• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Socio

Aren?t you the spin king!

I said "dehumanizing Americans by equating American lives to ?enemy combatant?s ? freedom" and the rest of the paragraph Is not a lie! The odds of American causalities by any number of these detainees upon their release are so high it is a virtual given. You would have to be completely irrational with hate of the war, hate of the Bush administration, hate of America itself not to see this.

Actually you're right about the equating lives to freedom thing, I should have read more closely.

Please explain to me how you are calculating the odds of American casualties by release of 'any number' of these detainees. More importantly please explain how these detainees would be released by the Supreme Court's decision, as the decision only allows them a chance to challenge their detention, it does not provide for their release. Testament to the fact that a hearing on a detention does not equate to a release would be.... the millions of Americans in prison right now. Of course I know that you just made up the idea that releasing any of these people in Guantanamo would lead to the deaths of Americans so I'm not actually anticipating a response.

Finally I would like to know how the desire to respect a right considered so crucial by the framers of the Constitution, in fact the ONLY right specifically granted to the people in the original document, equates to hatred of America. You simply ignore the large part of my post that would actually require you to think and provide reasoning for your opinion so you just fall back on the tried and true "LIBRULZ H8 AMERIKA" play.

Pathetic.
 
From socio-

Again, no, I am erring on the side of caution by playing the safest odds and the odds are overwhelmingly high that they would do harm against us than not.

Reading comprehension apparently isn't your forte. Nor is evaluating contrary information in the formulation of your opinions, either. I linked a wiki article back on page 3 indicating that our own govt only claims that 7 of the hundreds of released detainees have subsequently fought against us...

Which doesn't jibe with your fearmongering, at all...

You exhibit the usual methodology of the rightwing- beating a square peg into a round hole will apparently make it fit, if you have a big enough hammer, just as repeating a lie often enough makes it the truth...
 
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From socio-

Again, no, I am erring on the side of caution by playing the safest odds and the odds are overwhelmingly high that they would do harm against us than not.

Reading comprehension apparently isn't your forte. Nor is evaluating contrary information in the formulation of your opinions, either. I linked a wiki article back on page 3 indicating that our own govt only claims that 7 of the hundreds of released detainees have subsequently fought against us...

Which doesn't jibe with your fearmongering, at all...

You exhibit the usual methodology of the rightwing- beating a square peg into a round hole will apparently make it fit, if you have a big enough hammer, just as repeating a lie often enough makes it the truth...

A wee bit more than seven;

Some Terror War Detainees Pose Threat if Released

HSToday.us reported last year that defense and intelligence officials have consistently stated that many of the men held at Guantanamo would kill again if given the chance. At that that time they believe at least 22 ? but possibly many more ? former detainees have returned to the global battlefield to engage in terrorism against the West and allied infidel Muslim nations.

According to a Defense Intelligence Agency report, as many as 36 former detainees have taken part in terrorist acts against Western targets.

In the wake of the suicide bombing involving Al Ajmi, Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged that five to 10 percent of former detainees have returned to terrorism.

Even if it is just one that gets released and kills and American that is one to many.
 
Originally posted by: Socio
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From socio-

Again, no, I am erring on the side of caution by playing the safest odds and the odds are overwhelmingly high that they would do harm against us than not.

Reading comprehension apparently isn't your forte. Nor is evaluating contrary information in the formulation of your opinions, either. I linked a wiki article back on page 3 indicating that our own govt only claims that 7 of the hundreds of released detainees have subsequently fought against us...

Which doesn't jibe with your fearmongering, at all...

You exhibit the usual methodology of the rightwing- beating a square peg into a round hole will apparently make it fit, if you have a big enough hammer, just as repeating a lie often enough makes it the truth...

A wee bit more than seven;

Some Terror War Detainees Pose Threat if Released

HSToday.us reported last year that defense and intelligence officials have consistently stated that many of the men held at Guantanamo would kill again if given the chance. At that that time they believe at least 22 ? but possibly many more ? former detainees have returned to the global battlefield to engage in terrorism against the West and allied infidel Muslim nations.

According to a Defense Intelligence Agency report, as many as 36 former detainees have taken part in terrorist acts against Western targets.

