33 Comments

• 1. James Beam  |  June 14th, 2008 at 2:00 pm

  I would think that anybody that believes in the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers would agree with the opinion, and that any person that does not agree is not a patriot and does not believe in American values.

• 2. William Teach  |  June 14th, 2008 at 2:25 pm

  Hmm, let me check my dog eared copy of the Constitution…….nope, can’t find anything about American Rights applying to people who are not Americans.

  I did find something about treaties, though, which would apply to the Geneva Convention, which specifies that what is being done to the Club Gitmo vacationers is completely in accordance with the GC.

  Hell, since they were wearing no uniforms, we could have summarily executed them, per the GC.

  The funny thing is, if it had been President Gore, most of the Left would have had no prob with what is being done at Gitmo. It is simply BDS that leads liberals to decry sleep deprivation, barking dogs, panties on the head, and Cristina Aguilara music as torture.

• 3. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J.  |  June 14th, 2008 at 2:28 pm

  I stand with the majority and with the Constitution which while it is not a suicide pact is not meant to only apply when the United States is not under real or politically created threat.

• 4. Mark Noonan  |  June 14th, 2008 at 3:40 pm

  James Beam,

  You’d have a case if anything was going on entirely outside the scope of the US Constitution - in other words, if there were a violation of the US Constitution at issue. There isn’t - the ruling is a judicial usurpation of powers properly belonging to the Executive and Legislative branches of government. The Supreme Court’s writ is not universal - they really don’t have the Constitutional authority to stick their nose in to every action of government. The captives at Gitmo are not Americans, not on American soil, not subject to American law, are captured irregular combatants liable for drumhead court martial and execution if we so choose and are very dangerous men which fall under those provisions in the Constitution where necessity requires extraordinary action.

  Its not so much that the decision was wrong, but that it was rendered at all - the Court is not competant to decide this case.

• 5. Casper  |  June 14th, 2008 at 4:50 pm

  From the Federist # 84
  “[T]he practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious Blackstone . . . are well worthy of recital: ‘To bereave a man of life. . . or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.”‘

  Many on this blog have argued or implied, that America and Americans are better than our enemies.
  I would agree. But I would also argue that what makes us better is that we are a nation of laws. How we treat people counts. It’s hypocritical to complain about the injustices of Muslim countries using Sharia law when our government his holding people from other countries in prison without giving them a trial of some kind. We should have tried these people years ago, then depending on the results, shot them, imprisoned them or freed them. Think of the governments from the past and today that toss people in prison without any recourse. Is that a list we want to be on?

• 6. Doug  |  June 14th, 2008 at 4:52 pm

  I haven’t read much about the case but if the US still is on a long-term lease with Cuba for the base, then it would be pretty obvious they would fall under habeas corpus requirements, even if the detainees were not American. Also, it would seem that if the land itself was not under control by the U.S. and the detainees were American under arrest by US Military, then habeas corpus would also apply.

  Now, if the land is not under control by the U.S. and the detainees were not arrested in the U.S. and are not U.S. citizens then their rights are limited in scope and probably the most appropriate decider of rights would be Cuba’s court system.

  Additionally, as is with most cases that reach the Supremes, this one likely has reasons to have been punted back down to the Appeals Court, I can’t imagine the Supreme’s making a ruling like this on an issue that wasn’t even before them.

  So, in essence Bush is correct, he disagrees with the ruling but will abide by it. Every last Senator and Congressmen, Republican or Democrat, can at most say that. If they don’t abide by the ruling then they are breaking their oath, but certainly there is much in there to disagree with. It will be a ruling that doesn’t stand for very long.

• 7. bongoman  |  June 14th, 2008 at 5:24 pm

  What’s it matter anyway? Just move them to the floating prisons we’re running off Diego Garcia and noone will be any the wiser.

• 8. Evergreen  |  June 14th, 2008 at 6:44 pm

  I stand with the 5-4 majority ruling in the belief the U.S. Constitution is the last great hope for mankind. Its cornerstone is equal justice for all and you are innocent until proven guilty. Put them on trial or let them go. Americans holding another human being without chance of a trial is tyranny.

  Cons, don’t lose faith in history. The only thing you have to fear is fear itself.

• 9. William Teach  |  June 14th, 2008 at 8:52 pm

  I stand with the Constitution, and the fact that it applies to American citizens and those applying for citizenship, and it is extended to those who visit our country peacefully.

• 10. Evergreen  |  June 14th, 2008 at 9:48 pm

  If I had to make a bet, I am certain records show McCain was for this type of ruling and is now against it. At least he is consistent in his pandering to the cons.

