News about Gitmo that doesn't suck!

Once again, the comments section for the article just makes my head want to explode.

Watch what you're saying terror-lover.

I have yet to see a justifiable reason to deny ANYONE habeas corpus

I actually found Roberts and Scalia's dissents to be pretty well thought out and based on solid reasoning...I just like the end results of the majority's decision better. And Scalia had some pretty good zingers in there (and yes, I have gone on record as saying I actually like Scalia's writing... sue me.)

More freedom and more rights is almost always a good thing.

Scalia's actually a very good writer (or, at least he knows which clerks to hire). Scalia gave the best advice about writing I've ever heard. He said, (and I'm paraphrasing), if you're writing and you write "in other words," back up, delete what you wrote before that, and replace it with the next text. It works wonders for legal writing.

I breezed by Scalia's dissent. He made a good point about the applicability of heabas to non-citizens in a foreign land, but the rest of his dissent bogged down into right-wing "24" fetishism. I refuse to take anyone seriously that uses the term islamo-fascist or some similar derivation.

It's OK. If we don't have the evidence to convict these guys, then release them.

If and when they're found not guilty, they can return to their homeland to fight us again. Then we can blast them with a Hellfire from a Predator. It's the only way to be sure next time.

Looking forward to see how President Obama will deal with this issue. Can he afford to glorify these killers in their homeland with show trials? Or will he use Clintonian tactics and disappear them once they've been freed?

I's gots ta know!

It never ceases to amaze me that Republicans have somehow managed to paint being bed-wettingly afraid of terrorists as courageous and patriotic.

When you skip over Scalia's long-ish description of our current "war" with "islamo-fascism" and get into the meat of his dissent, ie the actual legal points, its a pretty well thought out analysis. And he is, as usual, pretty glib at times.

I'm pretty convinced that in the long run, the US will just keep so-called "enemy-combatants" in foreign lands or in the hands of other country's governments.

He uses the term "radical Islamists", which I think is far different from islamo-fascists.

Anyways, the pdf is here for anybody interested ...
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...06/06-1195.pdf

And this is a good place to read more about it;
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

Not in the right-wing "24" fetish crowd. Given Scalia's previous comments on this case and other issues related to this decision (i.e., torture), I am not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt here.

You're debating the meaning of words that political think-tanks have slipped into the public discourse, because no one is going to relate to a ____-fascist or ____-radical. Considering that America is the occupying force of Iraq, there is nothing fascist that a Muslim rebel can do. And certainly his or her actions aren't any more radical than invading a foreign country.

Not trying to nitpick, but no he didn't use the word islamofacist, which is something you expect a blogger to use and not Supreme Court Justice.

You can expect it, I'm just clarifying that's not what he said. To me it would sound out of place just like if he wrote "freedom fries" in his dissent.

Of all the horrendous things this twisted, horrific Administration has done over the last 8 years or so, Gitmo is the one that makes me boil with fury the most. How there isn't a national outcry every day in America about people being held for 6 FUCKING YEARS WITHOUT TRIAL is utterly beyond my comprehension as a human being. It's like a bad joke. I'm sitting here thinking "Is there something I'm missing? Is America really this fucked-up that no one seems to give a shit?" There are men being held in cells for years without trial. What's the Law on the net about not mentioning the Nazis? Well, fuck that law. This is right up there with the Reich as far as I'm concerned. Right-minded Americans should be fucking ashamed.

Or if he used the phrase "gay agenda" in describing a majority court ruling that struck down anti-sodomy laws.

Oh, wait.

Fearmongering now? Classy, Scalia. Real classy.

I wrote islamofascist or it's derivatives. I consider what he wrote a derivative of that phrase. A year or so ago, he also used the Jack Bauer character as a justification for torture. As far as I'm concerned, Scalia is a right-wing blogger with a very good day job.

!!!!

I did say 'boil with fury', YT

Seriously though, it constantly baffles me that this isn't on the news every day. It is utterly, unforgivably appalling what is being done to these people in the name of 'Frrrreeeeedommmmmmm'.

