Moussaoui wins another ruling

[Firestarter 0]

Judge grants request for testimony from al Qaeda figures

 

Jesus Christ. What is it going to take for us to put our collective foot down? Does anyone still doubt the wisdom or necessity of military tribunals? When is this going to end? The shithead's "defense" is that "he had been tapped to participate in a post-September 11 attack on U.S. interests outside the United States."

 

Well isn't that fucking fabulous, I guess you can go now. You're a fucking free man, Mr Moussaoui. Feel free to sue the Justice Department for daring to arrest you in the first fucking place. Your pain and suffering surely entitles you to several million dollars in compensation. And please have a simply GRAND fucking day.

 

Enough is enough. Shoot the motherfucker 3,028 times. Silverplate the bullets and use them to decorate the memorials.

 

But don't spend another fucking cent of MY taxes on his farcical trial.

[Vern Gagne 0]

If this ruling is upheld. No way Mousaoui goes on trial. It's too great a security risk.

[Swift Terror 0]

Dennis Miller had a good line about just this thing. He said give the judge a Derringer, and, seconds after slamming the gavel down, have the judge shoot the bastard himself!

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Does anyone still doubt the wisdom or necessity of military tribunals?

 

Fuck yes.

 

In Moussaoui's case, he's obviously guilty of something, but they prosecutors are trying him for the wrong reasons. If his defense is as you've said, than he's likely guilty of conspiracy to commit murder or whatever. However, in the case of general military tribunals, it was best stated in Ex Parte Milligan (71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2, 18 L.Ed. 281) (1866) by Justice David Davis in the majority opinion:

 

"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever intended by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it which are necessary to preserve its existence; as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority."

 

The argument in Milligan, made by the majority, is that when the court system is functional -- that is, the United States is not in a state of anarchy -- than military tribunals should NOT be used. In most of these military tribunals, citizens of the United States are being tried and, by some reports, executed without the benefit of a trial by a jury of their peers that is afforded to them by the United States Constitution. That is beyond wrong, regardless of the flippant naming of them as "enemy combatants."

 

Moussaoui is guilty of conspiring to commit an act of terror, and he will likely be found as such. However, military tribunals are NOT the answer, and condoning them is condoning the destruction of the United States Constitution. Why not just move to Europe?

Edited August 30, 2003 by Tyler McClelland

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

How dare we violate the civil rights of this upstanding person. Why, I bet his scout troop went leaderless during all the time he was away.

 

I say let him go if only he promises to blow up a courtroom or something equally useless institution...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Did you even read my fucking post?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Not really Tyler, and my post had nothing to do with yours. I was responding to the article Marney had linked to her post. (*Sarcasm on* Contrary to what you may think, not everything people respond to in this folder revolves around your posts. *Sarcasm off*)

 

To prevent future misunderstandings, would you like me to write a disclaimer at the beginning of my posts saying that my post is responding to yours? Heck, there have been times where I thought you were taking a pot-shot at me, but it turns out you weren't (or at least you weren't yet)...

Edited August 30, 2003 by kkktookmybabyaway

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Eh, whatever. I still made a valid point, even if no one will read it.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Yeah.

 

Eh, whatever (I read that last post)...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Small posts > Big ones.

[EricMM 0]

I really don't understand why he's not already behind bars. I am NOT up to date on this whole thing, but if he's really an admitted and unrepentant terrorist, and was involved in the 9/11 thing, he should be put away. Hard labor, smashing stones for the good of American society. Unrepentant murderers, terrorists, rapists, and their ilk can go up a creek for all I care. I probably wouldn't just shoot him, I'm sure he's looking forward to it. Just work him until he expires from old age or kills himself. What, mercy? For him? He should break rocks until he's paid back all the suffering he helped cause, and all the suffering he's tried to cause, and all the suffering he wants to cause. And that's a lot of rocks.

[Guest SideFXs]

...in the case of general military tribunals, it was best stated in Ex Parte Milligan (71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2, 18 L.Ed. 281) (1866) by Justice David Davis in the majority opinion:

 

The argument in Milligan, made by the majority, is that when the court system is functional -- that is, the United States is not in a state of anarchy -- than military tribunals should NOT be used.

