Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Gitmo tribunals ruled unconstitutional

  1. #1
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    from FT.com

    [quote][b][b]US court allows Guantánamo Bay challenge[/b]
    By Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington
    Published: January 31 2005 21:29 | Last updated: January 31 2005 21:29

    The Bush administration suffered a serious blow on Monday when a court ruled that prisoners at Guantánamo Bay can challenge their detention in court, and that the military tribunals used to determine the status of prisoners are unconstitutional.


    After the Supreme Court last year ruled that terrorism suspects held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, had the right to challenge their detention in US courts, several groups of detainees filed petitions.

    The government, however, challenged the petitions, saying the Supreme Court decision did not give prisoners rights under the constitution only the right to file a petition challenging their detention.

    But Judge Joyce Hens Green, of the DC district court, on Monday rejected that argument, concluding that the prisoners at Guantánamo should be given US constitutional rights. “There can be no question that . . . the right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law is one of the most fundamental rights of the US constitution,” she wrote.

    “It is clear that Guantánamo Bay must be considered the equivalent of a US territory in which fundamental constitutional rights apply.”

    But while the decision is a blow to the government, Judge Green's interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling differs from that of another DC district court judge, Richard Leon, who concluded that prisoners had the right to file a case, but no right to be heard.

    Both cases will now almost certainly proceed to a higher court.

    Last year's Supreme Court ruling also concluded that the government could not hold Guantánamo detainees indefinitely unless their status as “enemy combatants” which would receive no protections under the Geneva conventions was established.

    Soon afterwards the Pentagon created Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT), which recently completed reviews for the prisoners at the detention facility. But in a strong criticism of the tribunals, Judge Green concluded that they too were unconstitutional.

    She said the CSRT were unlawful because detainees were not given access to classified information on which their status as “enemy combatants” were based, or access to lawyers who could help compensate for their lack of access to the evidence.

    “Judge Green cited several instances where she said detainees were unable to defend themselves at their tribunals because the government would not reveal the evidence on which they were being held.

    “The CSRT failed to provide any detainee with sufficient notice of the factual basis for which he is being detained and with a fair opportunity to rebutt the government's evidence that he is an ‘enemy combatant'.”

    Judge Green also criticised the tribunals, saying the definition of “enemy combatant” was too vague. And she said the review panel had not given enough credence to claims by prisoners that they hadbeen tortured into confessing.
    [/b][/quote]

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    The U.S. Constitution apparently applies to everyone in the world, I guess.

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Feb 1 2005, 09:44 AM
    [b] The U.S. Constitution apparently applies to everyone in the world, I guess. [/b][/quote]
    [quote][b]“It is clear that Guantánamo Bay must be considered the equivalent of a US territory in which fundamental constitutional rights apply.”[/b][/quote] :lol:

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,305
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Feb 1 2005, 09:44 AM
    [b] The U.S. Constitution apparently applies to everyone in the world, I guess. [/b][/quote]
    Does that mean we can tax them?

    Holy Deficit Closer Batman!! :lol:

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti+Feb 1 2005, 09:58 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (bitonti @ Feb 1 2005, 09:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-jets5ever[/i]@Feb 1 2005, 09:44 AM
    [b] The U.S. Constitution apparently applies to everyone in the world, I guess. [/b][/quote]
    [quote][b]“It is clear that Guantánamo Bay must be considered the equivalent of a US territory in which fundamental constitutional rights apply.”[/b][/quote] :lol: [/b][/quote]
    Really, that is "clear?" Not to me, it isn&#39;t.

    Again, why are we giving these people constitutional rights?

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Feb 1 2005, 10:41 AM
    [b]
    Again, why are we giving these people constitutional rights? [/b][/quote]
    i dunno because we are holding them on US Soil? i bet if these prisoners were in iraq somewhere or on a brig in international waters they would be s**t out of luck.

    the truth is we aren&#39;t giving them anything - Bush will take this to the Supreme Court -

    to clarify i just thought this was interesting, im not sold on either argument quite yet - i can see the point of holding terrorists but i also can see the point that gov&#39;t ALONE cannot be trusted with the decision of marking who is a terrorist and who is not.