Agree. People say that comparisons to the holocaust are odious and all that, and this is nowhere near the scale of the holocaust, thank Christ, but if you would ask everyday Germans what they thought about people being disappeared and carted off to camps for torture and death, they would say they "didn't know." What will people say some day when the subject of Bush and Gitmo comes up? We do know and we're letting it happen. The American people bear a huge responsibility for letting Bush have his crazy Draconian way with the weight of our nation behind him. Which is why the only way to make things right is to impeach him, or have some kind of truth and reconciliation commission, or SOMETHING. Or at the very least, public hearings about the heinous human rights abuses going on over there. We can't just let this stuff fade away, to let the future history books gloss over.

I think Scalia is referring to the fact that a civilian trial will require leaking of the intel used to capture these people and that would prevent those methods from being used again but I haven't read the pdf that ElCap linked.

Gitmo is bad, there should have been something done sooner, it should go away but at the same time I don't think civilian courts is the answer. I'd say Senate or Congressional hearings but those stupid elected fucks leaked information back in the day and got us into the whole secrecy thing to begin with. Bottom line, I have no solutions but I'd like someone to come up with them who is you know... paid to.

5-4 is all that is seperating us from revoking habeus corpus.

Age of the 4

Scalia 72
Thomas 60
Alito 58
Roberts 55

Average age: 61

Age of the 5

John Paul Stevens 88
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 75
Anthony Kennedy 71
Stephen Breyer 69
David Souter 68

Average Age: 74

Supreme Court appointments would be my issue If I was a single issue voter.

It won't require leaking at all, although leaking is *possible*. Hey, what's six years in jail without any legal counsel or charges pressed when you might be a terrorist?

The military and the Executive Branch came up with an 'alternative' method instead of the writ of habeas corpus, but that, unfortunately, involved giving the defendant no counsel and no right to rebut the charges being made against them. It was a pretty piss poor approximation of habeas corpus, so the real thing has been reinstated while the Executive Branch has to try and come up with another method or just out and out suspend the writ itself instead of claiming that enemy combatants don't apply - this time, I might note, without the help of Congress, and with what we now know to be a less-than-deferential Court reviewing things.

Stephens, and probably Ginsburg, will almost certainly retire during the next administration, so SCOTUS nominations hold a little more weight this election year than most, too.

The problem with Islam is the militants seem to drive the train; moderate Islam (of which there are probably hundreds of thousands here in the US alone), unfortunately, seems to be a silent hopefully-majority that just shuts the fuck up and goes on about their business.

Which you kinda wish they WOULDN'T do; I feel it's getting more imperative to have a countervailing opinion to militant Islam to marginalize it.

Right. Gitmo as a "necessary evil" until we can get around to giving these guys due process? No problem, desperate times and all that...

Pissing on the Geneva convention and constitution for what those in charge would like to be an indefinite span? Why don't you go for a drive over a short bridge with Ted Kennedy, ass-hats.

The US pisses on the Geneva convention every day they have any military contractor working for them.

Yes, but so does about every country which signed them by now, if in far less obvious ways.

The problem with the Rules of Engagement, the Geneva conventions etc. is that it lies squarely upon the western world to uphold them... and we somehow lost interest in them the moment they didnt make for good appeasing of humanitarian organizations or the populace anymore.
Frankly, if you can convince your population its in their best interest to just piss on these rules, you can.

During my service time, I saw a lot of things in france, germany and austria which were against these conventions in a way. Its just the matter of these countries not using their stuff until they are genuinely threatened.
I think the Iraq War is a prime example that if a western country pursues a particular interest, even if its primarily economical in nature, everyone who is supposed to hold up stuff like these conventions and rules will conveniently look the other way, and/or officially buy into the propaganda crap, so they can claim they do not or did not see reason to act.

If the western world actually WOULD adhere to international law, the US administration would have faced a trial a long time ago.