Camp X-Ray guests should get U.S. court access

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Terrorists must be on orders to leave San Fran alone since the 9th are allies to the cause. I guess the dissenting judge wanted to give the detainees Internet access or something...

 

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A federal appeals court ruled Thursday for the first time that prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba should have access to lawyers and the American court system.

 

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' 2-1 decision was a rebuke to the Bush Administration.

 

The administration maintains that because the 660 men held there were picked up overseas on suspicion of terrorism and are being held on foreign land, they may be detained indefinitely without charges or trial.

 

The Supreme Court last month agreed to decide whether the detainees, picked up in Afghanistan and Pakistan, should have access to the courts. The justices agreed to hear that case after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the prisoners had no rights to the American legal system.

 

The San Francisco appeals court, ruling Thursday on a petition from a relative of a Libyan the U.S. military captured in Afghanistan, said the Bush administration's indefinite detention of the men runs contrary to American ideals.

 

"Even in times of national emergency - indeed, particularly in such times - it is the obligation of the Judicial Branch to ensure the preservation of our constitutional values and to prevent the Executive Branch from running roughshod over the rights of citizens and aliens alike," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the majority.

 

"We cannot simply accept the government's position," Reinhardt continued, "that the Executive Branch possesses the unchecked authority to imprison indefinitely any persons, foreign citizens included, on territory under the sole jurisdiction and control of the United States, without permitting such prisoners recourse of any kind to any judicial forum, or even access to counsel, regardless of the length or manner of their confinement."

[Guest Cerebus]

Hmm...anyone know any judicial precedent on cases such as this?

[Styles 0]

It's the 9th circuit, legal precedent need not apply!

[Vyce 0]

They're going to get overturned (again).

 

Trust me - they don't have the authority to place this kind of check on the executive branch.

[Highland 0]

At least they are attempting to place a check on the Executive branch. The people in Camp Xray are terrorists, but this policy of denying legal council and using a legal loophole to hold them indefinately without trial is a slippery slope that can very easily be applied to anyone and anywhere.

Even you.

[Vern Gagne 0]

They aren't U.S. citizens and weren't even arrested on U.S. soil. So what rights do they have under our constitution.

[Guest Cerebus]

At least they are attempting to place a check on the Executive branch. The people in Camp Xray are terrorists, but this policy of denying legal council and using a legal loophole to hold them indefinately without trial is a slippery slope that can very easily be applied to anyone and anywhere.

Even you.

Oh really? I think this could but since I'm neither a terrorist or attacking US troops on foreign soil I don't see how. But maybe I missed something that you didn't.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I guess the dissenting judge wanted to give the detainees Internet access or something...

Their good of their recent decision about medicinal pot negates the bad of this decision.

 

Net Score This Month: 0.

[Guest hunger4unger]

Let's not jump the gun. The detainees at camp x ray havent been found guilty of anything. They are being detained because the USA SAYS they are terrorists. It is their human right to be tried in an impartial court with a defence team.

[Firestarter 0]

I agree, we're violating their rights. It's their unalienable right as Moslem terrorists to be shot in the head by United States Marines. We need to respect that right and start shooting them right now.

[Guest hunger4unger]

How can you justify shooting them in the head just because they are suspected terrorists? Granted, if they are found guilty then they should be punished as severely as the court they are tried in allows - to suggest punishment without trial is absurd.

[Firestarter 0]

punishment without trial is absurd

Like when, say, you shoot an enemy soldier in the head without giving him the opportunity to defend himself in a court of law first?

 

These are unrepentant and admitted terrorists. They are enemies of the United States and they deserve nothing but death. I'll see them in hell before one cent of my taxes goes towards providing them with the rights they're trying to take away from us.

[Guest Cerebus]

Moslem

Did my whole spelling rant go to waste Marney?

[Firestarter 0]

I'm sorry, I should've said Mosselmen. Or Mohammedans.

 

I don't care if my spelling doesn't closely approximate the Arabic pronunciation. I call them what I've always called them. I speak English and I don't speak Arabic, so to hell with the Arabic pronunciation. Go tell them to start calling us "Americans" rather than "Uhngraze" or "Uhmreekee" and I'll think about calling them "Muslims."

[Guest hunger4unger]

Some are NOT "unrepentant and admitted terrorists" ! Some claim innocence. They are entitled to a fair trial, preferably outside the US in an international court. Whilst I admit that the vast majority most likely ARE terrorists, some may not be.

[Firestarter 0]

Feh.

[Guest MikeSC]

Some are NOT "unrepentant and admitted terrorists" ! Some claim innocence. They are entitled to a fair trial, preferably outside the US in an international court. Whilst I admit that the vast majority most likely ARE terrorists, some may not be.

Of course, a trial would only uncover every inch of thing we know about Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

 

There is a problem with discovery in this case.

-=Mike

[The Czech Republic 0]

Moslem

Did my whole spelling rant go to waste Marney?

Moslem and Muslim are both acceptable, same with Usama Osama.

[Dr. Tom 0]

Some are NOT "unrepentant and admitted terrorists" !

Then those are the ones who can get on their knees before we shoot them in the head.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

I'm sorry, I should've said Mosselmen. Or Mohammedans.

 

I don't care if my spelling doesn't closely approximate the Arabic pronunciation. I call them what I've always called them. I speak English and I don't speak Arabic, so to hell with the Arabic pronunciation. Go tell them to start calling us "Americans" rather than "Uhngraze" or "Uhmreekee" and I'll think about calling them "Muslims."

So basically... the only way to defeat terrorism is to become as vile and morally reprehensible as they are?

 

You do realize if the US did HALF of what some of the uber-conservatives say they should in fits of rage, that another 9/11 would be morally justifiable.

[Firestarter 0]

I'm sorry, I should've said Mosselmen. Or Mohammedans.

 

I don't care if my spelling doesn't closely approximate the Arabic pronunciation. I call them what I've always called them. I speak English and I don't speak Arabic, so to hell with the Arabic pronunciation. Go tell them to start calling us "Americans" rather than "Uhngraze" or "Uhmreekee" and I'll think about calling them "Muslims."

So basically... the only way to defeat terrorism is to become as vile and morally reprehensible as they are?

What the hell are you talking about? Not using a particular spelling of "Moslem" makes me "as vile and morally reprehensible" as a terrorist? Jesus, and people call me a grammar nazi.

 

You do realize if the US did HALF of what some of the uber-conservatives say they should in fits of rage, that another 9/11 would be morally justifiable.

You do realise that evil is never "morally justifiable" no matter what the provocation?