U.S. Judge: Guantanamo Tribunals Unconstitutional

[ze_dscherman]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. judge ruled on Monday that the Guantanamo military tribunals for terrorism suspects are unconstitutional.
In a setback for the Bush administration, U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens Green also ruled the Guantanamo prisoners have constitutional protections under the law.



http://news.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7485936

[drscm]

1. Obviously another one of those judges that "legislate from the bench"

or so *bush would have us believe. bush doesn't like it when people are not loyal to him and his agenda of torture or imprisonment without due process.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. about fucking time.

[Hissyspit]

3. This Thread Link May Also Be Of Interest...

Alternet review of book on Guantanamo:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1549248

[da_chimperor]

4. No shit? I've been saying that for years.

[drscm]

5. What is it about freepers. Don't they understand if we mistreat

others, we are open to being mistreated. If the government can deny due process to one group of people, they could deny it to any of us?

Freepers love attacking the judge and presuming all "political prisoners" are guilty, simply because we incarcerated them. Sick reading at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1332588/posts

[Liberty Belle]

11. Post the paragraph from the WP article about

torture, and how the judge found that makes confessions suspect. Ask the freeper, "If someone tortured you, wouldn't you say anything to make them stop?" (Hmmm...torturing freepers. That's an image that might almost make me give up my deep philosophical opposition to the practice. Tempting.)

[Orsino]

14. Freeps don't enlist...

...and so do not fear the consequences of the policies they advocate in their Internet-pr0n-and-Cap'n-Crunch-fueled policy fantasies.

[saigon68]

83. THE " HITLER YOUTH" AT THE HATE SITE

To: Centurion2000
Non-uniformed combatants and insurgents are subject to summary execution on the sopt.
Darn straight! That's why we threw VC scum out of helicopters. Those cowards have no rights and deserve none.


128 posted on 02/01/2005 2:45:27 PM CST by Heldentat
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies | Report Abuse >

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1332588/posts?page=128#128

[Zeke]

6. Very Interesting...

But I bet this story gets no play beyond
the small Reuters article its found in.

[Mr_Spock]

7. I dunno - this is a big deal

It repudiates once again the Gestapo techniques of the NeoClan Nazi's in Warshington...

[niceypoo]

90. The Story is on the front page here this morn (Seattle)

The thing is the newsies never make the connection between our treatment of detainees and visa-versa. The first beheadings began immediately after the first reports of torture came out of Abu Graibe. They never bother to do the math. We torture theirs, they will torture ours.

[Mr_Spock]

91. It doesn't help that we have a "gut reaction" moron in the WH

What a state of disaster we are in!

[Liberty Belle]

10. How's this for play? Washington Post, page A-1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51007-2005Jan31.html

The judge specifically mentioned torture at Guantanamo as a reason why any confessions are highly suspect and ruled that the detainees have a right to a trial, not a military tribunal.

Bad news is the feds will appeal to Bush's buddies, the Supremes, so meanwhle the detainees stay imprisoned.

[Rose Siding]

8. Judge Green

Thank you

[cal04]

22. thank you Judge Green and Jimmy Carter

President Jimmy Carter appointed Judge Green to the DC District Court in 1979, where she served as Presiding Judge from 1990 to 1995 when she assumed senior status.


Judge Green is a member of the American Bar Association, the American Judicature Society, the Federal Bar Association and the National Association of Women Judges, serving as the Chair of the National Conference of Trial Judges for 1997 – 1998. She has served as an instructor at the Militia Academy in Minsk, Republic of Belarus for the United States Information Agency and serves on the Board of Advisors for George Washington University Law School. She has received George Washington University’s Professional Achievement Award (1975); been named Woman Lawyer of the Year by the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia (1979) and received a Certificate of Appreciation from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (1995).

http://www.innsofcourt.org/contentviewer.asp?breadcrumb=6,13,214,1287,1290

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NYC Liberal]

47. Who'd you rather have?

Alberto "Torture is OK" Gonzolez?

