[Jeff White]

I wonder by what stretch of logic put Cuba under the jurisdiction of the 9th.



Court: Terror Suspects Must Get Lawyers
AP
54 minutes ago
Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!

By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - 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 (news - web sites)' 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."

[longeyes]

Will be appealed and reversed.

[buzz_knox]

Great. Now we can expect those captured in foreign lands to be turned over to local authorities or kept there. Our intel gathering efforts took a lovely hit, and if the locals get the "enemy combatants" so did their life expectancy.

[Wildalaska]

Conflict between the circuits, SCOTUS will decide..

Just as an aside, ah what a breath of fresh air in the world that enemy combatants/terrs/pows have access to the courts if even to claim that they should have access. In the rest of the world (save maybe Britiain, Japan, Australia and Canada), they woul just be shot.

Flawed as it may be, this country stands for freedom

Wildandtherestcangotoh**lAlaska

[enfield]

. . . and we may be horribly surprised at how the Supreme Court rules on this.

[kbr80]

9th Circuit says Detainees at Gitmo need lawyers...

Why dont we also wipe there Arses and tilt a nipple to them as well. Being that they were in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and got caught.

[Preacherman]

Well, we could always ask President Kharzai of Afghanistan to take them back - I daresay his government would have a short, sharp and terminal way of dealing with 650-odd captured terrorist suspects!

[longeyes]

The Supreme Court has a 5-4 shot at declaring itself irrelevant with this one. I would like to think that the nation's Highest Court would clearly see the need for our being able to wage a war of survival, but it's hard not to glimpse some kind of self-annihilatory compulsion in a lot of leftwing thinking.

[Mark Tyson]

What's the point of lawyers or a trial? Waging war is not a criminal offense, unless they've committed a war crime. I suppose we could criminalize membership in an organization like Al Qaeda which targets civilians and the like.

If I'm not mistaken, only POW's can be tried under the UCMJ anyway, and these guys aren't classified as POW's.

[MicroBalrog]

Wild, I agree with your sig.:D

[HankB]

Let the lawyers who want to represent them meet in private with their "clients." And of course, it would be WRONG for the terrorists to be restrained in any way - that would violate their dignity.

Closed, windowless room for privacy . . .

My prediction is that a number of attorneys won't survive the encounter. :D

[rock jock]

In the future, I think all combat troops should bring with them a cadre of lawyers to immediately represent the enemy after they are captured. In fact, it would probably just be easier if we make all combat troops first receive law degrees, that way they could first try to kill the enemy, and then if captured they could advise them to be silent and work out a good legal defense. Perhaps our troops could file class action lawsuits against themselves and the U.S. govt for fighting in the first place and endangering the enemy. Sound absurd? Welcome to our national security, ACLU-style.

[Mark Tyson]

There was a case in WW2 after the German surrender but before V-J day wherin some German soldiers in China helped the Japs fight against us. They were captured and tried to claim constitutional protections. The claim was rejected.

[Cosmoline]

I'm with the founding fathers on this one. I fear our federal government and the abuse of its awesome powers far more than I fear some squatting third world terrorist. Give them lawyers. If they committed a crime, try them. Otherwise send them back to Afghanistan (or wherever) and let them deal with it.

Indefinite detention is un-American. It's vile and odious. The act of a tyrant state, not a republic.

[longeyes]

There is some kind of dark magic at work here.

First we found that illegal aliens are not only entitled to the full protection of the Constitution but also entitled to its special privileges, effectively erasing the distinction between citizen and non-citizen.

Now, by some weird extension, we are learning that the enemies we fight, even if foreign nationals captured in a foreign land, in a theater of war, also become entitled to full the protection of our Constitution as well. Now that's what I call a penumbra. This would seem to erase the distinction between ally and foe.

Is it me or is somebody Up There utterly daft?

[Russ]

Most of those judges on the Ninth could do with a good enema.

[Ian]

I'm with Cosmoline here.

Not that "full protection of the Constitution" means all that much today, though.

[Cosmoline]

I'm amazed at the number of people willing to take the federales' word for it just because someone from the GOP is currently in the White House. As it stands now, we don't even know who is at GitMo, let alone what they supposedly did. We are simply told by Der Fatherland's representatives that they are evil terrorists who must be kept without charge or counsel forever and a day.