In the wake of the suicide bombing involving Al Ajmi, Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged that five to 10 percent of former detainees have returned to terrorism.

Even if it is just one that gets released and kills and American that is one to many.

I give up on Socio - I've told him precisely the moral error he's committing, and he completely ignores and continues it.

But to Jhhnn, see my previous post noting that Socio values Muslim detainees' lives at about zero - so for him, imprisoning 100,000 is ok if if keeps one American safe.

His is the logic and morality and view of the evil person, who dehumanizes a group of people and creates wrong and therefore conflict, unwittingly.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Socio

Aren?t you the spin king!

I said "dehumanizing Americans by equating American lives to ?enemy combatant?s ? freedom" and the rest of the paragraph Is not a lie! The odds of American causalities by any number of these detainees upon their release are so high it is a virtual given. You would have to be completely irrational with hate of the war, hate of the Bush administration, hate of America itself not to see this.

Actually you're right about the equating lives to freedom thing, I should have read more closely.

Please explain to me how you are calculating the odds of American casualties by release of 'any number' of these detainees. More importantly please explain how these detainees would be released by the Supreme Court's decision, as the decision only allows them a chance to challenge their detention, it does not provide for their release. Testament to the fact that a hearing on a detention does not equate to a release would be.... the millions of Americans in prison right now. Of course I know that you just made up the idea that releasing any of these people in Guantanamo would lead to the deaths of Americans so I'm not actually anticipating a response.

Finally I would like to know how the desire to respect a right considered so crucial by the framers of the Constitution, in fact the ONLY right specifically granted to the people in the original document, equates to hatred of America. You simply ignore the large part of my post that would actually require you to think and provide reasoning for your opinion so you just fall back on the tried and true "LIBRULZ H8 AMERIKA" play.

Pathetic.

1st , The supreme court ruling opens the door for them to get released, now even the worst of them could end up getting released on a technicality.

2nd, see my response to jhhnn

3rd, On the constitution; "The United States Supreme Court held that the federal Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or immunity from military trial and punishment on alien enemies engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States."

Of course if you go by the literal translation of the constitution then you could argue these detainees do not fall in to that category.

However our forefathers could not have possibly foreseen an emergence of global entity that has no country, no borders, no face, and no defined leadership which is capable of attacking us anywhere at any time. Therefore an interpretation of its meaning can only be applied in this case.

They are prisoners that were ""engaged in the hostile service of a global entity at war with the United States"

As such should be treated no different than those "engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States" as defined by the constitution.

Meaning they should be dealt with by the United States Military Justice System not forced in to the civilian court system the Supreme Court.
 
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Socio
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From socio-

Again, no, I am erring on the side of caution by playing the safest odds and the odds are overwhelmingly high that they would do harm against us than not.

Reading comprehension apparently isn't your forte. Nor is evaluating contrary information in the formulation of your opinions, either. I linked a wiki article back on page 3 indicating that our own govt only claims that 7 of the hundreds of released detainees have subsequently fought against us...

Which doesn't jibe with your fearmongering, at all...

You exhibit the usual methodology of the rightwing- beating a square peg into a round hole will apparently make it fit, if you have a big enough hammer, just as repeating a lie often enough makes it the truth...

A wee bit more than seven;

Some Terror War Detainees Pose Threat if Released

HSToday.us reported last year that defense and intelligence officials have consistently stated that many of the men held at Guantanamo would kill again if given the chance. At that that time they believe at least 22 ? but possibly many more ? former detainees have returned to the global battlefield to engage in terrorism against the West and allied infidel Muslim nations.

According to a Defense Intelligence Agency report, as many as 36 former detainees have taken part in terrorist acts against Western targets.

In the wake of the suicide bombing involving Al Ajmi, Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged that five to 10 percent of former detainees have returned to terrorism.

Even if it is just one that gets released and kills and American that is one to many.

I give up on Socio - I've told him precisely the moral error he's committing, and he completely ignores and continues it.

But to Jhhnn, see my previous post noting that Socio values Muslim detainees' lives at about zero - so for him, imprisoning 100,000 is ok if if keeps one American safe.

His is the logic and morality and view of the evil person, who dehumanizes a group of people and creates wrong and therefore conflict, unwittingly.