 

Moussaoui is guilty of conspiring to commit an act of terror, and he will likely be found as such. However, military tribunals are NOT the answer, and condoning them is condoning the destruction of the United States Constitution. Why not just move to Europe?

Ex Parte Milligan (71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2, 18 L.Ed. 281) (1866) majority opinion, by Justice David Davis....

 

EVERYONE PLEASE READ THIS. IT IS IMPORTANT...

 

Military tribunals were instituted by President Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, ultimately trying some 4,000 citizens, who were residents of States of rebellion, on charges ranging from disloyalty to nonmilitary offenses such as liquor trafficking.

 

Milligan, an Indiana resident, was imprisoned, charged with disloyalty, and found guilty, by a military tribunal in 1864, because had joined and was aiding, at different times, between October, 1863, and August, 1864, a secret society known as the Order of American Knights or Sons of Liberty, for the purpose of overthrowing the Government.

 

The Supreme Court later held, in Ex Parte Milligan (71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2, 18 L.Ed. 281) (1866) majority opinion, by Justice David Davis, that such military tribunals should have no jurisdiction over UNITED STATES citizens in cases where civilian courts are functional. A citizen not connected with the military service and resident in a State where the courts are open and in the proper exercise of their jurisdiction cannot be tried, convicted, or sentenced otherwise than by the ordinary courts of law.

 

Milligan was imprisoned in 1864, by military tribunal, in Indiana. A non-rebellious State, whose civilian courts were functioning. This decision overturned his conviction, because, he could not be treated as a prisoner of war, when he had lived in Indiana for the past twenty years, was arrested there, and had not been, during the late troubles of the Civil War, a resident of any of the States in rebellion. The decision was delivered Dec. 17, 1866.

 

TYLER, although your argument seemed quite elegant, the purpose of this Supreme Court ruling was to restore an incorrect verdict of a military tribunal against Milligan, a citizen of a non-rebellious State (Indiana, which was not in a state of anarchy) and to ultimately bring all of our States' justice systems back to the civilian courts, when we were coming out of the the Civil War. IT DOES NOT APPLY TO FOREIGN CITIZENS ACCUSED OF CRIMES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES CITIZENS, INVOLVING TERRORIST ACTIVITIES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.

 

Contrary to President Bush's Executive Order, authorizing military tribunals for foreigners accused of terrorism, issued in November of 2001, the State Department opted to use the Federal Courts to try Moussaoui, the first person charged in the Sept. 11 conspiracy. Why? Due to the initial outcry of military tribunals, by human rights groups, some members of Congress, and foreign governments. The result has been a real fucking circus! Marney was just reflecting the outrage we all feel.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

IT DOES NOT APPLY TO FOREIGN CITIZENS ACCUSED OF CRIMES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES CITIZENS, INVOLVING TERRORIST ACTIVITIES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.

 

Here's your problem: I'm not arguing about trying foriegn nationals in front of tribunals.

 

I'm arguing about the fact that US Citizens and people living legally within our borders are being sent down to Guantanamo to stand against a military tribunal when our court systems are perfectly sufficient.

 

Milligan set the precedent that military tribunals are unnecessary and illegal except in cases of martial law. I'm not sure what you're arguing here.

 

Executive orders can not overrule the Supreme Court, and therefore, the military tribunal process is entirely unnecessary when regarding suspects apprehended within the United States. When they're apprehended abroad and are citizens of other countries, sure. Go ahead and try them by military tribunal, it has nothing to do with our federal judiciary system. However, in the case of people apprehended that are LEGALLY WITHIN OUR BORDERS, the Constitution takes precedent here.

[Guest MikeSC]

Does anyone still doubt the wisdom or necessity of military tribunals?

 

Fuck yes.