Those who swallow this baited hook should not complain when they are reeled in some day!

[Pebcac]

I second what Cosmoline said.

Terrorism exists for the sole purpose of altering the target society's way of life. This kind of thing shows them that they've succeeded. We're compromising our ideals of individual freedom - all men are created equal, not just all Americans - out of FUD. They then go to the streets and recruit more bomb mules by showing that we're indefinitely imprisoning hundreds without charge, and without POW classification.

Keep in mind that there is no Congressionally-declared war here, people. Either you're a POW, or you're a criminal with right to council, speedy trial, and all the rest.

Time for the .gov to pick one and stop skirting the issue.

[Mark Tyson]

Cosmoline:

I share your concerns. But what are we supposed to do? Release them? I have little doubt that if we released them today they would go right back to the jihad.

If we do treat them as POW's then we aren't obligated to release them until hostilities are over. I doubt that hostilities will ever be over in the traditional sense. And I think the uprising at Mazar-e-Sharif showed that the prisoners still consider themselves combatants.

I'm concerned as you are about people using the war to justify infringements of our civil liberties. But we're not talking about people arrested in the US here, we're talking about combatants captured overseas in a war zone. They're being restrained because they're still dangerous. If that means indefinite detention, well that's the price you pay for fighting outside the rules of war. If you want to avoid it, don't be a combatant.

[Master Blaster]

You know there are a lot of folks practicing Hypocracy here.

We dont know who is being detained right now do we?????????

Suppose someone at the FBI/CIA reads this website and decides that we are all a bunch of potential terrorists, we keep quoting the constitution and criticizing the government in a time of war.

AND WE OWN GUNS AND KNOW HOW TO USE THEM.

No of course our best Bussom Buddy wuwu wudyy George W. and our other pal Ad errr John Ashcroft would never hurt their friends us NRA members. NAHHHHHH never happen.

But suppose Hittlery Clinton gets elected (VP Henry Waxman)with the Patriot act in force and starts passing laws outlawing firearms for the people. Then her AG Diane Feinnstein (Icarry a gun cause the NRA is out to getme) decides the members of THR are a threat to the continued stability of the Government.


Viola we are now the enemy combatants who can be detained forever with no legal representation.

How would you like to be grabbed from your house at 3am by a Navy SEAL team for a little vacation at an undisclosed location???????



SOUNDS GREAT huh????

I would rather have all 600 terrorists released in my backyard than see the entire constitution fly down the ????hole , which is exactly what is happening now.

[rock jock]

Terrorism exists for the sole purpose of altering the target society's way of life. This kind of thing shows them that they've succeeded.
Oh really? How many US citizens are imprisoned at Gitmo?

All men are created equal, and when they are in this country as U.S. citizens they will be treated equally. When the rest of the world is willing to abide by our own Constitution, we will be happy to afford its protections to them. It is afterall the "United States" Constitution, not the "World" Constitution.

[Russ]

MB,

Why did you have to mention Waxman?

I haven't thought about the human nostril for years. What a discgusting person. You have a point. If ******* and someone like Henry, the human nostril, ever attained the Executive, its frightening.

Henry Waxman just makes me
:barf::barf: :barf: :barf:

[Mark Tyson]

They're not imprisoned for saying nasty things about the government, and they weren't captured in the US. They were captured while waging war against the military. There's a world of difference there.

How is the constitution being destroyed? We've been waging undeclared wars for all of our 200+ year history. Would you rather they do declare war, so that we can be under a state of war until the surrender of Al Qaeda, which we all know will never happen?

[Master Blaster]

They're not imprisoned for saying nasty things about the government, and they weren't captured in the US.

Except for Jose Padilla who is a US citizen and was captured in the US.

He was arrested for discussing a dirty bomb and having $25,000 in cash.

He is the only one we know about.

The constitution is not a fair weather document, its supposed to protect us in the most difficult times, Its supposed to protect the least popular speach. What is easy and popular does not need protecting

[Bruce H]

I agree absolutely. Served up with grits and mustard greens.

[Pebcac]

Oh really? How many US citizens are imprisoned at Gitmo?

