Supreme Court Upholds Rule of Law, Constitution

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mattyhorn. Show Mattyhorn's posts

    Supreme Court Upholds Rule of Law, Constitution

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080612163731.sn58q011&show_article=1


    Further rebuke against Bush & Co.'s unilateral decision to suspend the fundamental legal principle of habeas corpus and ignore the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    As the world turns, so the facade crumbles...a good decision for anyone who cares about liberty.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from lnmonster. Show lnmonster's posts

    Supreme Court Upholds Rule of Law, Constitution

    The problem with giving due process to the people we capture overseas is that if we give them a fair trial, they might be found innocent.  These people are MUSLIM you know.  If they weren't guilty, they'd have long since converted to Christianity.

    Scalia wrote today that Americans will die because of this decision.  Better to incarcerate a thousand Muslims without charge or hearing forever than to allow even one American to die.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Supreme Court Upholds Rule of Law, Constitution

    Inmonster: are you serious or sarcastic?   We certainly cannot keep people in custody forever.  There is a basic right to not lose one's liberty without due process.  Right?
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from lnmonster. Show lnmonster's posts

    Supreme Court Upholds Rule of Law, Constitution

    Lnmonster: are you serious or sarcastic?

    Sarcastic.  Pretty good, eh?

    I find Scalia's position to be pretty amazing ... the implication that American life is worth more than Muslim life so undercuts our stature in the world, we might as well pack it in as a society to be emulated if his position were to carry the day.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Supreme Court Upholds Rule of Law, Constitution

    Ridiculous statements herein concerning habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights. The usual empty headed cliches.  Liberals defending unlawful enemy combatant terrorists? Absurd.
    Scalia did not say a Muslim life is worth more than an American. He, unlike his activist colleagues, understands that the judicial role is a limited one, and not to be used as an excuse for judges to impose their personal beliefs on society. Judges now want to run antiterror policies. the results will be disaster,  as badly as judicial tyrants botched other issues.
     
    The United States Constitution is a document that applies to America and Americans. It is not applicable to foreign terrorists.  
    In fact, German spies, including a US citizen were secretly executed by military tribunal during WW2 by Democrat Franklin Roosevelt. Not in the civilian courts. Do you want to impeach Roosevelt retroactively? 
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from macnh1. Show macnh1's posts

    Supreme Court Upholds Rule of Law, Constitution

    The Supreme Court was smoking crack on this one.  The idea that the US Constitution extends beyond our borders is absurd.

    Does this mean I can carry a gun in England or have free speech in China???  Will our soldiers need to provide probable cause prior to searching possible terrorists in the streets of Baghdad??

    For the record I haven't read the ruling yet.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from aynnie. Show aynnie's posts

    Supreme Court Upholds Rule of Law, Constitution

    You don't need to carry a gun in England because there is very little gun violence. 
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from catmantwo. Show catmantwo's posts

    Supreme Court Upholds Rule of Law, Constitution

    [Quote]....the judicial role is a limited one, and not to be used as an excuse for judges to impose their personal beliefs on society.[/Quote]

    Habeus Corpus is just a silly "personal belief" now, huh? And apparently the judiciary is no longer a co-equal branch of the government too?

    [Quote]Judges now want to run antiterror policies. the results will be disaster,  as badly as judicial tyrants botched other issues.[/Quote]

    Why do you hate the American Judicial system?

    Oh, right. You're a lawyer. It's your job.

     
    [Quote]The United States Constitution is a document that applies to America and Americans. It is not applicable to foreign terrorists.[/Quote]

    Actually, it's more about us than them. In fact, it's one of the things that make us better than them. Of course I'm using the word "us" rather loosely.

    [Quote]In fact, German spies, including aUS citizen were secretly executed by military tribunal during WW2 byDemocrat Franklin Roosevelt.[/Quote]

    Well, at least they got a trial, didn't they Bobin? Maybe you should ask Omar Abdel-Rahman, Zacarias Moussaoui, Ramzi Yusef, and Jose Padilla how terrible the U.S. judicial system works. I'm sure they would agree with you!