 

In Moussaoui's case, he's obviously guilty of something, but they prosecutors are trying him for the wrong reasons. If his defense is as you've said, than he's likely guilty of conspiracy to commit murder or whatever. However, in the case of general military tribunals, it was best stated in Ex Parte Milligan (71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2, 18 L.Ed. 281) (1866) by Justice David Davis in the majority opinion:

 

"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever intended by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it which are necessary to preserve its existence; as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority."

 

The argument in Milligan, made by the majority, is that when the court system is functional -- that is, the United States is not in a state of anarchy -- than military tribunals should NOT be used. In most of these military tribunals, citizens of the United States are being tried and, by some reports, executed without the benefit of a trial by a jury of their peers that is afforded to them by the United States Constitution. That is beyond wrong, regardless of the flippant naming of them as "enemy combatants."

 

Moussaoui is guilty of conspiring to commit an act of terror, and he will likely be found as such. However, military tribunals are NOT the answer, and condoning them is condoning the destruction of the United States Constitution. Why not just move to Europe?

Military tribunals for non-citizens or citizen terrorists seem quite justified. Jury trials are for citizens, and the moment you commit terrorism against this country, you sacrificed that title.

-=Mike

...Let me pull the switch on Zacharias

[Firestarter 0]

Mike is correct. An act of terrorism, or conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism, more than meets the constitutional definition of high treason:

 

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

- Article III, section 3

 

And anyone convicted of treason can be stripped of citizenship (United States v. Schiffer, 1993). All extant judicial precedence clearly establishes that a defendant can be penalised under more than one statutory instrument for the same offense, so there's no question of an ex post facto penalty. QED

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

There's a problem here: these individuals have not been tried and convicted of anything.

[Firestarter 0]

Moussaoui isn't a citizen of the United States. He doesn't need to be convicted of anything to be brought before a tribunal.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Correct, but my argument wasn't an argument in favor of Moussaoui, it was an argument against the general use of Military Tribunals against US Citizens.

[Firestarter 0]

Well, can we see some substantiation for this claim?

 

In most of these military tribunals, citizens of the United States are being tried and, by some reports, executed without the benefit of a trial by a jury of their peers

 

I haven't heard of a single citizen who's been executed under the orders of a military tribunal for committing or conspiring to commit an act of terrorism. Where did you get these "reports?"

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I meant the tribunal process in general, not necessarily the executions. Your nitpicking about little aspects of my rhetoric doesn't change the fact that US Citizens have been taken down to Guantanamo and been placed in containment as Enemy Combatants, and will be tried by a military tribunal, and not a jury of their peers.

[Firestarter 0]

So now "some (presumably plausible, independently confirmed or government issued) reports" have been reduced to nothing more than "little aspects of [your] rhetoric."

 

In other words, when you said that such reports existed, you lied.

 

And your grand crusade against the real and present undermining of the Constitution has been reduced to a crusade against actions that you presume will be committed at some unspecified time in the future.

 

What was your point again, Nostradamus?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Again, you're completely dodging the issue at hand because I used one bit of speculation (which isn't speculation at all, according to this AP article):

 

The Associated Press

 

The materials in the AP file were compiled by The Associated Press. These materials may not be republished without the express written consent of The Associated Press.

 

July 25, 2003, Friday, BC cycle

 

SECTION: International News

 

LENGTH: 826 words

 

HEADLINE: Intelligence tips sprouting ahead of Guantanamo tribunals, prison commander says

 

BYLINE: By PAISLEY DODDS, Associated Press Writer

 

DATELINE: GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba

 

BODY:

Terrorist suspects have become more compliant and are offering up many more important intelligence tips, says the U.S. Army general who commands the prison where preparations are under way for expected military tribunals.

 

In an exclusive interview, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller told The Associated Press that three-fourths of the 660 or so detainees have confessed to some involvement in terrorism. Many have turned on former friends and colleagues, he added.

 

Miller said detainees are giving up information in "incentive-based interrogations." Rewards include more recreation time, extra food rations to keep in their cells, or a move to the prison's medium-security facility.

 

"We have a large number of detainees who have been very cooperative describing their actions, either terrorist actions or in support of terrorism - more than 75 percent" of them, Miller said Wednesday.