[blackspade]

68. What are you trying to say?

That a judge that follows US law regarding people imprisoned by the government is somehow bad because she was appointed by Carter?

Please explain.

[Jack Rabbit]

9. Human rights and civil liberties are alive and well

. . . even in neoconservative America.

[renegade000]

19. well alive, but

we'll see about 'well' in the coming years.

[wtmusic]

12. The system of checks and balances is alive

Weak pulse...but dammitanyway, it's alive :thumbsup:

[Fluffdaddy]

56. Yes The system works....................But damn slow

[Kagemusha]

13. They'll just ignore the ruling and appeal.

Mark my words.

[DELUSIONAL]

36. Didn't they already ignore a Supreme Court ruling?

bushie believes he is above the law -- in fact since his god speaks to him -- bushie probably thinks he IS the law.

[Nothing Without Hope]

43. I have to agree, unfortunately. And they'll be complaining all the louder

...about those "activist judges" that need to be removed from the nation's courts.

In the blivet**'s simplified world, this country has only one valid branch of government -- the executive, under his unquestioned command -- and any constitutional checks and balances must be uprooted and destroyed.

If this judge had been one of HIS appointees, it would have been smooth sailing for the chimperator. That's the whole idea.

edited to add: Nominated for the Home Page

[Straight Shooter]

15. "A setback for the bush administration."

Those words damn the bush administration as being anti-civil rights and in favor of cruel and inhuman punishment.

The more rulings we get like this, the better. We need to push bush back, one inch at a time. What he has done to America's reputation in the name of justice is a crime.

I think this is also another good argument against Gonzales, a/k/a "Mr. Torture."

[TahitiNut]

23. Indeed, that's truly the implicit message.

When the press can blithely characterize an assertion of Constitutionally protected human rights as a "setback" for the Reich, then it's beyond being even arguable that this criminal Regime is the worst in this nation's history.

[Nothing Without Hope]

51. Exactly. I wonder if anybody writing or editing these stories

realizes this. As you put it so clearly:
When the press can blithely characterize an assertion of Constitutionally protected human rights as a "setback" for the Reich, then it's beyond being even arguable that this criminal Regime is the worst in this nation's history.

I cannot understand how people can see this and shrug off both its significance and the chilling implication that you point out. Too much of this nation is totally delusional: Freedom From Reality!

[TahitiNut]

60. We're living in Orwell's barnyard.

"All the animals are equal but some are more equal than others."

There is nothing that more surely proves the abject fascism of this regime and its perverted proponents than the notion that a government can unilaterally anoint some human beings as having rights and others as not having rights.

If all it takes is using some kind of force against any facility or employee of the government or its agents, anywhere in the world, then absolutely every person accused of a crime, no matter what, even being the 'wrong' ethnicity or religion or political party, is subject to the total usurpation of their human rights.

It is exactly this kind of 'logic' that created concentration camps.

Happy Birthday, Auschwitz! :puke:

[Nothing Without Hope]

66. Yes, but it's even worse than that

You write:
If all it takes is using some kind of force against any facility or employee of the government or its agents, anywhere in the world, then absolutely every person accused of a crime, no matter what, even being the 'wrong' ethnicity or religion or political party, is subject to the total usurpation of their human rights.

In fact, many of the uncharged prisoners are not even guilty of "using some kind of force against any facility or employee of the government or its agents." They may simply have been in an unlucky place at an unlucky time with the wrong color of skin and religion. They cannot prove their innocence because they are not given access to lawyers or to the outside world to do so. In fact, they are not even charged with a crime, so of what do they prove themselves innocent? These people are simply grabbed and thrown into this horrible place, sometimes tortured, for no reason at all. Apparently, it's sometimes done for the enjoyment of the guards, many of whom have also been corrupted by this unspeakable situation.

Yes, I remember Orwell's Animal Farm, though it has been decades since I read it in high school. After the farm animals had declared and achieved their independence from the humans, they were proud to look up to the sign that said "ALL ANIMALS ARE CREATED EQUAL." With time, the ruling pigs took on more and more of the trappings of the hated human rulers, becoming in fact fascist. And one night the additional words appeared on the sign: "BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS." Yes, that's exactly where the US is right now. The ignorance and total lack of human compassion or sense of justice of the person in this thread who wrote to support the terror camps are just more indications of how far down this path the ruling pigs of this nation have taken us.