    You can reach them at;

    USP FLORENCE ADMAX
    U.S. PENITENTIARY
    PO BOX 8500
    FLORENCE, CO  81226

    No hurry. They're gonna be there for a while.  ;-)

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from catmantwo. Show catmantwo's posts

    Supreme Court Upholds Rule of Law, Constitution

    God, I wish they'd fix this F___'d up board!!!
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from catmantwo. Show catmantwo's posts

    Supreme Court Upholds Rule of Law, Constitution

    A Victory for the Rule of the Law

    By Eugene Robinson
    Friday, June 13, 2008; A23

    Itshouldn't be necessary for the Supreme Court to tell the president thathe can't have people taken into custody, spirited to a remote prisoncamp and held indefinitely, with no legal right to argue that they'vebeen unjustly imprisoned -- not even on grounds of mistaken identity.But the president in question is, sigh, George W. Bush, who has taken a chainsaw to the rule of law with the same manic gusto he displays while clearing brush at his Texas ranch.

    Soyesterday, for the third time, the high court made clear that theDecider has no authority to trash the fundamental principles ofAmerican jurisprudence. In ruling 5 to 4 that foreigners held at Guantanamo Bay have the right to challenge their detentions in federal court, thecourt cited the Constitution and the centuries-old concept of habeascorpus. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's majority opinion seems broad and definitive enough to end the Kafkaesque farce at Guantanamo once and for all.

    "Thelaws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, inextraordinary times," Kennedy wrote. Again, it's amazing that anypresident of the United States would need to have such a basic conceptspelled out for him.

    That reference to "extraordinary times"takes care of a specious argument that Bush and his legal minions haveconsistently tried to make: that when the nation is at war, as it hasbeen since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the president has extraordinarypowers that allow him to do basically anything he wants.

    The Bushadministration also has argued that the Guantanamo prisoners are "enemycombatants" who have no legal rights; that while U.S. citizens detainedin the "war on terror" may have some rights, foreigners do not; andthat Guantanamo is foreign soil, beyond the reach of U.S. judges. Thecourt had no trouble seeing through all this smoke.

    Twice before,the court has ordered Bush to respect the rule of law. In 2006, afterthe second ruling in favor of Guantanamo inmates' rights, theadministration persuaded Congress to pass a law stripping the inmatesof any right to file habeas corpus petitions in federal courts.Yesterday's ruling struck down this law, and since the decision wasbased on the Constitution, it seemed to exclude the possibility of newlegislation that would let Bush continue his program of arbitrary,indefinite detention without judicial review.

    The court alsodeemed inadequate the kangaroo-court tribunals that are held forGuantanamo inmates in lieu of proper court hearings. In the tribunals,an inmate is allowed to have a "personal representative" but not anactual lawyer -- and the inmate has no right to see the evidenceagainst him or to confront his accusers. Is it conceivable that theevidence against certain inmates might consist of witness statementsthat were obtained through the use of interrogation techniquesinvolving painful coercion that international agreements classify astorture? Amazingly, that scenario is highly conceivable. Amazingly,it's also highly conceivable -- even probable -- that some of theestimated 270 inmates at Guantanamo, imprisoned for as long as sixyears, are innocent of any involvement in terrorism and happened to bein the wrong place at the wrong time.

    I say "amazingly" becauseit's still hard for me to believe that arbitrary arrest, indefinitedetention and torture continue to be debated, as if there were pros andcons. The Supreme Court has now made clear that while justice and honormay be mere inconveniences for Bush, they remain essential componentsof our national identity.

    "The nation will live to regret what the court has done today," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in a dissent, warning that the ruling "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

    Everyonehopes he's wrong, of course. But if the only thing that mattered weresecurity, why would we bother to have an independent judiciary? Whywould there be any constitutional or legal guarantees of due processfor anyone? We could just lock up anyone who fit the demographicprofile of the average armed robber, say, or anyone with psychologicaltraits often displayed by embezzlers.

