U.S. Judge: Guantanamo Tribunals Unconstitutional

[FightingFat]

In a setback for the Bush administration, U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens Green also ruled the prisoners at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have constitutional protections under the law.

“The court concludes that the petitioners have stated valid claims under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and that the procedures implemented by the government to confirm that the petitioners are ‘enemy combatants’ subject to indefinite detention violate the petitioners’ rights to due process of law,”

reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=DPMJHSJEPBKZACRBAE0CFEY?type=topNews&storyID=7486530

Do you agree with the judges ruling?

 

[wabrams]

I agree with the judges decision. What better way to show how Democracy works than extend it to those that hate us the most. When we lock people up indefinately w/o a chance to prove their innocence, we become no better than Saddam or radical Islamists.

 

[Lance]

No.

 

[Brad]

FightingFat:

In a setback for the Bush administration, U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens Green also ruled the prisoners at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have constitutional protections under the law.

“The court concludes that the petitioners have stated valid claims under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and that the procedures implemented by the government to confirm that the petitioners are ‘enemy combatants’ subject to indefinite detention violate the petitioners’ rights to due process of law,”

reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=DPMJHSJEPBKZACRBAE0CFEY?type=topNews&storyID=7486530

Do you agree with the judges ruling?

No, I do not. The judge has legislated from the bench by interpreting the constitution incorrectly. She, as is all too typical and why we need major judicial reform, decided to ingnore some of the words in the first ammendment so that her viewpoint of what is right or wrong could trump the original intent of the country’s founders. She ignored the fact that this is a time of war and public danger, which provide specific exceptions to the provisions of the 5th ammendment.

 

[Fitz]

Brad:

No, I do not. The judge has legislated from the bench by interpreting the constitution incorrectly. She, as is all too typical and why we need major judicial reform, decided to ingnore some of the words in the first ammendment so that her viewpoint of what is right or wrong could trump the original intent of the country’s founders. She ignored the fact that this is a time of war and public danger, which provide specific exceptions to the provisions of the 5th ammendment.

 

[gilliam]

All depends on how you define ‘person’ I suppose. If ‘person’ means anyone, a US citizen or not, the judge probably has a point. If it means a US citizen, then the judge does not have a point. Great case for the US Supreme Court, IMHO.

Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Brad:

No, I do not. The judge has legislated from the bench by interpreting the constitution incorrectly. She, as is all too typical and why we need major judicial reform, decided to ingnore some of the words in the first ammendment so that her viewpoint of what is right or wrong could trump the original intent of the country’s founders. She ignored the fact that this is a time of war and public danger, which provide specific exceptions to the provisions of the 5th ammendment.

It is time that Congress showed some guts and impeached a few judges for impinging on the prerogatives of Congress and the Executive.

But don’t hold your breath. Congress prefers to let the Judiciary take the heat and stay out of the controversy.

 

[Brad]

Joe Kelley:

It is time that Congress showed some guts and impeached a few judges for impinging on the prerogatives of Congress and the Executive.

But don’t hold your breath. Congress prefers to let the Judiciary take the heat and stay out of the controversy.

Congress prefers that because “We the People” have not demanded they do so. It is time to start demanding.

I’d start with the case in Florida where, in the Terry Schiavo case, judges ruled that the legislative branch infringed on judicial power by effectively nulllifying their decision to allow Schiavos feeding tube to be removed through the passing of a new law. The judges DID NOT rule that the law was unconstitutional because of what it prohibited. It simply ruled that the legislature could not make the law because it wrestled power from the judiciary.

This is a grievous violation of the rights of the people. It is the people’s recourse to call for changes to the law, in particularly when the interpretation of current laws does not provide protection to the rights of life and liberty. It is not up to the judiciary to determine who should have the most power. This is why we have 3 branches.

 

[Brad]

gilliam:

All depends on how you define ‘person’ I suppose. If ‘person’ means anyone, a US citizen or not, the judge probably has a point. If it means a US citizen, then the judge does not have a point. Great case for the US Supreme Court, IMHO.

Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

What about the exception for the militia in a time of public danger?

 

[Brendan]

I didn’t know that U.S. Federal Judges had jusidiction over non- US citizens currently detained in Cuba.

Does Castro know about that?

 

[atsheeran]

gilliam:

All depends on how you define ‘person’ I suppose. If ‘person’ means anyone, a US citizen or not, the judge probably has a point. If it means a US citizen, then the judge does not have a point. Great case for the US Supreme Court, IMHO.

Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The rights under our constitution have always been interpreted to apply to all people, not just U.S. citizens. The restrictions on what the government can do, however, obviously only apply to the U.S. government (and to the state governments through the operation of the ninth and fourteenth amendments).

For example, Congress can’t make a law abridging the freedom of speech of non-U.S. citizens living in the United States.

 

[atsheeran]

Brendan:

I didn’t know that U.S. Federal Judges had jusidiction over non- US citizens currently detained in Cuba.

Does Castro know about that?

Are you saying that our base at Guantanamo should be regulated by Cuban law?

 

[wabrams]

A question to the people who think these detainees don’t deserve a day in court:

What should we do about them?

 

[gilliam]

atsheeran:

The rights under our constitution have always been interpreted to apply to all people, not just U.S. citizens. The restrictions on what the government can do, however, obviously only apply to the U.S. government (and to the state governments through the operation of the ninth and fourteenth amendments).

For example, Congress can’t make a law abridging the freedom of speech of non-U.S. citizens living in the United States.

Not sure where you are getting this. The Constitution normally only covers the citizens of the US. I guess you can say legal aliens are covered in certain cercumstances, but it has no intention of addressing people living outside the US or citizens of other countries. People in Afghanistan or South Africa are not covered. In the case of the people at Guantanamo they were combatants not alligned with any government we were at war with or had a treaty with. Just people trying to kill us. They fall into a crack in the law as far as I know.

 

[gilliam]

Her ruling probably will not be the final word on the issue. A different federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 19 dismissed the cases of seven Guantanamo prisoners on the grounds that they have no recognizable constitutional rights and are subject to the military review process.

 

[gilliam]

wabrams:

A question to the people who think these detainees don’t deserve a day in court:

What should we do about them?

That is what the military tribunals are for.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

So where is the Judge Advocate General’s office to tell the civilian U.S. Judge to mind their own non-military affairs business?