[uppityperson]

65. Exactly. Upholding the Constitution is not a "setback"

A setback for the fuhrer to not be able to do anything he wants perhaps, but not a setback for out country. How about a continuing to uphold what the legalities the USA is based on are.

[merh]

16. She better watch her back. They will be targeting her and don't

be surprised if you see criminal and/or ethical charges filed against her.

What a brave woman! She is in my prayers.

[uppityperson]

61. My first thought too. Brave woman, wise woman. Thank you.

[quiet.american]

17. Those damn "activist judges!"

Any bets on how long before the predictable Mad Shrub and Co. slap this favorite worn-out label on Judge Green? (Kudos to this judge for standing up for democracy and human rights.)

[Wisc Badger]

27. What Human Rights

These gentelmen (and I use the term loosely) were caught in armed conflict against the United States. Now I believe that a excellent case can made that they are some sort of a POW in an obscene way.

But the constitution should not apply to those who are foreign nationals who have taken up arms against the Unites States.

Educate me on how the US constitution applys to any one sucking air any where in the World????

Sheesh!!!!

:wtf:

[quiet.american]

29. Put the Rambo tape on pause long enough to read our Constitution

Sheesh!

Article V.

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 offence 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.

Note the use of the words "no person." Not "no American citizen" but "no person." The only exception is in the case of members of our own forces during actual war or time of danger. This amendment does not sanction holding ANYONE indefinitely, and also does not supercede the right of the accused to a trial by jury.

So, setting yourself up as judge and jury is against the very constitution of our country.

Double Sheesh!

[Wisc Badger]

34. I will see your double sheesh and up the anti with

an "Oh Brother" note the following (from your post) "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;"

Since we are talking Afghanistan and not Iraq seems to me that our forces were in service in a time of war or public danger, and congress voted in favor of us being so.

These creeps may be POW's but they are not US citizens and I read this as they are not due constitutional rights.

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD THEY WERE IN ARMED CONFLICT AGAINS US!!!
:mad:

[quiet.american]

52. Read it again

The operative words are:

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....

This amendment still does not authorize the absence of the action of "holding a person to answer," in other words, holding a person indefinitely without charge because Shrub wants to do so.

As the judge stated, these men may indeed be guilty, not because YOU say so, but because in a court of law they are ruled to be so, according to the Constitution of the United States. It is unconstitutional to hold them indefinitely without charging them.

To yell about them being armed against us has nothing to do with the law of this land. How do you know under what circumstances each and every one of the five hundred prisoners in Gitmo came to be captured and whether some schmo among them wasn't in the wrong place at the wrong time? Why? Because you say so?

This is exactly what's wrong with this country right now. We're insisting we're exporting democracy and freedom around the world, and when it's inconvenient to the will of Shrub, we don't want to follow our own constitution right here at home.

[Willy Lee]

57. But do you KNOW they are guilty???

I mean really- they were near the scene of a crime and they fit the bill- dark skin, accent- but that really doesn't prove anything. Unless these people can get a fair trial, how can we hold them (and torture them) indefinitely?

If they are found to be guilty then they will be punished. But noone can say that every person there committed a crime against the USA> And Bush refuses to let them speak to a lawyer, let alone have a fair trial.

The whole thing stinks.

[Nothing Without Hope]

67. No lawyers, no communication, not even charged of a crime

but there they sit in the hole, not knowing when they will be tortured.

That's the government we have now. They are angered when some judge dares to point out that the Constitution still exists.

[dave420]

85. How do you know?

Nothing has been proven yet. That's the problem. The US can't expect to be a beacon of democracy and freedom around the world when it arrests people in foreign countries, takes them to Cuba, and holds them indefinitely, without trial or representation. How does an innocent person get out of that one? And bear in mind these guys aren't arrested by police following a lengthy investigation - they're grabbed by SOLDIERS, almost at random, from "suspicious looking people" (read: Arabs) in specific parts of the world.