    The Guantanamo decisionwill create headaches for the federal courts. The process of grantinghearings to the detainees will be messy, imperfect and at timesfrustrating. I'm confident that in the end the system will work. GeorgeW. Bush may not trust America's basic values and highest ideals, but Ido.

     

    WAPO

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from TeddyffromNH. Show TeddyffromNH's posts

    Supreme Court Upholds Rule of Law, Constitution

    I am furious.  Enemy combatants caught on foriegn lands and kept in Cuba do not deserve Constitutional privelages.

    Well hopefully we just stop taking prisoners all together.  That will likely not happen, as the rules of engagement keep getting more restrictive thanks to liberals and attorneys in D.C.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from macnh1. Show macnh1's posts

    Supreme Court Upholds Rule of Law, Constitution

    [Quote]You don't need to carry a gun in England because there is very little gun violence. [/Quote]

    You missed the point but for the record...the violent crime rates have sky rocketed in England since their gun ban.  They have serious problems because citizens aren't allowed to protect themselves and are forced by the government to be victims.

    Perhaps they need our Supreme Court to help them solve their problems....they can now because our nation has no borders anymore. 
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from lnmonster. Show lnmonster's posts

    Supreme Court Upholds Rule of Law, Constitution

    Scalia did not say a Muslim life is worth more than an American.

    That is correct.  What he said was, regarding the decision, "
    It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."  This IMPLIES that it is OK to lock up foreign Muslims without charge or due process forever if it means fewer Americans may be killed.  In what way does that not mean a Muslim life is worth less than an American's?

    He, unlike his activist colleagues

    Right now, Scalia is the biggest activist on the court.  He led the charge in Bush v. Gore, where SCOTUS had no business treading, and in striking down state affirmative action programs, for example.


    The United States Constitution is a document that applies to America and Americans.

    The Supreme Court has held repeatedly and consistently that both citizens and non-citizens are protected by the US Constitution.  Wishing it not to be so does not make it so.


    In fact, German spies, including a US citizen were secretly executed by military tribunal during WW2 by Democrat Franklin Roosevelt. Not in the civilian courts.

    I know nothing about this, so cannot comment.  I CAN point out that some really disgraceful stuff has been done by our country after Congress declares war.  Just because we had internment camps for Japanese Americans in WWII, that doesn't mean it would be okay to have such camps for American Muslims today. Fortunatly, Congress hasn't declared war, so maybe some sanity will prevail.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from lnmonster. Show lnmonster's posts

    Supreme Court Upholds Rule of Law, Constitution

    You missed the point but for the record...the violent crime rates have sky rocketed in England since their gun ban.

    I'd like to see the data on this, Mac.  I believe you are correct, but if you had a good link, I'd like to learn more.


    They have serious problems because citizens aren't allowed to protect themselves and are forced by the government to be victims.

    I'm less sure you are correct here.  I believe that the crime rate in England was shooting upward well before the 1997 gun ban.  I rather doubt there any causality either way ... in other words, disarming the populace has no effect on crime one way or another.  Please see http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew96/crvs.htm for some interesting data.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Pymus. Show Pymus's posts

    Supreme Court Upholds Rule of Law, Constitution

    Matty - "Is this a good day for liberty" for those who hate Bush or a defeat for those who have to deal with murderers on the battlefield?

    Tell you what - "If its a good day for liberty" Why don’t you and the lace panty judges take these sweet fun loving dirt bags home and give them food and comfort in your living room or spare bedroom while they are waiting trial. Back up your statement!

    To quote Jay Severin - "The only good thing to come out of this is that those brave men and woman who have to deal with these murderers on the battlefield know they have to administer justice on the spot. Reduce the worlds carbon foot print instantaneously before the blame America first crowd can release another criminal back into society". Ha ha - You'll never know!