What's that got to do with the fact that we have, in fact, altered our society based on 9/11's terrorist action?

What part of "All men are created equal" means "unless you're not American?"

If these guys are enemy combatants, then they get POW status as we agreed at Geneva. It doesn't matter whether their country signed or not; we did. We said, "This is how we think civilized nations behave in a state of war. This is how we'll behave." When we don't do that, we betray all that we as a nation purport to believe.

If they're criminals, try them in the court system, and do what the law allows after conviction. If they're POWs, give them trials according to the UCMJ and do whatever the courts martial decide. My problem isn't the incarceration, it's the lack of clear justification for continued incarceration based in law. Try them, convict them, and sentence them. If that sentence is life in prison, fine. That's how it works in the USA.

Or, since we now have a friendly government in Afghanistan, send them back to have their day in an Afghan court, after which they can say their prayers before going to meet Allah.

[rock jock]

What part of "All men are created equal" means "unless you're not American?"
Being an American affords you certain legal privileges. Legal representation is not a human right, it is a legal right.

[Pebcac]

Those legal "privileges" are resultant of the Founders' ideas of basic human rights, hence their inclusion in the Bill of Rights. These were things that were deemed unalienable, the right of a human being by birth, not by birth in the USA.

[Mark Tyson]

Except for Jose Padilla who is a US citizen and was captured in the US.

We're talking about the Guantanamo prisoners. Padilla is a seperate issue. There are US citizens in Cuba but they were all captured fighting overseas.

There is no point in trials. There is nothing to charge them with, unless they are guilty of war crimes. Engaging in war is not a crime. Maybe the few US citizens could be charged with treason.

And if you are a member of a group that does not abide by the laws of war, you are not entitled to POW status. You are still a "protected person" under the laws of war, but there are certain things you are not entitled to.

[Cosmoline]

If the folks are terrorists, we darn sure have laws against their actions and either we can punish them or an ally state can do it.

If the folks were just Talib soldiers with no evidence of being involved in terrorism, they need to be sent back home.

There is no justification for this perpetual imprisonment. Particularly where the entity doing the holding--the US Federal gov'ment--is next to the UN the least trustworthy entity on the planet.

[Mark Tyson]

I believe the Taliban soldiers were already released quite some time ago, and the remaining prisoners are all Al Qaeda.

[Ian]

rock jock - Liberty IS a basic and universal human right, not a legal construct. And holding people indefinitely in a prison camp is most assuredly a violation of that right.

If they're criminals, try them. If they're from a war zone, declare war. Otherwise let them go.

[longeyes]

Gitmo decision = take no prisoners.

I wonder if that's what Reinhardt intended.

[rock jock]

rock jock - Liberty IS a basic and universal human right, not a legal construct. And holding people indefinitely in a prison camp is most assuredly a violation of that right.
These poeple gave up their right to liberty when they decided to fight with the likes of the Taliban and al Queda.

Those legal "privileges" are resultant of the Founders' ideas of basic human rights, hence their inclusion in the Bill of Rights. These were things that were deemed unalienable, the right of a human being by birth, not by birth in the USA.
The Constitution is first and foremost a legal document, not a philisophical treatise. As a legal document, it only extends to the jurisdiction of the United States. It does, for example, do a dang thing to protect the rights of foreign nationals.

[longeyes]

Those legal "privileges" are resultant of the Founders' ideas of basic human rights,
hence their inclusion in the Bill of Rights. These were things that were deemed
unalienable, the right of a human being by birth, not by birth in the USA.


--------------------------------

How is that libertarians end up as global socialists? Perfect one country at a time, please. You've got your hands full hanging on to this one in case you haven't noticed.

[Chris Rhines]

How is that libertarians end up as global socialists? Wow. Express your opposition to undeclared wars, imprisonment without due process, and the perversion of individual liberty, and all of the sudden you're right up there with Marx and Engels.

Now Marx and Engels, and the other luminaries of the Socialist movement, are on record as being in favor of the violent expansion of the socialist political system, imprisonment based on whim, and collective rather than universal liberty. Among other things.

