Guantánamo Bay Detainees to be givin the rights of the U.S. Constitution.

**Rooster050** · 06-13-08, 06:35 AM

Some of you may have heard yesterday that the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of, detainees at Guantánamo Bay are to be giving the chance to challenge their imprisonment, in federal court. This is a huge news to me. Before yesterday, the detainees were pretty much screwed. With only a military tribunal, if even that.... (I'm actually not quite sure) the detainees were to be imprisoned indefinably with no court hearing to prove their guilt of the specific crime, (most likely terrorism related). So, this means that the terrorists who were labeled "responsible" for the attacks of 9/11, will have the opportunity to a fair and swift trial under United States law.
One thing is for sure, If they decide to challenge their imprisonment, I hope the Media covers it.

So the question, Fair or Unfair?

Do you feel we should be able to imprison suspected terrorists just out of suspicion?

Or, should we give them the same rights that all of us share as United States citizens?

One thing is for sure, If the terrorists decide to challenge their imprisonment, I hope the Media covers it. Infact, I hope the terrorists challenge it. What possible bad could come out of letting someone plead their case? This is a outstanding act by our Government. Finally, sending the message of Democracy! Something that we have lacked for quite some time in my opinion.

The supreme beings of the land have decided. How about you?

read about it here

and a video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRKfFzssnYU

Please keep it civilized. No name calling or bashing of religions.

**Muqtar SGT_Clintok** · 06-13-08, 07:12 AM

For a long time I supported having them down there with nothing, but as time goes, I support them being able to challenge their imprisonment BY PROXY.

Let them fight their case. If they find someone who shouldn't be there, so be it. There have been multiple cases where people have been released and then gone back to the battlefield and died fighting us troops. There have been allegations that confinement has been used to settle disputes among afghans. Ihave not seen one case documented, but there have been suggestions.

Two issues, we learned from the liberals in 2000, that 5-4 supreme courts decisions don't mean anything, and are illegitimate.Or is a 5-4 decision only relevant when you support the verdict?

Second thing in my mind is that none of these guys found guilty should be executed. Sentence them all to mandatory life in solitary confinement. The anti-martyr.

A read the ruling to say they can only challenge their confinement. If their confinement is ruled legal, they will still face a military tribunal, so I don't believe that we will see KSM sitting up in a courtroom with some filthy lawyer talkin about 'if the glove don't fit, you must aquit'.

**WorstPE** · 06-13-08, 07:47 AM

I am out right upset about this. We might as well give all the illegal mexicans rights American rights too! Why not?

Why do you want the media to cover this? I see no good coming out of this. NONE at all. All the left wing media will bash the fuck out of government, our troops and America itself. So if you can state why it would be good to have the media cover it. Please tell me.

On a side note. I saw this on the news yesterday during our other big debate and decided not to post it then. Because I already saw how that was going and I have a feeling this is going the same way.

**ic0n** · 06-13-08, 08:08 AM

I really wonder how they are going to do trials. It just seems odd to me. If they are being tried in an American court under our laws then theres no way that the evidence against some of them is going to stand. I know for a fact that this is not because there isn't evidence, but that the methods of getting it are illegal in the US (and methods of collecting it cant be shared publicly) but legal in Iraq. I'm not saying they shouldn't have a chance to defend themselves, but are we going to make exceptions to our laws?
A lot of the things that protect an Americans rights in court are amendments to our constitution. For example the fourth amendment protects us against unlawful search and seizure, the sixth which grants (among other things)the right to a speedy and public trial or the 8th which protects from cruel and unusually punishments and excessive bail or fines. Iraqis don't have these rights because they are not American citizens, but our courts revolve around them. Again I'm not saying they shouldn't have a trial or have the right to defend themselves but it would be a huge mistake not to allow this evidence to be used against them.

**Muqtar SGT_Clintok** · 06-13-08, 11:50 AM

Worstpe, I have news for you, illegals do get our civl rights, its been that way.

Icon, it all goes back to the liberal concept of trying to fight a war through the constraints of the civil/criminal justice architecture setup for crimes such as robbery or murder.

**AttackRabbit** · 06-13-08, 12:09 PM

I think this is good because it lends some credibility to our detention of these guys. Before, we just took them and that was that (holding people for years with no charges filed and no mechanism for defending themselves). Now they have an opportunity to challenge their detention, so we can prove that we need to hold them.
Anybody who considers themselves a Republican should be terrified by the suspension of habeas corpus as it's an enormous expansion of Federal powers.

**millwalljames** · 06-13-08, 12:21 PM

As an Englishman I have lived in America now for two short months.
Living in a new country with a new people has some differences. However I find that what has upset or caused debate in England has found its way to America.
Before I left to live in America with my wife the muslims that had been delt with within the legal system of my country had began to challenge the court rulings. The reasoning behind there confinment without trail in some cases. They have in some cases won. All that has happened is the British government has saught to bring in new laws.
We have over the years in England delt with terrorism. For many years infact. I was part of her majesties armed forces and know enough of there tactics.
Being imprisoned is not the end of there fight. Challenging the system that controls there freedom is part of there fight. Infact they are openly encouraged to challenge the system by the twisted minds of there mentors. To disrupt. To cause as many dollars as possible in there captivity and of course to try to bend a system to there leaning. To gain freedom. To fight again.
In a society that harks to the freedoms and rights of the individual this is quite easy for the muslims to take advantage. To gain sympathy. Its the very freedoms that we enjoy that they want to take advantage of and destroy.
When the iranians siezed an embassy in London our then prime minister Margeret Thatcher ordered it to be taken back by force. Her orders to the SAS at the time was " I want no trials". They shot all but one........and he was lucky. He Got mixed up with the hostages.
millwalljames

**dex71** · 06-13-08, 01:33 PM

The Reagan/Thatcher team kicked ass! :9

**Muqtar SGT_Clintok** · 06-13-08, 01:50 PM

Excellent perspective Millwall. Well put, and I am aware of the tactic.

Continue the fight through whatever means possible to inflict any damage they can, in this case financial.

**MotoZ** · 06-13-08, 02:31 PM

There are several issues at play here and ic0n spotted them. Those issues are 1) access to evidence and 2) access to appeal.

You people can read as well as I can. Below is the official opinion.

Would you feel comfortable being unbanned from U.S.A. under this ruling from some U.S.A. High Admins? Go TTP on this stuff. Flex your muscles.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinio...df/06-1195.pdf