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Supreme Court Upholds Rule of Law, Constitution

    Guilty until proven innocent and we wont let you prove your innocence.  Sounds like America to you?
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from sandshark222. Show sandshark222's posts

    Supreme Court Upholds Rule of Law, Constitution

    These people are not Americans, they hate America, and they want to kill YOU. Yet you liberals would rather see them walk free just to smite Bush.

    Anyone who loves our country, supports our troops, and cares for the world in general - would not want to see these scumbags protected.

    Now thanks to you activist libs, they will all protest their imprisonment, it will go to civilian trial - and it will cost the American tax payers millions of dollers.

    You liberals want us to lose the war so badly you'd rather see the Jihadists walk free than see Bush earn a victory.

    These people would kill YOU if they had the chance but yet you're concerned about their rights. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

    What would the founding fathers think? If you all hate this country so much that you want to turn it into a socialist and spineless nation, why don't you go move somewhere else.

    I don't think I've ever been more angry at the supreme court in my life. This is truely a bad day for America.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Supreme Court Upholds Rule of Law, Constitution

    [Quote]

    These people are not Americans, they hate America, and they want to kill YOU. Yet you liberals would rather see them walk free just to smite Bush.

    Anyone who loves our country, supports our troops, and cares for the world in general - would not want to see these scumbags protected.

    [/Quote]

    How dare you question my patriotism!!  I love my country (warts and all) and you canot take that away from me.  This is a typical conservative attack: you don't like the debate so you attack someone's patriotism.  It is a disgusting tactic.  Do you think Anthony Kennedy (who wrote the opinion) is a liberal, unpatriotic tool of the terrorists?  The real issue is whether you believe in the rule of law and that all people have rights.  If you are willing to discard these American ideals because of your own fear, than you have lost your way.  If these people are as a bad as you think, let them be proven as such and then we can all take pleasure in the fact that we are safe AND that justice was done. 

    I think you are dead wrong on this issue, but I wont challenge your patriotism: I am sure that you (and Scalia) think you are doing the right thing.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from lnmonster. Show lnmonster's posts

    Supreme Court Upholds Rule of Law, Constitution

    These people are not Americans, they hate America, and they want to kill YOU.


    Some of them do.  Many others, perhaps most, claim to be simple farmers who were framed and turned in to the US forces for bounty by rival tribes in Afghanistan.  Bin Laden's driver is being held, for God's sake ... well, maybe he IS a terrorist, but maybe he's just the hired help.  Don't you think he deserves the chance to make his case?

    Point is, if we lock up everyone forever becaue they are a Muslim from Afghanistan without charging them or granting them due process, then we ensure that they and all their friends and relatives will come to hate America and want to kill you, even if they didn't before.  In the eyes of the world, we become no better than the terrorists who executed Daniel Perle without due process because he was an American Jew.  Maybe you see a difference, but you're not the one we need to win the heart and mind of.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from sandshark222. Show sandshark222's posts

    Supreme Court Upholds Rule of Law, Constitution

    [Quote]How dare you question my patriotism!!  I love my country (warts and all) and you canot take that away from me.  This is a typical conservative attack: you don't like the debate so you attack someone's patriotism.  It is a disgusting tactic.  Do you think Anthony Kennedy (who wrote the opinion) is a liberal, unpatriotic tool of the terrorists?  The real issue is whether you believe in the rule of law and that all people have rights.  If you are willing to discard these American ideals because of your own fear, than you have lost your way.  If these people are as a bad as you think, let them be proven as such and then we can all take pleasure in the fact that we are safe AND that justice was done. 

    I think you are dead wrong on this issue, but I wont challenge your patriotism: I am sure that you (and Scalia) think you are doing the right thing.

     

    [/Quote]

    If you say that you love this country then I believe you. I apoligize for questioning your patriotism, I am just very upset at this ruling.