By the same token you are willing to set 100,000 free and not give a damn how many Americans could/will get killed because of it, just exactly how am I more of a monster than you?
 
Originally posted by: Socio


However our forefathers could not have possibly foreseen an emergence of global entity that has no country, no borders, no face, and no defined leadership which is capable of attacking us anywhere at any time.








Oh, Really?

(from wiki)
United States and the Barbary Wars

Main articles: First Barbary War and Second Barbary War

Captain William Bainbridge paying tribute to the Dey of Algiers, circa 1800.
Captain William Bainbridge paying tribute to the Dey of Algiers, circa 1800.
Sultan of Morocco, by Eugène Delacroix.
Sultan of Morocco, by Eugène Delacroix.

In 1783 the United States made peace with, and gained recognition from, the British monarchy, and in 1784 the first American ship was seized by pirates from Morocco, which in 1777 had been the first independent nation to recognize the United States. After six months of negotiation, a treaty was signed, $60,000 cash was paid, and trade began.[14] But Algeria was different. In 1785 two ships (the Maria of Boston and the Dauphin of Philadelphia) were seized, everything sold and their crews ordered to build port fortifications.

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, then the ambassador to France, and John Adams, then the ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi beloved patriot Abdul Rahman Adja, the ambassador to Britain from Tripoli. The Americans asked Adja why his government was hostile to American ships, even though there had been no provocation. The ambassador's response was reported to the Continental Congress:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. [15]

American ships sailing in the Mediterranean chose to travel close to larger convoys of other European powers who had bribed the pirates. Payments in ransom and tribute to the Barbary states amounted to 20% of United States government annual revenues in 1800.[16] In the early 1800s, President Thomas Jefferson proposed a league of smaller nations to patrol the area, but the United States could not contribute. For the prisoners, Algeria wanted $60,000, while America offered only $4,000. Jefferson said a million dollars would buy them off, but Congress would only appropriate $80,000. For eleven years, Americans who lived in Algeria lived as slaves to Algerian Moors. For a while, Portugal was patrolling the Straits of Gibraltar and preventing Barbary Pirates from entering the Atlantic. But they made a cash deal with the pirates, and they were again sailing into the Atlantic and engaging in piracy. By late 1793, a dozen American ships had been captured, goods stripped and everyone enslaved. Portugal had offered some armed patrols, but American merchants needed an armed American presence to sail near Europe. After some serious debate, the United States Navy was born in March 1794. Six frigates were authorized, and so began the construction of the United States, the Constellation, the Constitution and three other frigates.

This new military presence helped to stiffen American resolve to resist the continuation of tribute payments, leading to the two Barbary Wars along the North African coast: the First Barbary War from 1801 to 1805[17] and the Second Barbary War in 1815. It was not until 1815 that naval victories ended tribute payments by the U.S., although some European nations continued annual payments until the 1830s.

The United States Marine Corps actions in these wars led to the line "to the shores of Tripoli" in the opening of the Marine Hymn. Due to the hazards of boarding hostile ships, Marines' uniforms had a leather high collar to protect against cutlass slashes. This led to the nickname Leatherneck for U.S. Marines.[18]
 
Originally posted by: Socio

1st , The supreme court ruling opens the door for them to get released, now even the worst of them could end up getting released on a technicality.

2nd, see my response to jhhnn

3rd, On the constitution; "The United States Supreme Court held that the federal Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or immunity from military trial and punishment on alien enemies engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States."

Of course if you go by the literal translation of the constitution then you could argue these detainees do not fall in to that category.

However our forefathers could not have possibly foreseen an emergence of global entity that has no country, no borders, no face, and no defined leadership which is capable of attacking us anywhere at any time. Therefore an interpretation of its meaning can only be applied in this case.

They are prisoners that were ""engaged in the hostile service of a global entity at war with the United States"

As such should be treated no different than those "engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States" as defined by the constitution.

Meaning they should be dealt with by the United States Military Justice System not forced in to the civilian court system the Supreme Court.

On a 'technicality'? Explain what a 'technicality' is. I'll give you a hint: In legal circles a 'technicality' often means 'had their rights violated'.

As far as everything else goes what you're writing makes no sense. The supreme court's decision did not rest on the idea that they should be immune from military trial and punishment. In addition, a lack of immunity does not mean that such an outcome is necessary or desirable. Therefore your quotation is irrelevant.