 

Some tips have led to more arrests, others revealed terrorist recruiting techniques, he said.

 

"In February we were able to get 35 'high value' - the highest value - intelligence (pieces) ... In June we had more than 225," Miller said.

 

Interrogators do about 300 interviews each week, he said.

 

The prisoners' statements, which Miller said have been verbal, could be used as evidence before the secret tribunals, unlike in the United States.

 

The prison's location at this U.S. naval base at the eastern end of Cuba puts the detainees out of the jurisdiction of American courts and constitutional protections, a situation that has been criticized by lawyers and human rights groups as a violation of the detainees' rights.

 

The prisoners, all suspected of ties to the al-Qaida terrorist network or Afghanistan's ousted Taliban regime, range from a member of Bahrain's royal family to some juveniles and many low-level foot soldiers.

 

None have been allowed to meet with attorneys.

 

The U.S. government has been criticized for designating the detainees as unlawful combatants rather than prisoners of war, and critics are urging Washington to ensure any tribunals are fair.

 

"The obstacles will be many, and they will be litigated," said Michael Ratner of the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, which is helping represent an Australian detainee.

 

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., pushed for Congress to force the Bush administration to be more accountable and reveal its intentions toward the detainees, but the measure failed.

 

"It's an embarrassment for us to be going ahead with proceedings that go against our own Constitution," Bingaman told AP. "One of the ways the rest of the world is going to judge us is how we deal with these detainees and what legal process we follow."

 

Although crimes have been spelled out, no detainees have been charged since the detentions began after the war in Afghanistan, and there are still no sentencing guidelines.

 

Also in question is whether detainees from 42 countries will get equal treatment. U.S. officials said this week that two Britons and an Australian among the first six detainees designated to go before tribunals would not face the death penalty. Nothing has been said about the other three, reportedly from Pakistan, Sudan and Yemen.

 

"I think it underscores the lack of any clear policy that the United States government has with respect to the detainees," said Tom Wilner, a lawyer for 12 Kuwaiti detainees. "The ones who get to go before the military commissions may actually turn out to be the lucky ones. But what happens to the rest?"

 

There are also questions about the tribunals' procedures. Guidelines rule out attorney-client privilege and allow conversations to be recorded, Ratner said.

 

U.S. officials are pressing ahead with preparations for a courtroom, permanent detention facility and execution chamber.

 

The makeshift courthouse windows have been masked by yellow paint. Its 70-year-old electrical wiring has been revamped and dark wood tables with brass-tacked upholstered chairs are in place, Miller said.

 

About 70 detainees have been released, and about 120 have been rewarded with moves to a medium-security wing where they get more exercise, books and other liberties for cooperating in interrogations, Miller said.

 

Officials have reported 29 suicide attempts by detainees depressed by their prolonged incarceration, according to relatives who have received letters through the Red Cross, which is the only independent group allowed access to detainees.

 

Some detainees have become more talkative, even flirtatious, said Army Spc. Brenda Gustyn, 26, of Detroit, a guard at the base where soldiers break the monotony by heading to McDonald's - the only one in Cuba - or the outdoor movie theater, currently showing "The Hulk."

 

"Many joke around with me, asking me if I want to be one of their wives," she said of the prisoners. "One detainee told me he was a journalist and was asking me what was happening outside. It's been really interesting."

 

So, you're assuming they just want an execution chamber so...

 

Um...

 

Their camp looks pretty?

 

 

All of this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the argument at hand, though. Your stupid, asinine stall tactic of attempting to get me off track, while annoying, will not succeed. My argument has nothing to do with the executions; it has everything to do with the fact that US CITIZENS have been taken down to Guantanamo and are being tried in front of MILITARY TRIBUNALS, not in front of a jury of their peers, and that is illegal and contrary to the US Constitution during a time of peace.

[Firestarter 0]

Interestingly, not once in the entire article does the word "citizen" crop up.

 

Are you lying again? Or "speculating?" Or is this another "aspect of [your] rhetoric?"

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Copyright 2003 ALM Properties, Inc.