It seems to me that the Neoconservative movement has more in common with the Socialists than they'd like to admit... ;)

- Chris

[longeyes]

Chris Rhines:

My point was that, like it or not, our Constitutional protections are culture-bound. They do not apply, legally, to everyone on earth. And, frankly, there are a lot of people on this planet who may not WANT our values, rights, and protections, hard as that may be for many here to swallow.

When we get to the point where foreign national combatants, arrested on foreign soil, are equated with Americian citizens in terms of rights, privileges, and entitlements, we have drifted into the absurd, not to mention the impractical and even the arrogant.

[Ian]

They don't have to be equated with US citizens if you don't want. Make 'em POWs. The problem is that they are being considered non-entities who can be locked in a box forever. Since this is theoretically a nation of laws, due process of SOME sort needs to be exercised.

[longeyes]

Let wartime military law apply. My beef is trying them as criminals, in parity with American citizens. We start doing that, we can forget about winning this struggle. If Bush needs to formally declare war, let him find some sophisto to draft the document with the right language.

[Waitone]

Ain't no way the president will ask for and congress will vote for a declaration of war. To many absolutes, shuts off to many avenues of escape, demands too much accountabillity.

Resolution to the status of various detainees will have to be fought out between the branches of govenment.

[SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDI]

The rules of war require that combatants wear a military uniform. Anyone caught fighting in civilian clothes may be presumed to be a spy and can be shot. This is exactly what should have been done to all the inmates at Gitmo.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

The "prisoners at Gitmo are "enemy combatants." This term did not develop in a vaccum. In order to be a prisoner of war (POW) one must wear a uniform or fly a flag of a nation-state. These Al Qaeda killers did neither.

Enemy combatants which are not beholden to a nation-state presents a new quandary for the POTUS. Clearly these persons are not citizens, nor POWs. They have no flag and can be returned to no specific country. They were fighting US troops in Afghanistan, but are Yemeni or Saudi. They may be promising the take up the jihad after their release. They may be doing this daily.

The Constitution does not protect the rights of non-citizens. We already see erosion on this front regarding illegal immigrants. We can not apply our civilian laws to foreigners who, by definition, are not here legally. If this continues, the US will cease to exist since any person or entity can get the same treatment regardless of allegiance. ALLEGIANCE: that is the reason why citizens are afforded rights and legal standing.

Al Qaeda combatants belong to no discernable military chain of command. Al Qaeda has signed no ceasefires or treaties. Al Qaeda leadership has not asked for the return of the combatants. WHat do you propose we do with them? They have broken no US civilian laws. And as Mark stated: there is no end to hostilities, so we can not just let them go.

There is a group of people that screech and holler about inconsequential things, I believe, just to hear themselves. Does the storage at Gitmo affect your rights? NO. Will a released Gitmo detainee setting off a dirty bomb in your town affect your rights? YES. POTUS has decided that we will hold on to them just in case.

[roscoe]

The Constitution does not protect the rights of non-citizens. We already see erosion on this front regarding illegal immigrants.

You got it backwards. The fact that the Bill of Rights does extend to them means the founders regarded it as an expression of universal human rights, not mere chance of birth. The courts have got that one right.

The rules of war require that combatants wear a military uniform. Anyone caught fighting in civilian clothes may be presumed to be a spy and can be shot.

Maybe we should have airdropped them some uniforms; they certainly couldn't afford to buy them. Spies? That is just silly - they were just dirt-poor soldiers (unpleasant and crazed though they may have been).

How many of the soldiers in the Continental Army were without proper uniforms?

It seems clear enough; if we are going to hold them they are POWs, whether we like it or not. Bush et al. made up 'enemy combatants' out of whole cloth, just like he is trying an end run around the constitution by claiming there is no federal court jurisdiction over Guantanamo. It seems to me that this is exactly the type of situation that the Bill of Rights was written up to deal with - gross overextension of federal power.

[DigitalWarrior]

Here is the only question that matters in this case: Do you trust the government to act fairly when there is no means for The People to observe it?

Facts:
We do not know how many Americans are in GitMo, because we do not know all of the people in GitMo.

Some people, to include American citizens, are wholley committed to the destruction of the current incarnation of "The United States of America".

Some members of the gun culture complain that the Judicial branch does not stand up to the Legislative branch. Some members also complain that the Judicial branch is standing up to the Executive branch.