    There is no benifit to the american people, or the world by this decision. Do you really want to see these terrorists walk free? I just don't understand the logic behind this. Never in America's 232 years of existance have prisioners of war captured outside the USA had the same rights as an american citizen.

    We don't need liberal activist judges making law from the bench. It seems like they are trying to help us lose the war. There is something very, very, very wrong with this decision.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from lnmonster. Show lnmonster's posts

    Supreme Court Upholds Rule of Law, Constitution

    Do you really want to see these terrorists walk free?

    shark, I don't think ANYONE wants to see terrorists walk.  They are very dangerous individuals and need to be kept locked up forever.

    But who is a terrorist and who is some farmer that a member of a rival clan turned in for the bounty the US was paying in Afghanistan?  There's plenty of evidence that our guests at Gitmo are mostly the latter.  Do you really believe that we as a nation are any safer if we lock up a whole lot of innocent people to make sure no guilty ones get away?

    I have enormous faith in our court system to get it right.  It makes me cringe when I hear that we can't bring these guys to trial because they might get acquitted.  That's just not the American way.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Supreme Court Upholds Rule of Law, Constitution

    [Quote]If you say that you love this country then I believe you. I apoligize for questioning your patriotism, I am just very upset at this ruling.

    We don't need liberal activist judges making law from the bench. It seems like they are trying to help us lose the war. There is something very, very, very wrong with this decision.[/Quote]

    Thank you for taking a step back on the Patriotism angle.  I believe in the rule of law (I am a lawyer) and that it applies to everyone.  Not just liberals support this decision.  Kennedy himself is a conservative, but he believes in due process even in difficult times.  We have a tendency to support stability concerns over freedom concepts in times of stress.  Look at the Alien and Sedition Acts, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, the two Red Scares, the Japanese_American internment and now Gitmo et al.  We can do better: after all we want American ideals to become universal ideals.  
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from mhc90. Show mhc90's posts

    Supreme Court Upholds Rule of Law, Constitution

    [Quote]

    I'll make the implication that any American life is worth more than a million of ANYONE elses life. I kinda like being American and the world should know that it's always been American bloodshed that has fought for freedom and human rights around the world.
    That'll be the day when I accept that another culture is equal or superior to mine. Stand up for yourselves you yellow bastards. Those inmates are there because the our armed forces risked their lives to find and capture them. The last thing they deserve is the courtesy of our justice system...especially when they will only use it to further their own agenda, tie up our courts, and make martyrs  of themselves if necessary.
    You clowns only see it as a victory against the villainous G. Bush. Instead you're shooting yourselves in the foot.
    We're holding prisoners that spit on the constitutions of all countries around the world. They have no country therefore they have no rights. They fly the flags of al queda and taliban, figuratively.
    There has been no formal declaration of war by congress. They technically are not POW's.

    [/Quote]

    So is it okay for other countries to hold Americans prisoner for 5-6 years without charges against them?  To refuse them legal counsel?  I thought we were fighting to show others that the US system is better, not that we can do whatever we want. 
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Supreme Court Upholds Rule of Law, Constitution

    "So is it okay for other countries to hold Americans prisoner for 5-6 years without charges against them?  To refuse them legal counsel?  I thought we were fighting to show others that the US system is better, not that we can do whatever we want. "

    mhc90, that is an absurd argument. Like they will 'see the light" and see how wonderful we are and put down their weapons!!! Demonstrably proven wrong by the fact that over 30 Guantanamo prisoners who were released went right back to the battlefield to kill Americans.  Terrorists torture and kill Americans. They view the Supreme Court decision as evidence of American weakness. They dont give a damn about habeas corpus, they are "terrorists". 