Furthermore it also betrays the same problem you've shown here over and over and over again, no matter how many times you have been called out on it. You are assuming that all these people are in fact these enemies engaged in hostile action against the US. The ENTIRE PURPOSE of holding habeas hearings is to determine if in fact this person was doing so or not.

Somehow I doubt that you're even listening. You're curled up in a crazy xenophobic ball furiously flailing at enemies you perceive to be all around you with no sense of what the country you think you're defending stands for.

Maybe you should take time to read the quote that Rainsford has in his signature a few times. As it applies to this situation: "Implicit in the term 'national defense' is the notion of defending those values and ideals which set this Nation apart. It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties... which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile."

Think about it for a bit.
 
Originally posted by: Socio

By the same token you are willing to set 100,000 free and not give a damn how many Americans could/will get killed because of it, just exactly how am I more of a monster than you?

100,000? By that do you mean somewhere around 270? And remember, not letting them go free... but for the thousandth time merely allowing a court to review if they should stay in jail or not. Maybe you should repeat that after me a few times.

But yes, what you are trying to promote is evil. No doubt about it. You're no different then the people you want us to fight against.
 
Lemme see... 30, or 7, or 22 or whatever the number du jour happens to be... as compared to more than 500 released... which Socio claims as making the odds overwhelmingly high that the detainees will return to do us harm... The Bushistas likely have so little real evidence against the vast majority of detainees that any sort of open court hearings would reveal the depth of their depravity and the extent to which some truly weak minds have been manipulated by it...

The reality vs the spin is in the numbers- ~250:1 against, but then fantasy is ever so much more entertaining, right? Are you fondling your duct tape and plastic sheeting, dreaming of the rapture?
 
Originally posted by: Socio
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Socio
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From socio-

Again, no, I am erring on the side of caution by playing the safest odds and the odds are overwhelmingly high that they would do harm against us than not.

Reading comprehension apparently isn't your forte. Nor is evaluating contrary information in the formulation of your opinions, either. I linked a wiki article back on page 3 indicating that our own govt only claims that 7 of the hundreds of released detainees have subsequently fought against us...

Which doesn't jibe with your fearmongering, at all...

You exhibit the usual methodology of the rightwing- beating a square peg into a round hole will apparently make it fit, if you have a big enough hammer, just as repeating a lie often enough makes it the truth...

A wee bit more than seven;

Some Terror War Detainees Pose Threat if Released

HSToday.us reported last year that defense and intelligence officials have consistently stated that many of the men held at Guantanamo would kill again if given the chance. At that that time they believe at least 22 ? but possibly many more ? former detainees have returned to the global battlefield to engage in terrorism against the West and allied infidel Muslim nations.

According to a Defense Intelligence Agency report, as many as 36 former detainees have taken part in terrorist acts against Western targets.

In the wake of the suicide bombing involving Al Ajmi, Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged that five to 10 percent of former detainees have returned to terrorism.

Even if it is just one that gets released and kills and American that is one to many.

I give up on Socio - I've told him precisely the moral error he's committing, and he completely ignores and continues it.

But to Jhhnn, see my previous post noting that Socio values Muslim detainees' lives at about zero - so for him, imprisoning 100,000 is ok if if keeps one American safe.

His is the logic and morality and view of the evil person, who dehumanizes a group of people and creates wrong and therefore conflict, unwittingly.

By the same token you are willing to set 100,000 free and not give a damn how many Americans could/will get killed because of it, just exactly how am I more of a monster than you?

Well, I'll dispense with the "MONSTER" business, but your argument hinges on the claim that those imprisoned are guilty because there is a claim that they are. The facts are that no one gets released until it is determined that they are innocent. There is no bail, and no release on personal recognizance. They stay imprisoned until it is determined that they are innocent then released, or they stay locked up. That creates a problem in your mind because the innocent may become so angry that they attack us.

