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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jeff White

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
37,976
Location
Alma Illinois
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."
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
I'm with Cosmoline here.

Not that "full protection of the Constitution" means all that much today, though.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 Hitlery and someone like Henry, the human nostril, ever attained the Executive, its frightening.

Henry Waxman just makes me
:barf::barf: :barf: :barf:
 
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?
 
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top