High Court Urged to Take Guantanamo Case

[KC]

High Court Urged to Take Guantanamo Case
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 12:39 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court was asked Tuesday to consider whether the Bush administration has violated the Constitution by holding 660 terrorist suspects in Cuba without charges or
access to attorneys.

The appeal was being filed on behalf of some detainees at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, and their families.


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Scotus-Guantanamo.html

[gratuitous]

1. Well that's silly!

Why should flesh-and-blood human beings have rights equal to or greater than the ballots of the State of Florida? I mean, you start granting equal protection and due process rights to people, where will it all end? I'm sure Congress never intended the rights of the U.S. Code to be extended to actual persons who have been denied those rights, and the founding fathers' original intent could not possibly have extended to persons being held at Gitmo, because it wasn't part of the United States at the time the Bill of Rights was passed!

[benfranklin1776]

2. Hot damn.....Antwitnon Scalia is looking for a law clerk

who shares those views. You have written an excellent appication letter! Sadly, though you were being sarcastic, that is precisely the alleged "reasoning" that he and Thomas and Rehnquist would use in their opinion upholding the detentions.

[jiacinto]

3. This is one area where I don't understand some people

It's as if these people matter more than victims of terrorism. And that is something I just can't get past.

[BeFree]

4. You would deny Justice to these humans?

I can't believe anyone would suggest that these individuals be denied a bit of Justice. Read yer Pledge, Carlos, at the end does it not say "...with truth and Justice for all." You are actively denying the Pledge of Allegiance. Wow.

On edit: Or does it say "....with liberty and Justice for all"? Can't remember....what diff does it make....Carlos would deny these humans a bit of Liberty, even.

[StandWatie]

5. you either believe humans have inalienable rights or they don't

It doesn't matter to me one whit if they ate a townful of babies, either you are assumed innocent until proven guilty or you have a government lynch mob.

[gratuitous]

6. So we should pick and choose who is "entitled"?

Who should be entitled to the protection of the law? And on what basis? Because someone says a person is a "terrorist"? What proof does that someone have to produce to back up their statement? Why do you think that guaranteeing those protections means that the accused person "matters more than the victims of terrorism"?

If the protection of the law isn't extended to everyone, then those protections may be denied anyone, including John Walker Lindh and Mike Hawash. Maybe even people named Carlos will be denied their rights under the Constitution and the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

[benfranklin1776]

9. Here Here. I couldn't agree more.

Your defense of due process was most eloquent and most pointed.
The gentleman approaches the issue from a manifestly false assumption, namely that by protecting the fundamental right of every human to not be arbitrarily and capriciously deprived of their life and liberty, one is somehow denigrating the victims of terrorism.

To the contrary we would be grossly dishonoring the victims of terrorism by allowing this administration to abandon this country's most basic and fundamental committment to the protection of individual rights and the rule of law, and to replace it with a system in which detentions of individuals can be done merely on the word of the chief executive alone, with no evidence and no need to prove the guilt of the individual in a fair legal proceeding. Handing such a victory to terrorists would mean that they had accomplished what legions of this country's former enemies could not achieve, which is the transformation of our country from a free society into a banana republic ruled by a tinhorn despot.

These individuals still being held at Guantanamo are at this time merely accused of being terrorists, nothing more. No formal legal proceeding has been held which would force the government to justify these individuals continued detention. Indeed some of the prisioners have already been released since it was clear even to myopic misanthropes like Rumsfeld that they never should have been detained in the first place. Blithely accepting Bush and Cheney's denial to these detained individuals the basic human right to have the government justify their continued captivity is to accept the right of the government to simply accuse someone of being a terrorist, or a common criminal even, and then strip them of all legal protections on the basis of the accusation alone.

Although Mr. Bush may still be convinced that everyone there is guilty as he has stated publicly, that does not cut it under the constitution nor should it. If the word of the President alone is enough to hold someone indefinitely for their natural life without trial, then, plainly and simply, we have been reduced to the level of a dictatorship and we can be sure that the same egregious abuses which have historically come from unchecked power vested in one individual will be visited upon us in the future.

[mike_c]

7. you might try looking up the term "inalienable...."

[bvar22]

8. Once again, J, you throw in a red herring.

No one here has EVER SAID that the rights of the human beings held in Gitmo are more important than the victims of terrorism.

The argument here is that the usurpers have denied certain inalienable HUMAN RIGHTS to the human beings they are holding in Gitmo. Please stay on track.

[jiacinto]

10. It's just hard for me

I see little concern for victims here, but rather for the people at Gitmo. And frankly I won't be out there screaming for their rights.

[NYC]

11. Who will protect YOUR rights?

ALL of us are entitled to rights. ALL of us are entitled to fair trials. If you want to exempt some people, perhaps there will come a time when someone wants to exempt YOU.

If they are guilty, they will be found guilty. First the trial, THEN the conviction. Not the other way around.

[lumpy]

12. If the intent is to be playing 'devils advocate'

it fails to pass the test.

[Heddi]

13. Carlos, I'm sure you've read this before....

Perhaps you should read it again, then read your statement, then read this again, and then read your statement, and think about what you've said (repeatedly), and the message that this is trying to get across....

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

[rooboy]

15. Your lack of concern for principles...

spells out perfectly why the US can't get anyone to cover its ass in Iraq.

[kamtsa]

16. It depends ...

If they are guilty or not.

This is exactly why we need a proper legal process to determine if they are guilty or not.

[psychopomp]

14. kick

n/t