Supreme Court rules terrorist suspects have right to civilian courts

[sirs]

I have no problem with the military tribunals.  More than many deserve, but I'll concede to those

[fatman]

For the first time anywhere , prisoners of war have the right to be considered innocent untill proven guilty.

They are not prisoners of war, so the administration claims, which is why, so the administration claims, they are not to be treated as the Geneva Convention says prisoners of war should be treated. If they were considered prisoners of war, seems to me highly likely the case that brought about this decision would never have been presented. But they aren't and it was. All the protestations against the decision seem to me like a lot of noise because some folks don't like the consequences of having decided these detainees were not prisoners of war.

This has been my thought for quite awhile, the government can't have its cake and eat it too.  Either charge them with a crime or a war violation or cut them loose.  We're always hearing about how our justice system is the best there is, even with the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world, so let's see it.

The thing about principles is, that a person who truly adheres to those principles will adhere to them even in difficult circumstances.  So if you're going to lecture me about how we're such a free nation, and yet we need to allow government to invade and permeate our lives in the name of the fight against terrorism, I'll call bullshit.  If you think that we have the best justice system in the world, and yet we don't need that for enemy combatants who this Administration considers to be neither criminals nor POW's, so that we don't need to follow any existing precedents, that's bullshit too.

This is a good decision by the Court, no matter who dissented and no matter what the split was.

[Plane]

They are not Prisoners of war even if they have declared war on us?

What of the Taliban , who were the government of a country and are now a government in exile.


This is an international conspiracy of thousands , with sponsorship in billions , they can attack in waves but we have to read a Miranda card to each one?

If each one wants a jury trial will twelve thousand of us be called in for each thousand of them?

Will soldiers be called in from the battle feild to give evidence? Who will do our fighting ?

This is not the first time that stateless organisations have attacked Americans internationally and on our own turf , the rules are still on the books , treat them as pirates.

[fatman]

Then I guess that this Administration should have classified them as POW's from the start, rather than trying to circumvent the issue by claiming that they weren't POW's and also trying to make the case that they aren't obligated to rights that general criminals are granted.

You seem to think that justice should only be administered when it's convenient.  Justice isn't supposed to work that way, though lately it's seeming more and more like it does.  As far as I'm concerned, the government made this bed, they can sleep in for awhile.

[Amianthus]

I tend to agree with Plane. They should be treated as pirates.

[Plane]

Then I guess that this Administration should have classified them as POW's from the start, rather than trying to circumvent the issue by claiming that they weren't POW's and also trying to make the case that they aren't obligated to rights that general criminals are granted.

You seem to think that justice should only be administered when it's convenient.  Justice isn't supposed to work that way, though lately it's seeming more and more like it does.  As far as I'm concerned, the government made this bed, they can sleep in for awhile.

They are not exactly POWs because they have no government to answer to or to return them to , but treating tham as criminals will require a rediculous increase in court time , we can't do it.

So what is wrong with treating them as Pirates?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Pirates would be treated as criminals, and assumed to be innocent until proven guilty, unless they were caught in the act of hostile action against the US, and that would not apply to figting the US in Afghanistan. The US was not at war with Afghanistan.

Al Qaeda was not the Taliban, they were a foreign organization given sanctuary by the Taliban, which was the closest thing to a government that Afghanistan had at the time.

The Taliban was given an ultimatum to turn over the Al Qaeda to the US, and they did not or could do this, and Afghanistan was invaded.

[Plane]

Pirates would be treated as criminals, and assumed to be innocent until proven guilty, unless they were caught in the act of hostile action against the US, and that would not apply to figting the US in Afghanistan. The US was not at war with Afghanistan.

Al Qaeda was not the Taliban, they were a foreign organization given sanctuary by the Taliban, which was the closest thing to a government that Afghanistan had at the time.

The Taliban was given an ultimatum to turn over the Al Qaeda to the US, and they did not or could do this, and Afghanistan was invaded.

So do you feel as if the Al Queda were mercinarys of the Taliban?

Osama Bin Laden was giveing a lot of support to the Taliban so one might argue that Afganistan was being rented.

[Xavier_Onassis]

So do you feel as if the Al Queda were mercinarys of the Taliban?

Osama Bin Laden was giveing a lot of support to the Taliban so one might argue that Afganistan was being rented.

=================================================
No, Al Qaeda were not mercenaries. Te Taliban had enough of an army to control most of the country, ad there were insufficient Al Qaeda people to make a difference.

There was an alliance between the Taliban and Al Qaeda: they were both Muslim fundamentalists and adherents to Sharia law. It was an alliance in the same way that the US and the UK are allies. Al Qaeda also supported the Taliban with money and weapons from their donors in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. They served as a liason between the Afghanis and the Arab speaking fundamentalists of various Arab countries.

[Plane]

So do you feel as if the Al Queda were mercinarys of the Taliban?

Osama Bin Laden was giveing a lot of support to the Taliban so one might argue that Afganistan was being rented.

=================================================
No, Al Qaeda were not mercenaries. Te Taliban had enough of an army to control most of the country, ad there were insufficient Al Qaeda people to make a difference.

There was an alliance between the Taliban and Al Qaeda: they were both Muslim fundamentalists and adherents to Sharia law. It was an alliance in the same way that the US and the UK are allies. Al Qaeda also supported the Taliban with money and weapons from their donors in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. They served as a liason between the Afghanis and the Arab speaking fundamentalists of various Arab countries.

So they had a national sponsor , which is now a government in exile.

[Xavier_Onassis]

So they had a national sponsor , which is now a government in exile.

======================
Not really, since the Taliban is not in exile, and Al Qaeda is not and never was a government. The Taliban controls a goodly portion of Afghanistan these days. They were originnalli against the opium trade, but now they derive millions from it to support their fight to retake Afghanistan.

[Plane]

So they had a national sponsor , which is now a government in exile.

======================
Not really, since the Taliban is not in exile, and Al Qaeda is not and never was a government. The Taliban controls a goodly portion of Afghanistan these days. They were originnalli against the opium trade, but now they derive millions from it to support their fight to retake Afghanistan.

The Taliban is still a sponsor of Al Queda and still has pretention of government?

Seems strange to examine such details about the status of an enemy , as if they were useing their ambiguous status as a sheild against definite action against them.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The Taliban is still a sponsor of Al Queda and still has pretention of government?

Seems strange to examine such details about the status of an enemy , as if they were useing their ambiguous status as a sheild against definite action against them.

==========================================
No one is cutting the Taliban any slack for any "ambiguous status" . The Kharzai government, the Americans and the rest of the UN mission treat them as an enemy of peace and stability, which, of course, they are. They seem to have some secret pals in the Pakistani government, though.

[Rich]

>>They are not prisoners of war,...<<

Agreed. The article is using the incorrect term, not the president.

[Plane]

The Taliban is still a sponsor of Al Queda and still has pretention of government?

Seems strange to examine such details about the status of an enemy , as if they were useing their ambiguous status as a sheild against definite action against them.

==========================================
No one is cutting the Taliban any slack for any "ambiguous status" . The Kharzai government, the Americans and the rest of the UN mission treat them as an enemy of peace and stability, which, of course, they are. They seem to have some secret pals in the Pakistani government, though.

Is the status of Al Queda not ambiguous ?  Are they definately criminals , then their crime is declaireing war on the US. If they are legitimate warroriors who are legitimately at war with us it is appropriate to treat them as POWs.

Being ambiguous has prevented them from being tried in our courts as criminals till now , and prevented them from being recognised as POWs under the Geneva conventions forever.