• 11. Rana Quijotesca  |  June 14th, 2008 at 10:36 pm

  I agree with the decision… I think that the best way to show that we are better than our opponents is to be better than our opponents. There are some simple reasons for this (though my specific research was done with the FARC in Columbia, other terrorist groups such as AQ use similar tactics)–most of the revolving around things such as forced recruitment and just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Am I saying that everyone in Gitmo is innocent? No. Am I saying that there are probably some people in Gitmo that are innocent? Yes. People are flawed and make mistakes, that extends to the military and its commanders. Allowing the US Judicial system to determine whether or not we should be holding individual prisoners (by virtue of letting them challenge their imprisonment) not only ensures that we don’t have innocent people in the lock-up, it also ensures that we won’t be paying for those people’s imprisonment (gotta love saving money). If they are there for a good reason, then the courts will make them stay–if you are right, you have nothing to fear…

• 12. James Beam  |  June 14th, 2008 at 11:03 pm

  Mark, you wrote “The captives at Gitmo are not Americans, not on American soil, not subject to American law…” The paragraph below covers that argument. I already read the entire decision.

  Even when the United States acts outside its borders, its powers are not “absolute and unlimited” but are subject “to such restrictions as are expressed in the Constitution.” Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U. S. 15, 44 (1885). Abstaining from questions involving formal sovereignty and territorial governance is one thing. To hold the political branches have the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will is quite another. The former position reflects this Court’s recognition that certain matters requiring political judgments are best left to the political branches. The latter would permit a striking anomaly in our tripartite system of government, leading to a regime in which Congress and the President, not this Court, say “what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803).

• 13. Casper  |  June 14th, 2008 at 11:23 pm

  John Adams chose to defend the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre. George Washington was adamant that captured British and Hessian soldiers be treated with respect. All of which happened before there was a United States. I believe both would cheer this decision.

• 14. Rich  |  June 14th, 2008 at 11:56 pm

  Casper- I believe the British soldiers were wearing uniforms and acting under authority of a nation state. These turs at Guantamo weren’t. Big difference. Thirty prisoners rerleased from Guantanamo were later back on the battlefield, what do you libs say about that?

• 15. The Watcher  |  June 15th, 2008 at 12:02 am

  Mark wrote: The captives at Gitmo are not Americans, not on American soil…

  So, by this logic, John McCain has no right to be President, as he’s not “a natural born citizen.”

• 16. Casper  |  June 15th, 2008 at 12:05 am

  Rich,
  There was no United States, nor was there a Constitution at this time, yet both Adams and Washington took the high road. What’s wrong with us doing that now. As for the thirty prisoners that returned to the battlefield, do you have some proof about that?

• 17. James Beam  |  June 15th, 2008 at 1:35 am

  Rich:

  The reason 90% of the people in Gitmo were not in uniforms was because they are innocent. They were kidnapped and sold for bounty to the Americans.

  Even after the American’s realized they were not terrorists, they could not let them go because Bush had already put it on record that the guys in Gitmo were the worst of the worst. He would be eating crow if he admitted 90% were just shepherds, farmers, pilgrims, students and merchants (and one reporter).

• 18. bongoman  |  June 15th, 2008 at 6:17 am

  What James ^ said.

  How do we know they are enemy combatants? Where does the Constitution say habeas corpus is only for citizens?

  Habeas corpus is not an individual right - it prescribes what governments can and can’t do. It is more about government power than individual rights.

  I reckon if I’d been imprisoned in Gitmo and released, I’d probably be back on the battle field too.

• 19. neocon  |  June 15th, 2008 at 8:40 am

  “I reckon if I’d been imprisoned in Gitmo and released, I’d probably be back on the battle field too.” - bongo

  So you do have empathy for people that oppress, behead, and impose theocracy.

  Good to know. I have always believed you did, but to come right out and say it, takes some cajones.

  Good luck with that theocratical oppression thing.

• 20. Magnum Serpentine  |  June 15th, 2008 at 9:54 am

  I support the Supreme Courts decision. Would had loved to seen the Chief Justice explode because george did not get his way on this one.

• 21. FmrMarine  |  June 15th, 2008 at 11:33 am

  bong man;

  >>>How do we know they are enemy combatants? <<<

  There is an easy fix……take NO prisoners!
  We would know they are ENEMY combatants by prying their DEAD fingers off that silly little ole AK-47 or RPG launcher.

• 22. 42  |  June 15th, 2008 at 2:45 pm

  “We would know they are ENEMY combatants by prying their DEAD fingers off that silly little ole AK-47 or RPG launcher.”

  So if they’re caught just having a bite to eat they’re off the hook since they’re not holding a silly little ole (sp) (what the hell does a Mexican cheer have to do with this?) AK-47 or RPG launcher?

• 23. heyhey  |  June 15th, 2008 at 4:32 pm

  McFlipFlop in 2008

  ” John McCain weighed in on the U.S. Supreme Court decision on the rights of Guantanamo Bay prisoners to challenge their detention in U.S. courts at a town hall meeting Friday, calling the 5-4 decision “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”

  McCain said he that while he has been a vocal opponent of torture and advocated closing Guantanamo, he does not believe prisoners deserve the same rights as U.S. citizens.

  “These are enemy combatants, these are people who are not citizens, they are not and never have been given the rights that the citizens of this country have,” he said. “Our first obligation is the safety and security of this nation and the men and women who defend it.”

