Supreme Court rules terrorist suspects have right to civilian courts

[Universe Prince]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4123181.ece

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/washington/12cnd-gitmo.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7425400.stm

[sirs]

And here I keep being told it was some RW court beholden to Bush.  Go figure

[Xavier_Onassis]

Against the decision: Roberts, Scalia, Alioto and Thomas: all Bush buddies.

[sirs]

But....but....It's supposed to be a RW court, they gave Bush the election, remember??  Now its even more so with Roberts & Alito.  What's up with that??

[Plane]

But....but....It's supposed to be a RW court, they gave Bush the election, remember??  Now its even more so with Roberts & Alito.  What's up with that??

What ws the split on that occasion?

[sirs]

Well Plane, when it's a 5-4 decision that the left doesn't agree with it's either a "bitterly divided decision" or a "narrow margain".  Or it's simply a stolen decision

When it's a 5-4 decision that the left supports, it's a "stinging rebuke", a "biach slap", or a "bitter defeat to the Bush administration", or a "biach slap"

[Xavier_Onassis]

5 to 4 means that sanity still rules in the court. It's not a 'stolen decision'.

How can anyone defend himself at a trial if he does not know what he is accused of?

A lot of the prisoners were rounded up by Afghans and Pakistanis because they were foreigners.

[Michael Tee]

There is nothing hard to understand about this at all.  There were then, and there are now, four hard-core "conservative" (actually, crypto-fascist) judges on the Supreme Court - - Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts today, Thomas, Rehnquist and two others in 2000.  There was a swing voter, Kennedy, who sometimes sided with the "conservatives" and sometimes with the liberals.  Kennedy is still on the bench and still serves as a swing voter.  Sandra Day O'Connor, no longer on the bench today, was a sometime swing voter who could have linked up with the four crypto-fascists to produce the result they wanted.

The concept is not yet a solid wall of crypto-fascist judges, but the attempts of the Reagan and Bush administrations to build the wall one brick at a time.  Currently with four bricks.  Another Republican President, and it is a certainty that as liberals retire, crypto-fascists will replace them.  At this point, the Republican dream has yet to be realized, ans swing voters and liberals can combine to block crypto-fascist attempts ot promote torture and deprive prisoners of their rights to a fair trial.

[sirs]

5 to 4 means that sanity still rules in the court. It's not a 'stolen decision'.

Well then....glad Xo has come to his senses on the idiocy of Bush being selected in 2000.  Tee apparently is still embracing the idiocy

[Religious Dick]

The court's liberal justices were in the majority, with Justice Anthony Kennedy pivotal. Writing for the court, he said: "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

....

The court's four conservative justices dissented. Antonin Scalia said that America was at war with radical Islamists and that the decision ?will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Interesting. The liberals took what would ordinarily be considered a "strict constructionist" position, usually associated with conservatives, and simply applied the law as written. The conservatives took an ends-based, or "activist" position, usually associated with liberals...

This doesn't surprise me from Scalia or Alito, but it does from Thomas and Roberts, who have generally held closer to a strict constructionist position. If they've written opinions, I'd be interested in seeing their rationale....

[Plane]

I don't know if the courts will like haveing a lot of terrorist cases.

I don't think that soldiers will be eager to make themselves witnesses in such trials.

In the future a terrorist or combatant that wants to surrender had better surrender very quickly elese soldiers might opt for  the only convieient choice.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Well then....glad Xo has come to his senses on the idiocy of Bush being selected in 2000. 

Juniorbush did not deserve to be president in 2000 and he still doesn't. He was selected by the court. And it was to the detriment of each and every citizen of this country, and to the reputation and well-being of the country as whole.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I don't know if the courts will like haveing a lot of terrorist cases.

Justice is not based on what judges fancy.
-------------------------------------------

I don't think that soldiers will be eager to make themselves witnesses in such trials.
They are soldiers, and must obey. They signed an oath. Tough.
===========================================
In the future a terrorist or combatant that wants to surrender had better surrender very quickly elese soldiers might opt for  the only convieient choice.

Many of these so-called "terrorists" were sold to the Americans by Afghanis and Pakistanis for a reward. They were not caught doing anything indictable.
======================
They should have won in Afghanistan by now, buit the idiotic decision to invade Iraq prevented them from doing in the Taliban and now it is back---now financed by opium.

Who could have foreseen that?


 

[sirs]

Juniorbush did not deserve to be president in 2000 and he still doesn't. He was selected by the court.

I see, so my original premice remains in tact, as Xo can't have it both ways.  A 5-4 in Xo's favor is an appropriate & rationalized decision.  A 5-4 against Xo is a stolen decision, a purposeful "selection".  Why thank you for validting my original position, Xo

[Xavier_Onassis]

A majority of voters favored Gore over Juniorbush.

The election of Juniorbush turned out to be a disaster, in the event you have not noticed.

There was no citizen participation involved in the Guantanamo decision.