Liberal Activist Supreme Court at it again

[TrailBate]

Looks like the SC still has a pre 9/11 mindset....


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13592908/

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in creating military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies.

[Slider]

It's that goddamn Constitution again. We gotta do something about that. It is interfering with the assumption of absolute power by the President. Maybe John Hancock wrote a secret signing statement that will get Bush a pass.

Sldier

[TrailBate]

At any rate, Bush will just get his republican lapdogs to sign legislation making any type of trial he comes up with legal.

[Ozzy]

I don't really understand this issue. Is it in relation to U.S. citizens, or non-citizens? IMHO, I could really care less what happens to non-citizens, I don't think they should be afforded the rights the constitution guarentees 'citizens'. We _should_ have to abide by the standards of Geneva convention though, seeing as how we're signed onto it.

[TrailBate]

The ruling also stated Bush was in violation of the Geneva conventions as well.

To me, it's not a matter of whether or not they are US citizens. It's a matter of whether or not they are actually terrorists or not. And if not, they deserve to be treated like any other decent human being, and freed.

freedom and liberty are not rights reserved to just Americans.

[BrianK]

[quote author=Ozzy link=board=37;threadid=9841;start=0#71857 date=1151601583]
I don't really understand this issue. Is it in relation to U.S. citizens, or non-citizens? IMHO, I could really care less what happens to non-citizens, I don't think they should be afforded the rights the constitution guarentees 'citizens'. We _should_ have to abide by the standards of Geneva convention though, seeing as how we're signed onto it.
[/quote]

No they aren't afforded rights by the constitution, but they are afforded rights as humans. I can't agree with the view that as long as MY rights are protected you can lock non-Americans up like the victims of some medival dictatorship, with no rights to any trial. This is against the very ideals this country was founded on, which is its better to let 3 guilty men go free than it is to lock up one innocent man.
While I'm sure most of the Guantanemo prisoners are scum, if they have no possibility for a trial, then it is unethical to lock them up. Basically we're saying we're going to lock your up for as long as we want and not tell you when your getting out with no chance for a trial.

[Slider]

The process of determining whether they are/were terrorists has to be unbiased. Confessions arising from torture don't count.

We need to treat everyone the way we'd hope to be treated if arrested while travelling. It is the only option, if we want any sort of international respect. As it stands, we have lots to do before we shed the mud that Bush has dragged us through. This is step 1.

Slider

[TrailBate]

On a somewhat related note, this is a good read:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13600653/site/newsweek/

The Myth of Al-Qaeda

[Ozzy]

Okay, now I understand a little more. Yeah, I mean, you have to give ANYONE a fair trial within a reasonable time frame, and as I said, you must uphold the Geneva convention.

[BrianK]

Yeah, sorry I singled your quote out. I was writing my view and it wasn't necessarily directed at you Oz. You did say we must follow the Geneva convention, so that is good enough for me as well.