E-N for the Supreme Court. At least one of the other branches is doing its job to remind us what this country is about. No doubt forcing the president to live up to our traditions and laws of freedom and decency to prisoners will be viewed as more “Judicial Activism”.

By: GreenDreams

GreenDreams — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:50:54 +0000

"They have proven themselves incompetent to shepherd America’s national security."

Yes they have.

"federal judges do not have any authority to bar the transfer of those individuals to Iraqi authorites to face prosecution or punishment for crimes committed in that country in violation of Iraqi laws."

Perhaps someday that quote will ring loudly as Bush and company are extradited to stand trial in Baghdad by Prime Minister Mahdi or Sadr. Small wonder that the administration is pulling out all the stops to get an agreement that continues immunity for us and our contractors.

By: ChrisWWW

ChrisWWW — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:15:06 +0000

I wouldn't say it's a rebuke to the Administration as that makes it sound topical and political, I'd say it's a reaffirmation of our basic ideals.

It's a rebuke in so much that the Bush Administration has sought to subvert our basic ideals.

By: mikkel

mikkel — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:50:17 +0000

I can say, without hyperbole, that the military commissions act made me more sad/angry/scared on a core level than anything else in my life. Aside from the striking of habeas corpus and the inconsistent definition of "unlawful combatant" that made it so legal professors were unclear on who it could be applied to, was the fact that Congress had codified abject fear into Law. To me it was a possible tipping point that would lead to a flood of other laws that thankfully have not come to pass, but perhaps only because of the bumbling of the White House and sheer luck.

I fully agree with Cernig that it not only hurt the potentially innocent, but makes us less safe by making it harder to prosecute people in a way that the rest of the world would respect; even prosecutors started quitting the tribunals and claiming they were kangaroo courts.

I wouldn't say it's a rebuke to the Administration as that makes it sound topical and political, I'd say it's a reaffirmation of our basic ideals. To say that I'm hugely relieved is an understatement.