If they truly did attack the US, then the US would have evidence of it, and giving them every constitutional protection you can won't stop them being punished. It would demonstrate your love for the constitution, and the faith you put in it. If you ditch it, you show that you don't really care about it, unless it's helping you.

You mustn't be so quick to throw away your constitution when it works against you. That's going against the direct will of those who penned it. If the US wants to act like terrorists by taking prisoners for whatever reason, what moral highground does it have? If it waives the geneva convention against insurgents, how is it better? How can the world look up to the US for moral leadership when it scraps its own rules when they serve others.

Think of the flip-side... what if some foreign power arrested some random Americans somewhere, imprisoned them without trial or representation, branded them terrorists with no evidence, then subjected them to the horrific conditions of Guantanamo Bay? I think most, if not all, US people would be screaming blue murder. For Americans to allow their country to do it to others is a bitter, sickening form of hypocrisy.

Here's a brief illustration of the Guantanamo suspects: Every single one that has been sent back to the UK spent less than 48 hours in detention upon return, before being released without charge. If they were all guilty mass murderers who would kill westerners with their bare hands (as has been stated to justify the conditions in Gitmo), they would STILL be locked up. They aren't. Clearly not everything the government has told the world about these guys is not true.

sorry if I offended anyone.

[bvar22]

58. Wisc Badger, you insist that:

"These gentelmen... were caught in armed conflict against the United States."

How do you know this?

[Toots]

18. This judge is aiding the terrorists...off to Gitmo with him

I'm sure that the Dictator can overrule a judge afterall 9-11 changed everything.

[Mr_Spock]

20. I hope these NeoClan Nazi's respect an appropriate decision

We really don't need a civil war at this time...

[Rose Siding]

21. She was appointed US District Judge for DC in 79

Then she was appointed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court until 95. (I think Rhenquist fills those positions himself)

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/joyce-green-bio.html

[LizW]

24. Excellent news!

Thank you Judge Green. The Constitution still breathes for now.

BTW, the photo on the page linked is freaky. I had to look a long time to figure out what it is -- human fingers clutching the wire of the fences at Guantanamo.

[Wisc Badger]

25. Fine, Fine, Fine ***Lets Give the Taliban Terrorist we

captured a thank you medal, a certificate of thanks voted on by Congress and a million dollar each I am sorry pay off package.

After all we all know now that the US Constitutions applys to anyone breathing, anywhere in the world.

This is nonsense, these people mean us harm (the ones we caught in Afghanistan) and some jerk of a judge would have them be aplogized to.

Now I have had enough of the GOP to last me for what's left of my lifetime, but this is why Democrats loose elections. They come accross as unable to protect the nation.

GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!
:puke: :wtf: :mad:

[drscm]

28. Great! Let's just hope that the rest of the world does not judge you

as you judge them. If bush can simply point to any human being and proclaim them a terrorist, then we are all in trouble.

Oh, wait. He already does that. Just read FreeRepublic. Anyone who is not with bush is against him and should be treated like a terrorist.

Meanwhile, the boy bastard can kill 100,000 innocent Iraqui citizens and be declared a patriot. SICK!!!!!!!!!!! BASTARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Wisc Badger]

32. I am not judging them,

I am simply noting that according to my civics class the United States Constitution apply to US citizens, not every one sucking wind any where in the world.

And certainly not to those Foreign born non US citizens (note the term foreign born and NON US citizen) who take up arms against us and would be quite happy to butcher us by the thousands (perhaps millions) if they could.

Just because Iraq may have been a mistake (and it was) does not mean that there are not people (AKA jerks) who wish us ill in the world (see (9/11 for further proof).

I fail to see how humiliating these oh so righteous Islamics is tantamount to torture (see last weeks story about the way women questioned these peace loving inmates - sar).