Obviously the problem is due to the insistence that these people, guilty or innocent remain imprisoned forever. Rather than determining what the inmates did in a timely manner, the Administration has created a Gulag, with no moral credibility whatsoever. Unfortunately when an individual, even a President decides to act in a way to subvert our traditional views of justice, there are consequences. We face those now. As a result you are going to have to live with the consequences of the evil done to these people. Any harm done rests squarely with those who think as you do. Hopefully nothing adverse will happen, but it is not the courts that are to blame. It's those who have been foolish and mean enough to deny rights that were proclaimed as universal by those who founded this nation.

Let justice be done.
 
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: Socio
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Socio
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From socio-

Again, no, I am erring on the side of caution by playing the safest odds and the odds are overwhelmingly high that they would do harm against us than not.

Reading comprehension apparently isn't your forte. Nor is evaluating contrary information in the formulation of your opinions, either. I linked a wiki article back on page 3 indicating that our own govt only claims that 7 of the hundreds of released detainees have subsequently fought against us...

Which doesn't jibe with your fearmongering, at all...

You exhibit the usual methodology of the rightwing- beating a square peg into a round hole will apparently make it fit, if you have a big enough hammer, just as repeating a lie often enough makes it the truth...

A wee bit more than seven;

Some Terror War Detainees Pose Threat if Released

HSToday.us reported last year that defense and intelligence officials have consistently stated that many of the men held at Guantanamo would kill again if given the chance. At that that time they believe at least 22 ? but possibly many more ? former detainees have returned to the global battlefield to engage in terrorism against the West and allied infidel Muslim nations.

According to a Defense Intelligence Agency report, as many as 36 former detainees have taken part in terrorist acts against Western targets.

In the wake of the suicide bombing involving Al Ajmi, Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged that five to 10 percent of former detainees have returned to terrorism.

Even if it is just one that gets released and kills and American that is one to many.

I give up on Socio - I've told him precisely the moral error he's committing, and he completely ignores and continues it.

But to Jhhnn, see my previous post noting that Socio values Muslim detainees' lives at about zero - so for him, imprisoning 100,000 is ok if if keeps one American safe.

His is the logic and morality and view of the evil person, who dehumanizes a group of people and creates wrong and therefore conflict, unwittingly.

By the same token you are willing to set 100,000 free and not give a damn how many Americans could/will get killed because of it, just exactly how am I more of a monster than you?

Well, I'll dispense with the "MONSTER" business, but your argument hinges on the claim that those imprisoned are guilty because there is a claim that they are. The facts are that no one gets released until it is determined that they are innocent. There is no bail, and no release on personal recognizance. They stay imprisoned until it is determined that they are innocent then released, or they stay locked up. That creates a problem in your mind because the innocent may become so angry that they attack us.

Obviously the problem is due to the insistence that these people, guilty or innocent remain imprisoned forever. Rather than determining what the inmates did in a timely manner, the Administration has created a Gulag, with no moral credibility whatsoever. Unfortunately when an individual, even a President decides to act in a way to subvert our traditional views of justice, there are consequences. We face those now. As a result you are going to have to live with the consequences of the evil done to these people. Any harm done rests squarely with those who think as you do. Hopefully nothing adverse will happen, but it is not the courts that are to blame. It's those who have been foolish and mean enough to deny rights that were proclaimed as universal by those who founded this nation.

Let justice be done.

I just hope it?s served well, as I trust our judicial system just about as much as jpeyton trusts President Bush.

 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Socio

By the same token you are willing to set 100,000 free and not give a damn how many Americans could/will get killed because of it, just exactly how am I more of a monster than you?

100,000? By that do you mean somewhere around 270? And remember, not letting them go free... but for the thousandth time merely allowing a court to review if they should stay in jail or not. Maybe you should repeat that after me a few times.

But yes, what you are trying to promote is evil. No doubt about it. You're no different then the people you want us to fight against.

I have to correct your post. He's no different than *his fantasy* of the people he wants us to fight against.

Many of the real people who he wants us to fight against are far different than his fantasy, and nothing at all like him or who he thinks they all are.

When you watch intereviews with some of the people who have been detained and released, you realize how far off the mark a lot of those fantasies are about many of them.
 
Socio

"I just hope it?s served well, as I trust our judicial system just about as much as jpeyton trusts President Bush. "

I would actually guess that someone with such a screwed up concept of what justice actually is might have a problem with a working justice system.

