Gitmo Supreme Court ruling...

cheesybanana · Jun 14, 2008

So, suspected terrorists held at Guantanamo now have a right to challenge their detention in federal courts.

Opinions?

iMac-Knight · Jun 14, 2008

Seems fair. Either the government PROVES them guilty and sentence them, or frees them. Due process is the right thing to do.

fleurya · Jun 14, 2008

Absolutely the right move. We can't tout that we are trying to bring democracy to the world while holding people indefinitely without due process. For the system to work, it has to work the same for everyone. That has been one of several factors that has made this war on terror, and the actual war, one giant oxymoron.

It may boil the blood in people's veins, but if we truly want to live by this system we have to put our faith in it and not make exceptions any time we feel it is necessary. That is the true path of tyranny.

Waterpolo820 · Jun 14, 2008

totally agree with fleurya

baggss · Jun 14, 2008

While I do not think it is necessarily a bad thing, I don't think they should have the right to access the civilian court system. These are enemy combatants of one kind or another and Military tribunals should deal with them as such All this has done is allowed them access to the endless appeal system that will ultimately cost us more and prove even less. If a ruing by a civilian court results in the release of one them and they then return to kill or injure US troops in the field, the whole effort will have been a waste and ultimately counterproductive.

Kash · Jun 14, 2008

baggss, while you make a good point, the CIA has deemed a good portion of these prisoners to be innocent, most likely thrown in along with the wide sweeps that were done in the weeks following 9/11. And having had them in there for several years only made things work as now they're really bitter. So we should have gotten to this decision years ago.

scooter · Jun 15, 2008

Gitmo and all the other prisons like them have been a true national tragedy. Our entire rational for these places is ludicrous and unconscionable. I feel this Supreme Court ruling is entirely justified and almost too late.

markking · Jun 15, 2008

Gosh. I'm might get a lot of heat on this after yall read my post.

But, I kind of see it from the other point of view. I just find it very hard to prove their guilt in this situation. I mean, in America the police have a chance to get a search warrant, collect evidence, question to accused, etc...and the police can really build a case against the criminal.

But with prisoners of war, when the prisoners are captured I really don't think the solders have the time or the proper equipment to really collect finger prints, hair samples, DNA analysis, take photos and basically turn into CSI all the while being under fire from the enemy. And without any evidence then it just goes by word of mouth. The solder (if called to the stand to testify) will say "yes, I saw him carrying mortar shells to the enemies weapons that were firing on us" and the prisoner will say "no I wasn't, where's the proof?"

Can anyone see where I am coming from? My example may not be the best but you can use your imagination to understand what I am trying to say. Right?

cheesybanana · Jun 15, 2008

markking said:
Gosh. I'm might get a lot of heat on this after yall read my post.

But, I kind of see it from the other point of view. I just find it very hard to prove their guilt in this situation. I mean, in America the police have a chance to get a search warrant, collect evidence, question to accused, etc...and the police can really build a case against the criminal.

But with prisoners of war, when the prisoners are captured I really don't think the solders have the time or the proper equipment to really collect finger prints, hair samples, DNA analysis, take photos and basically turn into CSI all the while being under fire from the enemy. And without any evidence then it just goes by word of mouth. The solder (if called to the stand to testify) will say "yes, I saw him carrying mortar shells to the enemies weapons that were firing on us" and the prisoner will say "no I wasn't, where's the proof?"

Can anyone see where I am coming from? My example may not be the best but you can use your imagination to understand what I am trying to say. Right?

But is it right for us to jail someone indefinitely (essentially saying they are guilty) without proof? Do you see the problem with that?

Like fleurya said, we can not tell the world that we are fighting for freedom while we hold prisoners without due process. The world would laugh at us if it wasn't so sad.

eric · Jun 15, 2008

i agree with both sides.

those american citizens imprisoned should be treated as any other american citizen should.

those captured in other countries as enemy combatants should be tried as such.

and those caught in other countries under suspicion of conspiracy with terrorists should be tried not by an american legal system (military or civilian), but by whatever international system is in place.

baggss · Jun 15, 2008

eric said:
i agree with both sides.

those american citizens imprisoned should be treated as any other american citizen should.

those captured in other countries as enemy combatants should be tried as such.

and those caught in other countries under suspicion of conspiracy with terrorists should be tried not by an american legal system (military or civilian), but by whatever international system is in place.

You and I are pretty close here. The problem is that I don't think there is a reasonably reliable international system that can handle them.

markking said:
But, I kind of see it from the other point of view. I just find it very hard to prove their guilt in this situation. I mean, in America the police have a chance to get a search warrant, collect evidence, question to accused, etc...and the police can really build a case against the criminal.

But with prisoners of war, when the prisoners are captured I really don't think the solders have the time or the proper equipment to really collect finger prints, hair samples, DNA analysis, take photos and basically turn into CSI all the while being under fire from the enemy. And without any evidence then it just goes by word of mouth. The solder (if called to the stand to testify) will say "yes, I saw him carrying mortar shells to the enemies weapons that were firing on us" and the prisoner will say "no I wasn't, where's the proof?"

To be honest I find your statement to be a bit naive, no offence intended. These are not gang bangers or drug dealers in LA or Chicago, these are foreign combatants who activley seek to harm US forces worldwide and would like nothing better to harm civilians when possible.

In some cases this process may work, but many are essentially prisoners of war. If they are not American citizens, I do not that they should be allowed the same rights as an American citizen would be in the US, the Geneva convention (which we have played fast and loose with to our detriment) is in place to handle things such as this. A POW doesn't need "proof" to be labeled a a POW. If he fighting against American forces in the field you don't need DNA or fingerprints, he is the enemy and is treated as such. This is a worldwide accepted standard. POWs don't get "lawyers", nor should they.

louishen · Jun 15, 2008

A very inteligent debate

Specifically, Chapter II of the Annex to the 1907 Hague Convention covered the treatment of prisoners of war in detail. These were further expanded in the Third Geneva Convention of 1929, and its revision of 1949. Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention protects captured military personnel, some guerrilla fighters and certain civilians. It applies from the moment a prisoner is captured until he or she is released or repatriated. One of the main provisions of the convention makes it illegal to torture prisoners and states that a prisoner can only be required to give their name, date of birth, rank and service number (if applicable).

Source: Wikipedia

However, these enemy combatants are not soldiers, do not wear isignia or uniforms so strictly speaking are not entitled to be treated as POWs

Unlawful combatant
The Geneva Conventions apply in wars between two or more states. Article 5 of the GCIII states that the status of a detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal". Until such time, he is to be treated as a prisoner of war.[2] After a "competent tribunal" has determined his status, the "Detaining Power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a POW, as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial".[3]

So, until the prisoner is either designated as a POW or an Unlawful combatant, then the state has no right to torture them, and must conduct a fair trial, be it a civilian or military court.

Of course, the Jihadists do not treat their prisoners under any convention but their own twisted version of Islam

While there are plenty of hateful ideologues out there wanting to kill us (they were not far off getting me on July 7th 2005, I don't believe we should disamtle our civil liberties to fight them, that's what they want.