SCOTUS rules in favor of detainees

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
They released a bunch of Gitmo detainees a while back this year. They turned up in Iraq suicide bombing checkpoints and killing civilians/troops. Read Scalia's dissent for specifics. Don't get the impression that these people are harmless.

Also, there's the whole thing that the military has limited ability to extract intel from the detainees, has no incentive to get prisoners unless it can establish before a federal court that it has authority somehow, etc.

Why did they release a bunch of Gitmo detainees a while back this year?

[Wiglaf]

These, mind you, were detainees whom the military had concluded were not enemy combatants

The point is that A) Gitmo detainees are dangerous and likely to be threats in the future and more importantly, B) It is very hard for the army to know for sure who is and who is not a threat.

Therefore by forcing the army to prove before civilian court that each detention is legitimate, you're letting a lot of dangerous detainees go.

[snoopy369]

So they released them because they had done nothing wrong?

[Ben Kenobi]

Hmm.

Ginsburg-Breyer-Souter-Stevens-Kennedy

vs

Scalia-Thomas-Alito-Roberts.

And the complaint is that Scalia is too partisan?

Seems to me the hardline left wing of the court at work again.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So they released them because they had done nothing wrong?

No, they held them for several years because they had done nothing wrong.

[Wiglaf]

First off, they were terrorists, read the thing I quoted. They returned to Taliban command posts and kidnapped and murdered civilians. They should not have been released, they should have been shot repeatedly.

Second, no one is blaming the courts for releasing those terrorists. The situation just shows that its almost impossible to prove who is and who is not an enemy combatant under normal procedural rules that apply in civilian court. These new rules, which raise the standard for detention even higher, make it all but impossible to hold anyone. And these people, as we've seen are dangerous.

[snoopy369]

If they were terrorists, why were they released?

[Wiglaf]

Some were sent to Kuwait or other countries for trial and were let off (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/07/gitmo.bomber/).

Other times I'm sure the military made a mistake in judging their potential for future crimes, or did not realize their past history with terrorism.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Seems to me the hardline left wing of the court at work again.

What hard line left? We have three centrists, two conservatives conservatives, and four reactionaries. The centrists are only left relative to the rest of the court. They aren't left relative to American society. And of course, American society is considerably to the right of the world, so . . .

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by snoopy369
If they were terrorists, why were they released?

It was determined they had no more useful intelligence and for some reason people tend to frown on summary execution.

[snoopy369]

It sounds to me like you're saying "because they had not committed any crimes". Funny how I think people who haven't committed any crimes should not be detained, unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they are going to.

I have no problem with "enemy combatants" being detained, when there is a definable enemy. When the government gets to say who is a terrorist and who isn't, then I have a problem. Prove it in a court of law, or shut the **** up.

[Wiglaf]

It's nice you think that, but constitutionally there's no reason for alien terrorist fighters detained in warzones to be entitled to the same rights as American citizens. Certainly nothing about proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'

As you'd know if you spent two minutes in a warzone, sometimes you detain fighters and you can't exactly present mounds of evidence that would hold up in an ordinary civilian court that you're arresting a terror fighter. Things move far too quickly for that. You see Mohammed planting a bomb on a road, you grab him, he goes to Gitmo. Wouldn't be able to convince 12 people of the crime (what laws are we talking about here, anyway?) unless you recall the 'arresting soldier,' get video evidence, etc etc.

You liberal pussies can be annoying.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by snoopy369
It sounds to me like you're saying "because they had not committed any crimes". Funny how I think people who haven't committed any crimes should not be detained, unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they are going to.

I have no problem with "enemy combatants" being detained, when there is a definable enemy. When the government gets to say who is a terrorist and who isn't, then I have a problem. Prove it in a court of law, or shut the **** up.

Hey no problem here. I'm one that thinks about half the people currently being held should have been shot where we found them just for being useless wastes of space given the unlikelyhood they knew anything useful.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
It's nice you think that, but constitutionally there's no reason for alien terrorist fighters detained in warzones to be entitled to the same rights as American citizens. Certainly nothing about proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'

As you'd know if you spent two minutes in a warzone, sometimes you detain fighters and you can't exactly present mounds of evidence that would hold up in an ordinary civilian court that you're arresting a terror fighter. Things move far too quickly for that. You see Mohammed planting a bomb on a road, you grab him, he goes to Gitmo. Wouldn't be able to convince 12 people of the crime (what laws are we talking about here, anyway?) unless you recall the 'arresting soldier,' get video evidence, etc etc.

You liberal pussies can be annoying.

1. I'm a libertarian *****, don't get me wrong

2. The issue is that we are taking citizens of states we are not at war with and deciding, arbitrarily, which are terrorists and which are not. We have the right to detain them for a period of time, IIRC 48 hours, and after that we have to talk to a judge. (NOT a jury, you know better than that...)

Holding people for offenses we saw them commit is not the problem here. We are able to hold them with no difficulty. It's the people that we decided might be terrorists, but didn't see do anything, that is the problem...

[Ben Kenobi]

What hard line left? We have three centrists, two conservatives conservatives, and four reactionaries. The centrists are only left relative to the rest of the court. They aren't left relative to American society. And of course, American society is considerably to the right of the world, so . .

Sig worthy.

Ginsburg is a centrist?

Stevens is a conservative?