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    FYI here is a quote from the decision

    [quote][b]"American authorities are in full control at Guantánamo Bay, their activities are immune from Cuban law, leaving no reason to contend that American law does not apply"

    "Although this nation unquestionably must take strong action under the leadership of the commander in chief to protect itself against enormous and unprecedented threats, that necessity cannot negate the existence of the most basic fundamental rights for which the people of this country have fought and died for well over 200 years."
    [/b][/quote]

  8. #8
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti+Feb 1 2005, 10:55 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (bitonti &#064; Feb 1 2005, 10:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-jets5ever[/i]@Feb 1 2005, 10:41 AM
    [b]
    Again, why are we giving these people constitutional rights? [/b][/quote]
    i dunno because we are holding them on US Soil? i bet if these prisoners were in iraq somewhere or on a brig in international waters they would be s**t out of luck.

    the truth is we aren&#39;t giving them anything - Bush will take this to the Supreme Court -

    to clarify i just thought this was interesting, im not sold on either argument quite yet - i can see the point of holding terrorists but i also can see the point that gov&#39;t ALONE cannot be trusted with the decision of marking who is a terrorist and who is not. [/b][/quote]
    On the one hand, you&#39;re always crying about the mounting causalties in iraq and afghanistan, but you&#39;re all for the rights of the scumbags responsible for inflicting the death and destruction. Eh?

    When you or one of your loved ones is on the receiving end of a razor sharp blade to the neck -- you talk to me about the Constitutional rights of a non-American captured in the course of shooting one of your fellow Americans.

    I bet the terrorists pray to allah every day for an increase in "rational" Americans such as yourself.

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,406
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Spirit of Weeb+Feb 1 2005, 06:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Spirit of Weeb @ Feb 1 2005, 06:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [quote]Originally posted by bitonti@Feb 1 2005, 10:55 AM
    [b] <!--QuoteBegin-jets5ever[/i]@Feb 1 2005, 10:41 AM
    [b]
    Again, why are we giving these people constitutional rights? [/b][/quote]
    i dunno because we are holding them on US Soil? i bet if these prisoners were in iraq somewhere or on a brig in international waters they would be s**t out of luck.

    the truth is we aren&#39;t giving them anything - Bush will take this to the Supreme Court -

    to clarify i just thought this was interesting, im not sold on either argument quite yet - i can see the point of holding terrorists but i also can see the point that gov&#39;t ALONE cannot be trusted with the decision of marking who is a terrorist and who is not. [/b][/quote]
    On the one hand, you&#39;re always crying about the mounting causalties in iraq and afghanistan, but you&#39;re all for the rights of the scumbags responsible for inflicting the death and destruction. Eh?

    When you or one of your loved ones is on the receiving end of a razor sharp blade to the neck -- you talk to me about the Constitutional rights of a non-American captured in the course of shooting one of your fellow Americans.

    I bet the terrorists pray to allah every day for an increase in "rational" Americans such as yourself. [/b][/quote]
    What about those two guys who were just let go? Why were they let go? Were they found to not be a part of this? The reason why these people need some sort of representation is because who knows if they were justly taken to Gitmo.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    557
    Post Thanks / Like
    BITONTI YOU ARE A SCUMBAG

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    557
    Post Thanks / Like
    SUCH PATHETIC INDIVIDUALS

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    like i said before you guys had to wet your pants,

    im am in support of the full detention of terrorists - what i am not for is the full detention of innocent people who are not terrorists - also i do not trust the US Gov&#39;t to be 100% right all the time, on their own, without any outside intervention.

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,117
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Feb 1 2005, 09:14 PM
    [b] what i am not for is the full detention of innocent people who are not terrorists [/b][/quote]
    Let me guess, Bush is "for" imprisoning innocent non-terrorists?

    I think debating liberals on JI has just "jumped the shark".

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us