All Rights Reserved. 

Miami Daily Business Review

 

May 5, 2003

 

SECTION: COVER; Vol. 77; No. 228; Pg. A8

 

LENGTH: 1795 words

 

HEADLINE: Relief denied

Challenging the limits of executive authority, cases over Guantanamo Bay detainees move toward Supreme Court

 

BYLINE: by Marcia Coyle; At the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 700 post-Sept 11 detainees are being held, some for more than a year and without charges being filed. From left, attorneys Michael Ratner, Thomas Wilner and Joe Margulies represent families of Guantanamo Bay detainees from Kuwait, Great Britain and Australia. Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen and one-time South Florida resident who is being held in a naval brig in South Carolina, is alleged to have plotted an attack with a dirty bomb. Attorneys for families of noncitizen Guantanamo detainees hope courts will consider his situation with that of their clients. AFP photo/Roberto Schmidt AFP photo/Stephen jaffe

 

BODY:

The story of the Guantanamo Bay detainees seized in the U.S.-Afghan war is a story of how nothing happens, said an American lawyer. Nothing happens, said a British jurist, because the detainees occupy a "legal black hole."

 

But two cases, one pending in the U.S. Supreme Court and the other likely to get there this year, attempt to make something happen legally for the roughly 700 prisoners being held at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. Some have been held for more than a year and without charges or access to counsel.

 

Two other cases in the courts involve U.S. citizens held without charges in U.S. brigs for their alleged roles in terrorism. The four cases challenge federal judges to examine the scope of their jurisdiction, the limits of executive authority and the weight, if any, to be given to international obligations.

 

The Guantanamo detainees have the highest hill to climb in getting access to federal courts and a review of the legality of their confinement, experts said.

 

"The detainees are in a difficult position because they are not U.S. citizens and they have been captured and detained outside U.S. territory," said Curtis A. Bradley, a federal courts and international law scholar who teaches at the University of Virginia School of Law.

 

The Bush administration has successfully argued that a 1950 Supreme Court decision bars the federal courthouse to the detainees. The 9th and District of Columbia U.S. circuit courts of appeals have blocked the detainees' claims.

 

The D.C. Circuit decision last month in Al Odah Khaled A.F. v. USA is "clearly a post-Sept. 11 decision in its severity," said international law scholar Pamela Falk of New York University School of Law.

 

"The decision really said the U.S. courts will not oversee and second-guess interrogation and custodial care," she said. "It has dramatic implications for the U.S. military, the Defense and Justice departments and U.S. government generally in international armed conflicts."

 

"There are a number of legacies that will come out of Guantanamo Bay," said William J. Aceves of California Western School of Law, counsel to a group of international human rights groups that filed a brief in the D.C. Circuit case. "It undermines the credibility of U.S. foreign policy and positions we've taken in Egypt, Peru and other countries, where we say they shouldn't detain someone without counsel and without charges."

 

The Geneva Conventions of 1949 set standards for the treatment of persons no longer active in hostilities during a state of armed conflict or occupation. They provide different kinds of protection, depending on individuals' status. Prisoners of war have special rights in judicial proceedings under the Third Geneva Convention.

 

In February 2002, President Bush issued a statement about how the Third Geneva Convention applies to the Afghan war. He said members of the Taliban are covered by the treaty because Afghanistan is a party to the Third Convention.

 

But he said that Taliban detainees are not entitled to POW status. They hadn't complied with specified conditions, such as distinguishing themselves from the civilian population by wearing uniforms or insignia and being organized in military units, he said. And he said al Qaeda is an international terrorist group, not a state party to the convention.

 

The administration calls Taliban and al Qaeda detainees "unprivileged or unlawful combatants" who, unlike lawful combatants, are not entitled to release when hostilities end and are potentially subject to trial by a military commission.

 

The Third Geneva Convention provides that when a detainee's status is in doubt, the custodial country should promptly convene a "competent tribunal" to resolve the doubt - an effort to ensure that POW protections kick in as early as possible.