You and Bush have the same mental defect. You both seem to think if you claim someone might be a threat, everyone else is supposed to accept that as gospel. Then you would use the imaginary threat to strip people of basic human rights so your cowardly asses will be safe.

You talk a lot about Americans who might die if we do not abandon our high principles. What would you tell the hundreds of thousands who have already died to preserve those same principles? That some fair-weather patriot like yourself would gladly abandon said principles out of fear? It is people like you that tarnish the deeds of those who have sacrificed before you. Your position today says that their efforts were worthless because what they fought for is of so little value that it can be discarded on a whim.

 
Excuse me, debating about why the supreme court ruled as they did and why someone does or does not agree is now getting us no where. The point being, the supreme court has ruled and is the last word on this subject. And the US Supreme Court is extremely unlikely to revisit this issue during the remaining time the GWB administration has left to remain in office.

So now the question must move to what happens if GWB&co tries to weasel out of what they ordered to do? Yes, I know GWB has said he will comply even though he disagrees, but I remain to be convinced because of their previous track record. And if both the legislative and judicial branches ally against a sitting President, it may be a long hot summer for GWB&co. And if the GOP in the legislative branch get too aggressive in defending a President with less than 30% support, the entire GOP may go down the toilet on 11/4/08.
 
This Supreme Court decision has made me proud of my country again. Time someone took an oath sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution seriously.
 
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Socio

"I just hope it?s served well, as I trust our judicial system just about as much as jpeyton trusts President Bush. "

I would actually guess that someone with such a screwed up concept of what justice actually is might have a problem with a working justice system.

You and Bush have the same mental defect. You both seem to think if you claim someone might be a threat, everyone else is supposed to accept that as gospel. Then you would use the imaginary threat to strip people of basic human rights so your cowardly asses will be safe.

You talk a lot about Americans who might die if we do not abandon our high principles. What would you tell the hundreds of thousands who have already died to preserve those same principles? That some fair-weather patriot like yourself would gladly abandon said principles out of fear? It is people like you that tarnish the deeds of those who have sacrificed before you. Your position today says that their efforts were worthless because what they fought for is of so little value that it can be discarded on a whim.


Thank You Sir. quite eloquent.
 
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Excuse me, debating about why the supreme court ruled as they did and why someone does or does not agree is now getting us no where. The point being, the supreme court has ruled and is the last word on this subject. And the US Supreme Court is extremely unlikely to revisit this issue during the remaining time the GWB administration has left to remain in office.

So now the question must move to what happens if GWB&co tries to weasel out of what they ordered to do? Yes, I know GWB has said he will comply even though he disagrees, but I remain to be convinced because of their previous track record. And if both the legislative and judicial branches ally against a sitting President, it may be a long hot summer for GWB&co. And if the GOP in the legislative branch get too aggressive in defending a President with less than 30% support, the entire GOP may go down the toilet on 11/4/08.

Bring it on!
 
One thing that amazes me is all the fear based reporting on this issue. The court struck down the MCA as being unconstitutional, but the DTA is still valid and the CSRT process is still intact. It adds to the DTA and CSRT process, with that of the judicial courts, it does not remove the DTA and CSRT process. You can tell how many people in the media did not read the entire 70 page opinion, or simply jumped to the dissent to find out what they didn?t like about it.

The ruling provides a method for detainees to challenge the CSRT or petition in the event of undue delay by the government. The majority opinion also acknowledges the importance of the consolidation of any of these petitions, and pretty much encourages it to be done to a single district, so the threat of random local judges releasing detainees is bogus. The Government can clearly ask for a change of venue according to the opinion, and they leave no room to wonder why one should not be granted.

If anything, by requiring courts to allow the Government to proceed with the CSRT before the issue is entertained except in the situation of undue delay, they just added an extra step.

Scalia?s dissent is written in his typical writing style and is not unexpected, nor is the consequence filled nature of it - it?s the point of the dissent, they are often used as to form the basis of majority opinions later or eventually prevail as the law. That being said, if you are looking for a different argument, I would read Robert?s dissent, which focuses more on the argument that MCA was not unconstitutional, and the fact that one cornerstone of their opinion was Government delay and the majority added more time to the process.

Text Links are at the top of the page to Robert's dissent

edit: fixed link
 
Back
Top