GITMO Detainees Can't Challenge in U.S. Courts

[carpro]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/20/D8NDHGF01.html

Court: Detainees Can't Challenge Cases

Feb 20 10:47 AM US/Eastern


By MATT APUZZO
Associated Press Writer

EXCERPT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Guantanamo Bay detainees may not challenge their detention in U.S. courts, a federal appeals court said Tuesday in a ruling upholding a key provision of a law at the center of President Bush's anti- terrorism plan.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that civilian courts no longer have the authority to consider whether the military is illegally holding foreigners.

Barring detainees from the U.S. court system was a key provision in the Military Commissions Act, which Bush pushed through Congress last year to set up a system to prosecute terrorism suspects.

 

[Daisy]

Well, that's interesting. The Commander-In-Chief has no civilian oversight in his detentions?

I suppose the Supreme Court will get this if they choose to take it.

 

[El_Guero]

Carpro

Thanks for posting this!

It is great when our Constitutional system does what it is supposed to.

Specifically, protect Americans from our enemies - foreign and domestic.

God bless you and yours

Wayne

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/20/D8NDHGF01.html

Court: Detainees Can't Challenge Cases

Feb 20 10:47 AM US/Eastern


By MATT APUZZO
Associated Press Writer

EXCERPT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Guantanamo Bay detainees may not challenge their detention in U.S. courts, a federal appeals court said Tuesday in a ruling upholding a key provision of a law at the center of President Bush's anti- terrorism plan.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that civilian courts no longer have the authority to consider whether the military is illegally holding foreigners.

Barring detainees from the U.S. court system was a key provision in the Military Commissions Act, which Bush pushed through Congress last year to set up a system to prosecute terrorism suspects.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Carpro

Thanks for posting this!

It is great when our Constitutional system does what it is supposed to.

Specifically, protect Americans from our enemies - foreign and domestic.

God bless you and yours

Wayne

I agree !:thumbs:

 

[Martin]

GITMO Detainees Can't Challenge in U.S. Courts

...that is how it should be. :thumbs: to the Supreme Court.

 

[Daisy]

GITMO Detainees Can't Challenge in U.S. Courts

...that is how it should be. :thumbs: to the Supreme Court.

That was just the 3-judge Court of Appeals; it hasn't gone to the Supreme Court yet. In the two Gitmo cases before, the SCOTUS ruled for the detainees.

I don't think prisoners, who may or may not have done anything (how can we tell without a basic hearing), should just disappear into a black hole.

 

[carpro]

That was just the 3-judge Court of Appeals; it hasn't gone to the Supreme Court yet. In the two Gitmo cases before, the SCOTUS ruled for the detainees.

SCOTUS ruled in a prior case that enabling legislation was needed. The legislation is now in place. It will be interesting to see if they rule according to the legislation this time.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I don't think prisoners, who may or may not have done anything (how can we tell without a basic hearing), should just disappear into a black hole.

They aren't "prisoners" as we normally think of them, are they? They are illegal combatants who took up arms against the US. Under our constitution, they have no right to our court system. IMO, given our budget issues, our tax dollars should not be spent tying up our courts on people who are not a part of our system of government.

 

[Daisy]

They aren't "prisoners" as we normally think of them, are they?

They're imprisoned, some for over 5 years with no charges.

They are illegal combatants who took up arms against the US.

Says who? It was determined that roughly 5% at Guantanamo Bay were actually captured on the battlefield by US forces. The whole point of habeas corpus is to determine what the charges are and if they are sufficient. Two hundred have already been let go without being charged with any crime and nearly four hundred remain.

Under our constitution, they have no right to our court system. IMO, given our budget issues, our tax dollars should not be spent tying up our courts on people who are not a part of our system of government.

That's arguable as we are holding them on territory, the military base, that we control. The Military Commissions Act did strip the detainees, if you prefer, of the statutory right to habeas corpus, but not necessarily of the constitutional right. That will probably be decided by the Supreme Court unless Congress amends the Act before then.

 

[Pastor Larry]

There are countless people who were not "detained" becuase they were not deemed to be illegal combatants. I don't know what the legal ins and outs are, but when you decide to take up arms, you get what you get. The smart thing would have been for these people to not fight, but to join the war against terrorism. To me, that seems like a no-brainer.

 

[Rufus_1611]

They aren't "prisoners" as we normally think of them, are they? They are illegal combatants who took up arms against the US. Under our constitution, they have no right to our court system. IMO, given our budget issues, our tax dollars should not be spent tying up our courts on people who are not a part of our system of government.

Who's footing the bill for their indefinite detainment?

 

[Terry_Herrington]

This entire GITMO situation is a disgrace.

 

[Daisy]

There are countless people who were not "detained" becuase they were not deemed to be illegal combatants. I don't know what the legal ins and outs are, but when you decide to take up arms, you get what you get. The smart thing would have been for these people to not fight, but to join the war against terrorism. To me, that seems like a no-brainer.

5% of them were armed on the battlefield. The other 95% were turned for bounty or revenge, turned over by Afghani or Iraqi forces, were simply in the wrong place (Afghanistan or Iraq) or were somehow deemed suspicious.

Why do you think that most of them had taken up arms against the US? I mean, what makes you think that they did, the other 95%?

 

[777]

This might smoke him out.

SCOTUS ruled in a prior case that enabling legislation was needed. The legislation is now in place. It will be interesting to see if they rule according to the legislation this time.

SCOTUS said the other plan didn't have enough congressional oversight, this one does.

 

[npc]

It's fascinating to see Christians advocate that our country do whatever it takes to protect Americans, including violating basic political rights such as habeas corpus.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

I have never personally heard of political rights.

 

[777]

That's what those two Border Agents are saying.

It's fascinating to see Christians advocate that our country do whatever it takes to protect Americans, including violating basic political rights such as habeas corpus.

They are captured terrorists that have no constitutional rights, sucks for them they're not all Mexican drug-smugglers, then your president would cut them a deal.

I do think the US is letting the GITMO prisoners put on too much weight, however.

 

[npc]

I have never personally heard of political rights.

Then perhaps you would like to make a quick trip to Wikipedia to aquaint yourself with the basics.

They are captured terrorists that have no constitutional rights

Several people have already been released from Guantanamo after officials admitted they weren't terrorists. We don't know how many more of the prisoners still being kept are just as innocent, because they have not gotten due process. Do you have any evidence that the mistakes that led to detainment of several innocent people as "terrorists" won't be made again?

I'm glad you take an interest in U.S. politics (though I infer you aren't a citizen); I suggest you familiarize yourself better with our Constitution.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I absolutely support bringing justice to terrorists. Where I disagree with the more fundamentalist Christians is whether we should do that by due process, or simply scoop up and lock away potential terrorists.

 

[777]

Good to see you got your priorities straight!

I'm glad you take an interest in U.S. politics (though I infer you aren't a citizen); I suggest you familiarize yourself better with our Constitution.

Quote:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Okay, I'll familiarize myself better when it if you promise read the thing!

Then perhaps you would like to make a quick trip to Wikipedia to aCquaint yourself with the basics!

 

[Daisy]

except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger

That refers to servicemen - US citizens or residents serving in the military; ironically it is they who have the right to habeas corpus suspended.