    http://www.defenselink.mil/news/d20070712formergtmo.pdf
    "Our reports indicate that at least 30 former GTMO detainees have taken part in anti�]coalition militant activities after leaving U.S. detention. Some have subsequently been killed in combat in Afghanistan.These former detainees successfully lied to US officials, sometimes for over three years. Many detainees later identified as having returned to fight against the U.S. with terrorists falsely claimed to be farmers, truck drivers, cooks, small�]scale merchants, or low�]level combatants.Other common cover stories include going to Afghanistan to buy medicines, to teach the Koran,or to find a wife. Many of these stories appear so often, and are subsequently proven false that we can only conclude they are part of their terrorist training.""Although the US government does not generally track ex�]GTMO detainees after repatriation or resettlement, we are aware of dozens of cases where they have returned to militant activities, participated in anti�]US propaganda or other activities through intelligence gathering and media reports. (Examples: Mehsud suicide bombing in Pakistan; Tipton Three and the Road to Guantanamo; Uighurs in Albania)"

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mattyhorn. Show Mattyhorn's posts

    Supreme Court Upholds Rule of Law, Constitution

    [Quote]

    "So is it okay for other countries to hold Americans prisoner for 5-6 years without charges against them?  To refuse them legal counsel?  I thought we were fighting to show others that the US system is better, not that we can do whatever we want. "

    mhc90, that is an absurd argument. Like they will 'see the light" and see how wonderful we are and put down their weapons!!! Demonstrably proven wrong by the fact that over 30 Guantanamo prisoners who were released went right back to the battlefield to kill Americans.  Terrorists torture and kill Americans. They view the Supreme Court decision as evidence of American weakness. They dont give a damn about habeas corpus, they are "terrorists". 

    http://www.defenselink.mil/news/d20070712formergtmo.pdf

    "Our reports indicate that at least 30 former GTMO detainees have taken part in anti

     

    �]coalition militant activities after leaving U.S. detention. Some have subsequently been killed in combat in Afghanistan.

    These former detainees successfully lied to US officials, sometimes for over three years. Many detainees later identified as having returned to fight against the U.S. with terrorists falsely claimed to be farmers, truck drivers, cooks, small

     

    �]scale merchants, or low�]level combatants.

     

    �]GTMO detainees after repatriation or resettlement, we are aware of dozens of cases where they have returned to militant activities, participated in anti�]

     

    [/Quote]


    I don't believe those references make your case, Bob, and they don't seem particularly flattering to the U.S. military.  Among other questions raised:

    Why did the military believe such "lies" if they can be judge, jury and executioner?  Were they outsmarted by the 'combatants'?

    Why were they let go in the first place?  Lack of evidence?  Their release surely had nothing to do with this ruling.

    How many of these co-called "enemy combatants" were completely innocent, then tortured at Gitmo, then essentially forced by rendition to join up the 'cause' against the 'imperialist oppressors'?  Maybe they were farmers or truck drivers before being summarily locked up and (perhaps) abused by their captors.  (Hint: many gang members do not become gang members until they are indoctrinated in prison.)

    Whoever said that the President (or his legal counsel, for that matter) is above the Constitution?  Since Day One of the so-caleld "War on Terror" the executive branch has made great pains to circumvent the rule of law to suit their means, whatever they may be.  The detainee camps at Gitmo (not to mention other "black sites") were used expressly for this purpose.  And now, the rule of law has caught up with them. 

    One last thing: to elevate the life of any single person over another due simply to their religion or their country of birth is the height of barbarism, so to equate the life of one "terrorist" (Muslim or not) to the lives of 1000 Americans is a rationale of such grotesque inhumanity, that I find it very hard to describe.  These are human rights at stake, after all.

    US propaganda or other activities through intelligence gathering and media reports. (Examples: Mehsud suicide bombing in Pakistan; Tipton Three and the Road to Guantanamo; Uighurs in Albania)"

    Other common cover stories include going to Afghanistan to buy medicines, to teach the Koran,or to find a wife. Many of these stories appear so often, and are subsequently proven false that we can only conclude they are part of their terrorist training."

    "Although the US government does not generally track ex

     

Share