Comments on: Boumediene: A Supremely Problematic Court Decision

By: Random-American » Boumediene: A Supremely Problematic Court Decision

Random-American » Boumediene: A Supremely Problematic Court Decision — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:35:28 +0000

[...] Fred Thompson took at look at what the recent Supreme Court ruling granting habeus corpus to terrorists who are being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He compares what rights prisoners of war had before, and what rights they have now. Man, I wish he would have stayed in the presidential race. From Fred Thompson at PajamasMedia: [...]

By: pajamas

pajamas — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:06:59 +0000

[...] scholar John Yoo did earlier this week in the Wall Street Journal, the Boumediene Five have done …http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/boumediene-a-supremely-problematic-court-decision/Flannel Pajamas, Men&aposs Boxer Shorts, Pajama Pants, Toddler Pajamas …Flannel pajamas, pajama [...]

By: Sarka196

Sarka196 — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:29:21 +0000

What this decision means is that we now need a “surge” of 30-40 thousand lawyers to Iraq and Afghanistan so that they can determine if/when our soldiers can return fire or capture combatants (er…innocent civilians). They can also stick around the battlefield and collect all the evidence needed for a conviction so our troops don’t have to.

I certainly hope that decisions like these do not cause out troops or their leaders to hesitate in their decision making on the battlefield because that hesitation will surely cost us more American lives.

By: John Myers

John Myers — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:01:47 +0000

The majority Justices on our Supreme Court only think they have the last word here. But they don’t, really. These black-robed, ivory tower eggheads haven’t served in the armed services or apparently, even read any military history. They haven’t been to basic training, let alone a war zone, and they apparently think that a war is like an exchange of legal memoranda. Well, guess what. The sergeants, corporals and privates on the front lines have the last word here, and whenever they can, they will overrule the Supreme Court by taking no prisoners if the Captain isn’t looking–and the Captain won’t be looking. It’s that simple. Allah had better get busy creating a whole bunch of virgins to service all guys who will be KIA’s when the could have been POW’s.

By: Dave Surls

Dave Surls — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:43:20 +0000

“Just a question here. Does anyone know if military personnel assigned to Guantanamo who are charged with a criminal act under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and tried in a military rather than a civilian court are currently entitled to habeas relief during their detention?”

Yes, the military court system employs writs of habeas corpus. Also, the SCOTUS has jurisdiction over the appeals process in certain circumstances and filing a writ of habeas corpus would be one method to get them to review a case.

By: Sean

Sean — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:41:56 +0000

Just a question here. Does anyone know if military personnel assigned to Guantanamo who are charged with a criminal act under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and tried in a military rather than a civilian court are currently entitled to habeas relief during their detention? Remember “A Few Good Men”?

By: Early

Early — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:52:45 +0000

All you libs out there, including the salivating lawyers, where in the Constitution does it say it applies to the citizens of the world?

By: Lucile

Lucile — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:06:26 +0000

Of the 10000 or so enemy combatants captured in Afghanistan, only 770 or so were transfered to GITMO. A small number came from Bosnia, such as Boumediene, an Algerian. Since we know that some of the foreign fighters showing up on the Iraq battlefield came from North Africa, why were Algerians showing up in Bosnia, where AlQaeda was present in the civil war that we intervened and stopped? They were foreign AlQaeda fighters too.
We are down to only 270 now. 500 have already been released from GITMO.

All of these 270 were adjudicated to be enemy combatants with the US Military deciding they were likely to reappear on the battlefield.

Keeping enemy combatants off the battlefield is sufficient reason to detain them. you are not required to charge them with war crimes.
Libs don’t seem to understand how wars are fought.

Of the 270, 200 have filed habeas petitions.

Do you think that 200 of the 270 were cab drivers or just in the wrong place at the wring time?

The bulk of the 200 are certain to be IslamoNazis.

So Anthony Kennedy has bestowed the presumption of innocence on IslamoNazi unlawful enemy combatants and usurped US National Security policy on unlawful enemy combatants from the US Military, their Commander-in-Chief and Congress and handed it to Judges and Law Clerks and the ACLU.

Of the 500 already released, because they were deemed less of a threat than the 200 with habeas petitions, more than 30 have returned to the battlefield and killed innocent people, as pointed out by Justice Scalia.

So Anthony Kennedy has given the presumption of innocence to AlQaeda killers.

Justice Roberts walked through the DTA system crafted by the Executive Branch and Congress, which Kennedy did not, and showed that it gave these detainees multiple and continuous opportunities to prove they were no longer security threats, far exceeding anything even lawful enemy combatants held by the US has ever received, or that captured US military could receive under the Geneva Convention.

That’s not good enough for Libs.
They need to bash Bush and coddle AlQaeda.

One of the main reasons for not allowing detainees access to US civilian courts cited in Eisentrager was that the detainees could ‘diminish the Commander-in-Chief’ in time of war.

The SCOTUS Libs already took care of that for AlQaeda.
That’s why they’re known as the “Jihad 5″.

By: Lucile

Lucile — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:25:28 +0000

Anthony Kennedy and the 4 SCOTUS libs swept aside the sovereign territory requirement of the Suspension Clause and left only “de facto” sovereignty as the constraint on habeas access by enemy aliens to US civilian courts.

GITMO is just a US military base. It’s not sovereign US territory.
The US exercises “effective and indefinite” control there, which is Anthony Kennedy’s functional test requirement for access to US courts by enemy aliens.

The US is building a large prison in Afghanistan to house unlawful enemy combatants. It seems that the US will have “effective and indefinite” control there at this new prison and seemingly at any US military base abroad. Thus “de facto” sovereignty and thus access to US civilian courts by unlawful enemy combatants seems assured there by Anthony Kennedy.

So, expect these unlawful enemy combatants to ask for their ACLU lawyer as soon as they are brought onto a US military installation abroad, so they can file their habeas petition and avoid having unlawful enemy combatant status anymore, but rather the presumption of innocence and due process rights to confront the sensitive classified information against them and pass that onto Osama.

By: Greg Johnson

Greg Johnson — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 05:44:40 +0000

The constitution gives the specific power to suspend habeas corpus (Section 9, Clause 2)and to make rules concerning POWs (Section 8, Clause 11) to the congress. It is clear the court has over stepped it’s authority and should be ignored.

What the people need is to have each court decision reviewed by their reps (the house) and the house should be able to accept or reject the court’s rueling. If rejected, the court would have to re-do thier findings. The house couldn’t ammend them. If the elected congress can over turn the elected president’s veto, why can’t or shouldn’t they be able to do the same to the appointed court? I know that means an ammendment and I’ve called and written my rep and both senators. How about you?

An additional thought, We the people of the United States means Americans and the Constitution only protects Americans’ rights. It doesn’t say We the people of the entire world.