 

"The United States has not done this because it said there is no question, no doubt," Aceves said. Robert Goldman of American University Washington College of Law noted that U.S. treatment of prisoners taken in the war in Iraq is very different.

 

"We're doing the right thing now," he said. "We're holding people who committed hostile acts against us as presumptive prisoners of war. We and the British are holding Article 5 hearings on their status. We're playing it by the book."

 

The case from the California-based 9th Circuit, pending in the Supreme Court, seems the less likely of the two to interest the justices. The decision turned on the lack of standing by a group of clergy, law professors and others to bring a habeas corpus petition on behalf of all of the detainees.

 

The justices may take up the petition for certiorari for that case, Coalition of Clergy, Lawyers & Law Professors v. Bush, early this month. The Bush administration has filed a brief in opposition to certiorari.

 

Standing was not a problem in three actions consolidated in the D.C. Circuit. The families of 12 Kuwaiti detainees are challenging their confinement, represented by Thomas Wilner of New York's Shearman & Sterling. And the families of two British and two Australian detainees are in the case, represented by Michael Ratner, Steven Watt and other attorneys at the Center for Constitutional Rights.

 

They allege violations of due process, international law and military regulations and seek a writ of habeas corpus and other relief. All denied that the detainees were enemy combatants or enemy aliens. A D.C. Circuit panel said the ultimate question in all three cases was whether a federal court has jurisdiction to adjudicate their claims. It ruled there was no jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus for aliens detained outside the sovereign territory of the United States.

 

At the heart of the D.C. and lower court 9th circuit rulings was Johnson v. Eisentrager, a 1950 ruling stemming from the conviction of 21 German nationals in China who assisted Japanese forces fighting the United States. They were tried by a U.S. military commission in Nanjing and transferred to a prison in Germany under the control of the U.S. Army. One of the 21 sought writs of habeas corpus for all of them, claiming violations of the Constitution and the 1929 Geneva Convention.

 

Writs couldn't be issued for the "enemy aliens," the court said, because "these prisoners at no relevant time were within any territory over which the United States is sovereign, and the scenes of their offense, their capture, their trial and their punishment were all beyond the territorial jurisdiction of any court of the United States."

 

The D.C. Circuit panel agreed that the Guantanamo detainees were not "enemy aliens" as the term was used in Eisentrager. The war on terrorism is not against Kuwait, Australia or the United Kingdom, the court said.

 

The panel said the detainees "have much in common" with the German prisoners: "They too are aliens, they too were captured during military operations, they were in a foreign country when captured, they are now abroad, they are in the custody of the American military, and they have never had any presence in the United States."

 

The court rejected the detainees' argument that they are in the United States because Guantanamo Bay is, in effect, a territory of the United States and that the government exercises sovereignty over it. The court noted that the U.S. lease of the Guantanamo Naval Base recognizes the sovereignty of Cuba. The detainees' counsel on April 25 filed a petition for a review by the full circuit court, Watt said. If that fails, he said, they'll go to the Supreme Court.

 

He said a common misperception is that all of the detainees were captured in Afghanistan, though many were not. "The precedent the court is setting is broad enough to cover that situation as well," Watt said. "The U.S. government can sweep people up from all over the world and detain them indefinitely." The reasoning used by the court and the government does not depend on the existence of a war, Wilner said. "It just said a foreigner held outside the U.S. has no access to our courts."

 

The sovereignty aspect of the ruling is fraught with danger, he said, since the United States can negotiate a lease anywhere in the world, leaving technical sovereignty with another country.

 

"We have taken the view there's got to be great deference to the executive in this area, but there has to be some judicial review," Wilner said. "You can't act as both jailer and judge. If there is no judicial review, the executive never needs to balance or justify its actions. It can hold absolutely innocent people forever."

 

Support for government

 

The Washington Legal Foundation supported the government as an amicus party in the D.C. Circuit case, arguing that federal courts are not open to aliens held overseas by the U.S. military regardless of whether they admit they're enemy soldiers. Chief counsel Richard Samp said detainees can raise claims through the executive branch and diplomatic channels.