On September 11, 2001 terrorist executed a plan that they hoped would result in the end of the United States. Today, there is an American citizen who has been detained for 18 months without charges or trail.

Moral Questions:
Are we to assume that the average under funded Taliban foot-soldiers were as well informed of the Geneva convention as the professional soldiers in this country? If the answer is no, is it right to shoot a person for not knowing it? Who determines whether they knew it anyway?

Is a man who is ready to shoot government officials, because he has a ridiculous and radical interpretation of the Second Amendment a terrorist? I would like to believe that he is a criminal.

If there are a dozen men who are ready to shoot government officials, because they have a ridiculous and radical interpretation of the Second Amendment, are they terrorists?

Is Thunder Ranch a training camp for terrorists? What if some well-known terrorists begin outsourcing their training in an effort to become more cost-efficient in the new economy?

What rights does an American Terrorist have?

Opinion worth what you paid for it

48 hours after capture a prisoner should be designated as either a Prisoner Of War, a Spy, or Criminal. 96 hours after designation the existance and status of the prisoner should be made available to the public. It would allow time for an interrogation to assign class, then to exploit the prisoners contacts to gather intel or spread disinfo.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Roscoe,

I am no legal scholar. I just performed a small exercise with an easily read document. I find no instance wherein that "any person of the world" is afforded any rights in the US, let alone outside the US.

Preamble below

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I guess you think "we the people" is anybody who happens to be here, or there, or anywhere. To whom do these "other people" owe allegiance?

"Article. IV.

Section. 2.

Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. "

Here we have "Citizens of the United States" with, uh-oh, immunities and priveldeges. I do not see anything about non-citizens.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

For the Gitmo boys, I see only a right for people (citizens) to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred. Non-Americans engaged in combat in Afghanistan is not a criminal matter.

It seems clear enough; if we are going to hold them they are POWs, whether we like it or not. Bush et al. made up 'enemy combatants' out of whole cloth, just like he is trying an end run around the constitution by claiming there is no federal court jurisdiction over Guantanamo. It seems to me that this is exactly the type of situation that the Bill of Rights was written up to deal with - gross overextension of federal power.

The US Constitution does not convey any rights or priveledges to non-citizens. Misguided "living document" revisionists have "read" this crap into case law. Gitmo is not in the US. The combatants operate under no uniform or flag. If anyone is end-running the US Constitution, it is you by expanding US Law to include non-citizen enemy combatants.

[DigitalWarrior]

I think that the detainees in GitMo have no rights that we are legally obligated to respect.

I still do not trust the beurocrats to act correctly without supervision.

I also do not believe that it is in our national best interests to ignore the God-given rights of those in other nations.

[StuporDave]

I'm finding it really difficult lately to give a crap what the 9th circus says. What I find amazing is that these "judges" don't realize just how rediculous thier descisions are.

Dave

[longeyes]

You think Stephen Reinhardt, 9CC honcho, doesn't realize where his decisions are taking us? The goal has been disintegration of the traditional national fabric piece by piece by piece. We are being rent asunder as a people, as a nation. Now we are being told, de facto, we cannot fight for our own survival. No, these judges know exactly what they are cooking.

[SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDI]

Maybe we should have airdropped them some uniforms; they certainly couldn't afford to buy them. Spies? That is just silly - they were just dirt-poor soldiers (unpleasant and crazed though they may have been).

Wrong- your sympathy is grossly misplaced - they are not just dirt-poor soldiers- they are the enemy, who do not adhere to the rules of war, and who have deliberately killed innocent women and children. Indeed, maybe we should have airdropped them, period. Without a parachute. I'd gladly volunteer to give them a push.

[rock jock]

Well stated, 7.62FMJ.

[Russ]

There will probably be alot of pressure for the whole 9th to rule. Decisions by Reinhardt, who has to be the most reversed judge in history and the most left leaning, make the rest of the court look stupider then they are. To give non-citizens in a foreign country the rights of a US citizen is ridiculous. Guantanamo is property leased from Cuba and is still part of Cuba. Give them a cardboard boat and let them make an escape attempt. It will give the Coast Guard some training in body recovery.

[I'mSpartacus!]

Wonder which members of the 9th. Howard Dean would consider elevating to the Supreme Court if he gets elected.