Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire SC Rules Guantanimo Prisoners Can Challenge Their Detentions In US Courts

OK, here's the link to the whole opinion....the court's opinion, a concurrence, and the dissents.

You can save yourself a lot of time by going straight to page 111, where Scalia, as usual knocks it out of the park.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/06-1195.pdf

Les, your point is well taken they are not POWs in our sense of the word and by our definitions therein. But in their view they are bona-fide combatants and this ruling can be used against our own men if they are captured. I guess it's a moot point though, as every time our guys are captured, all we get back are mutilated body parts. And we want to give these "people" rights? TRH, I guess we just have a fundamental disagreement and we'll let it go at that. jorge

Hawk, the distinction you don't seem to grasp is between agreeing, and acknowleding its binding. I do the latter, but not the former.

BTW this opinion is a radical break with existing law, as Justice Scalia sets out in plain English. This is just more liberal judicial legislation.....

Not everyone held at Gitmo was captured "on the field of battle" or even in Iraq orAfghanistain. More than one was arrested by a foreign government and handed over. Food for thought.

You are dead on Jorge, I'm done, they just don't get it. Les

And, once again, I agree they are not POWs. That's the point. The ruling didn't touch on the issue of the handling of POWs. Only on the handling of all others held by officials of the United States.

Yeah, I'd kill them out of hand on the battlefield. You guys are among the stupidest characters I've ever seen. Yu take all the prisoners you want. Kiss their rosy butts as much as you like. Employ all the lawyers you want..up until they are sawing your head off with a gutting knife. I don't give a ratz azz whether someone thinks I am better than the enemy. I give a ratz azz that the enemy is dead and I am not. These scum will never reciprocate good treatment. Never have,never will. Send the FBI to arrest the scum. Send the BATF to arrest them. It don't matter to me if they all get KIA, which they will. By the way, DOES THIS MEAN US SOLDIERS WILL HAVE TO RECOVER EVIDENCE AND CONDUCT INTERVIEWS ON THE BATTLEFIELD?? Get real. You guys live in a protected bubble.

Exactly ET. Les

JorgeI said:
Your logic is AFU and is this instance so is the Supreme Court. Never before in the history of warfare have we had to "Mirandize" POWs. What utter nonsense.


RickyD said:
Actually, the trials should be very entertaining and illuminating at what the idiots on the SC are forcing tax dollars for.

I'll say it again expecting to get flamed; Miranda and the mindset that follows it is a jobs program for under or un-employeed attorneys. Many of you will say it's a point of law. That's fine! This is my take on it. kwg

No, Steve. We've had many a debate where you insisted on ignoring what the Founders said regarding the proper interpretation of the Constitution in favor of what the Supreme Court ruled. You've insisted untold times that whatever the Supreme Court rules IS BY DEFINITION WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS. On this we disagree, but the current ruling is correct precisely BECAUSE it accords with the plain meaning and original intent of the US Constitution.

Hawk, so by your rationale, I'm better off shucking my uniform, throwing away my dog tags, and becoming an illegal combatant, who can now require the US, in addition to providing three squares, air conditioning, prayer rugs, Korans, volleyball courts, etc....to provide me a free lawyer to pursue my habeus rights in a civil court. Are we going to use the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, too. Do we have to bring the soldiers back from the battlefield like cops under subpoenas to say "Yes, that's Mohammed, I captured him outside Kandahar four years ago with an RPG".....and then we can get into his specific intent to use it and his deprived childhood.

I mean, Christ, fellows, get real.

Hell Steve, Hawk and company don't even care to admit or even address the fact that their beloved Geneva Conventions specifically classify El Qaida types as UNPROTECTED ILLEGAL combatants who may be killed out of hand upon capture lawfully.

If you're guilty, and the government can prove it, you are not much if any better off. If innocent, you are. All who are accused of wrongdoing by our government are presumed innocent by our court system. That's how I like it, thank you very much.

The ruling merely increased an already exhorbitant cost, that's all. It will have no practical affect other than that.

The Justices who concurred obviously demonstrate the necessity of paying attention to the candidate who gets to nominate the next 2-3 Justices.

The news headline and quick news blurb made it seem so much more sigificant than it really is.

The prisoners get a crack at another courthouse, that's all. The 4 liberal judges did what was expected. Kennedy's erratic but predictable swing vote made things more complicated, expensive and,.... that's about it.

So now we let Euro types tell us Americans how to handle those accused of wrongdoing? No thanks. I prefer the good old US Constitution.

This is fantasyland. Soldiers now part of the criminal justice system. I think it will result in fewer tangoes ever making it to a prisoner cage.

GOOD!!!!

Wish I could stay and play some more, fellas, but have to go. If any of you start to think I'm wrong and you're right, just go back and re-read my previous posts. That will set you straight. Have fun.

Another way of looking at it is they must be getting ready to unload a doozie of a 2nd Amendment ruling!!

You couldn't set a ruler straight Hawk,not on this.