  McFlip Flop in 2003

  “The treatment of the detainees is not an issue. However, a serious concern arises over the disposition of the detainees - a considerable number of whom have been held for two years.

  Yet, we firmly believe it is now time to make a decision on how the United States will move forward regarding the detainees, and to take that important next step. A serious process must be established in the very near term either to formally treat and process the detainees as war criminals or to return them to their countries for appropriate judicial”

• 24. neocon  |  June 15th, 2008 at 4:42 pm

  I am not reading anywhere in the 2003 comment that habeus corpus should apply.

  Can you help me out with that?

  Have a nice day
  peace, neocon

• 25. Lucile  |  June 16th, 2008 at 12:06 am

  The Boumediene decision is yet another example of unelected Liberal Activist Judges running amok.

  I don’t think most people have yet read the decision but I have.

  Congress provided a statutory structure to these detainees far beyond that which was ever provided to prior POWs by the US. We had hundreds of thousands of Nazi POWs on US soil in WWII and none of them were ever granted habeas rights.

  Congress provided a mechanism and procedures that equate to habeas in the Detainee Treatment Act that went beyond what POWs have ever been granted before and went beyond what the SCOTUS said in the Hamdi case of 2004 was sufficient for Americans declared as enemy combatants.

  That wasn’t good enough the the Detainees, their ACLU lawyers and the SCOTUS Libs.

  They want Blind Sheik trials where they can escape because the US would be forced to reveal sensitive classified information to prove their combatant status or the US would reveal the classified information in the case of the most dangerous Islamonazis, whereby the secrets are in the hands of AlQaeda in two weeks, as in the Blind Sheik case.

  So, the SCOTUS Libs have conferred ‘Meister Rasse’ (Master Race) status on the Islamonazis, someting the WWII Nazis never had.

• 26. Lucile  |  June 16th, 2008 at 12:36 am

  heyhey is a Lib idiot and is clueless about the issues of the Boumediene decision.

  There is nothing in McCain’s quotes that are inconsistant.

  Another Lib ignorant of the facts .

  A ’serious process,’ that provided the GITMO detainees rights beyond what any POWs have ever enjoyed previously, was created, which the snobbish Detainees, their ALCU lawyers and the SCOTUS Libs all thumbed their noses at in the Boumediene case.

  Only Blind Sheik trials are good enough for this bunch of elitist Islamonazis and their ACLU lawyers.

  As to the delay issue, the DTA process that the elitist GITMO detainees snubbed provided a well defined process that would cut the delay on adjudication far beyond the chaotic, undefined mess in Fed District Courts created by the SCOTUS Libs.

• 27. cam  |  June 16th, 2008 at 12:45 am

  Summarily executed without trial, locked up for up to 6 years without charges, many, actually captured for a bounty despite the facts, sounds like the America is spreading democracy. Just do as I say not as I do. And yet the cons don’t even want charges brought.

  Perhaps it is because the evidence on many of these captives is so flimsy and the Bush administration knows it. Perhaps what the cons are afraid of is that like much of what the Bush administration has done, it will bungle the prosecution of these individuals.

  What would be useful is if those who oppose this decision would indicate why we are holding these people, and please give specifics. Broad brushing them all as enemy combatants is not proof or even sufficient to hold anyone so long. Oh, by the way, I am aware that very likely there are individuals there who should be held. But, we will never know unless charges are brought. America should be proud of its rights and should lead by example. Why is that conservatives hate America? Why is it that when under fire they gravitate toward totalitarianism. This despite the fact that the Constitution was written during a period when the new Americans where in fact under greater threat.

  Perhaps if those who are so willing to summarily execute those being held would think differently if those being held were Americans being held in a foreign land for spying or some other claimed “crime” against such a state.

• 28. cam  |  June 16th, 2008 at 12:56 am

  Lucile,
  What was the sensitive classified information that fell into Al Queda hands and what was the resulting harm to America? I’m not saying it didn’t happen but I would just like to hear a little more detail about this. How would you know about it since at the time, at least as I understand it, we had no one who infiltrated Al Queda? So how is it that we got such feedback to inform us that such vital information fell in the wrong hands?

• 29. lexapro and alcohol&hellip  |  July 1st, 2008 at 1:22 pm

  lexapro

  lexapro lethal

• 30. valium and having sex&hellip  |  July 2nd, 2008 at 2:49 am

  valium

  overnight valium

• 31. sleep new hampshire&hellip  |  July 11th, 2008 at 8:59 am

  sleep new hampshire

  I am very impressed with your site. The quality of the design and content makes it a real winner! Thanks again for a great site and a great resource on the net Free Mp3 Download.

• 32. liquid oxytrol&hellip  |  July 16th, 2008 at 3:37 am

  oxytrol

  oxytrol patch

• 33. aricept tablets&hellip  |  July 25th, 2008 at 8:53 pm

  aricept

  aricept effectiveness

Matt Margolis on Twitter