 

The conservative foundation labeled "particularly pernicious" the efforts of "activist" lawyers to enforce international law in federal courts. Congress, it said, is free to make international law part of federal law but has not done so.

 

Lawyers for the detainees and human rights groups also have sought relief in international forums. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States has issued a preliminary injunction ordering the United States to hold tribunals to determine detainees' status.

 

"What was important about that decision is the commission implicitly recognizes that the international obligations of the U.S. do apply to Guantanamo even though the U.S. doesn't have sovereignty," Aceves said.

 

Recent rulings suggest the court won't depart radically from the thinking in Eisentrager, said Bradley. But he said differences between Guantanamo and Eisentrager could give it pause: the indefinite duration of the war on terrorism and the lack of any adjudication of the detainees' status. The Germans did have a chance to contest their status.

 

Ultimately, the detainees' lawyers said, they hope the court will take a broad view of their cases as well as the detention of U.S. citizens Yaser Hamdi, who was taken into military control in Afghanistan, and Jose Padilla, a one-time South Florida resident who is accused of plotting an attack with a so-called dirty bomb.

 

"They all question the right of the executive to detain without judicial review and without access to counsel," Wilner said. "They all raise the issue of what controls at all are there in this new war against terrorism. The government has relied on Eisentrager, which deals with World War II. This is a new and different situation."

 

Marcia Coyle reports for the National Law Journal, an affiliate of the Daily Business Review.

 

LOAD-DATE: May 29, 2003

 

...Oh.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

So, you've proven you can stall.

 

Congrats.

 

Now face the fucking issue.

[Firestarter 0]

Stall? Whose constitutional rights have been violated as of this time? Who has been executed? Congratulations; you've proven you can reproduce a newspaper article. A Xerox machine can do the same thing, and it's an open question as to which of the two is more worth debating. If this is the extent of your lexicological prowess, I sincerely hope you never reproduce in a more biological sense. That would require a rapid rechlorination of the gene pool, and frankly I'm having too much fun watching Howard Dean's campaign to let God kill him now.

 

What was the issue again?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

The issue, which I've stated about fifteen times in a row, is that US Citizens are being denied their right of a trial by jury. You're a reprehensible human being, Marney, and we can only be glad that your choice of lifestyle would prevent YOU from breeding as well; God can only tolerate so many bile-filled bullshitters, I suppose.

[Firestarter 0]

Your hysteria aside, allow me to suggest that you examine the Bail Reform Act of 1984 (United States Code, Title 18, 3141–50 and 3156). In the case of capital crimes committed by persons whom no combination of factors can prevent from flight or the endangerment of others, pretrial detention is perfectly constitutional.

 

I'd rather be called "reprehensible" by a left-wing lunatic who wants to let all the good little terrorists out of their cages than be suicidally and homicidally ignorant.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

The issue, which I've stated about fifteen times in a row, is that US Citizens are being denied their right of a trial by jury. You're a reprehensible human being, Marney, and we can only be glad that your choice of lifestyle would prevent YOU from breeding as well; God can only tolerate so many bile-filled bullshitters, I suppose.

Wow, somebody's panties are in a knot tonight.

 

Oh, I was responding to your last post, Tyler...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Your hysteria aside, allow me to suggest that you examine the Bail Reform Act of 1984 (United States Code, Title 18, 3141–50 and 3156). In the case of capital crimes committed by persons whom no combination of factors can prevent from flight or the endangerment of others, pretrial detention is perfectly constitutional.

 

I'd rather be called "reprehensible" by a left-wing lunatic who wants to let all the good little terrorists out of their cages than be suicidally and homicidally ignorant.

It sure is, and that, again, isn't my argument. I'm arguing that they're being put up in front of military tribunals and being denied a trial by jury of their peers. I've said that at least five times in this thread. You've ignored it every time. Instead, you proceed with pointless, stupid, and hateful ad hominem attacks against me and then argue other points in an effort to change the subject from what I'm trying to argue. Case in point: asking me to back up sources when you KNOW what I'm saying is true. You've simply got a massive fucking ego and you can't admit that you're wrong.