There are enemies of the United States that are real and they need to be defeated, and to the extent that the Democratic party does not believe this or chooses to place their heads in the sand concerning this, to that degree we will continue to get Bush presidencies and GOP majorities in Congress.

[TahitiNut]

38. Well, I'd ask for a refund for that "civics class" if I were you.

(1) The Constitution applies, not to people, but to the Federal government. It is solely a definition of government, nothing else.
(2) The government is totally subordinate to and strictly prohibited from infringing upon human rights.
(3) Since the Federal Government is authorized to grant or deny "citizenship" itself, the (bizarre!) 'logic' of such a stance as you've proclaimed is that the government can merely revoke or deny the "citizenship" of a person and then do anything it damn well pleases.
(4) The Constitution uses the term "people" almost exclusively - and nowhere does it pretend to be the arbiter of who does or does not have rights. Nowhere.


It's appalling to me that so many people fail to comprehend the very basis for and purpose of the Constitution.

Jingoistic fucking nonsense! :grr:

[Wisc Badger]

42. If that be the case??

Then where does it allow the courts (as set up and provided for by the constitution) to confer on non US citizens the protections of the constitution.

Since it is the government only should not it's elected officials (congress) confer any of these rights on said non Us peoples?

The court by your post would not have the right to grant these rights to the people in question since the constitution and the government did not grant them such power.

Unless you mean that the courts are the supreme power of the land and can do or say anything they want no matter what the executive Branch or congress says or does.

That is not the way I learned my civics, or history, Mar bury V Madison may allow the courts to rule on that which is or is not constitutional, but it does not allow the courts to make up rights where non have existed or been specifically enacted by congress.

[VegasWolf]

46. The rights extend to non citizens in US custody. You can't take

a French person and subject him to a military tribunal
because he is accused of shoplifting. He has a right to
a fair trial. Seems to me you think the Patriot Act ought
to trump the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

[Beetwasher]

49. READ THE CONSTITUTION

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

ONLY the courts can deal w/ issues related to the law and foreign subject. Get it? ONLY THE COURTS. The President is actually breaking the law when he intervenes and declares anyone he wants (foreign or domestic) an enemy combatant and denies them access to the courts.

[TahitiNut]

54. Your post betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution.

The Constitution does not grant rights! Nor does it or can it empower the government it establishes such authority! I repeat: The Constitution does not grant rights!

The Constitution itself gains its sole legitimacy from the rights of people to even write a Constitution!

The Constitution has one and only one purpose: to establish a government and, in so establishing that government, recognize the legitimate limits on the power and authority of that government to infringe on the very human rights by which it is established in the first place!

Nonsense phrase: "protections of the constitution". The Constitution recognizes the supremacy of human rights and acknowledges the immutable limits of any government to infringe upon the rights of people by which the government itself attains any legitimacy whatsoever! The Constitution does not define 'protections' - it recognizes 'limits.'

Courts (an arm of government) cannot grant rights. Period. Government can only create "entitlements," not rights. Rights are superior to entitlements! Human beings have rights "endowed by their Creator," not by any government!!

People - all people - have inalienable rights!! Absolutely no government can either create them or take them away. A government can only infringe upon those rights.

[bvar22]

69. The Constitution does NOT GRANT RIGHTS to anyone.

The Courts do NOT GRANT RIGHTS.

The Constitution FORBIDS the Government from engaging in specific behaviors.
One of the behaviors that the Constitution forbids is imprisoning of anyone without due process and public trials.

Not only have the prisoners at Gitmo and other camps been deprived of their inalienable rights to due process, but the entire American Public (or more specifically the World) has been deprived of the RIGHT (Duty) of observing the American Judicial System in operation.

My right and your right (duty) to observe the American Judicial System in operation HAS BEEN ABRIDGED!

[TahitiNut]

79. R.I.P.

Here lies another deluded Reichbot who's surrendered all power of reason to blind authoritarianism.

[VegasWolf]

40. You are making an assumption that the people in Guantanamo

are really terrorists and not some muslim shopkeeper
that ashcroft had a hardon for.

[NYC Liberal]

45. First of all, you don't KNOW that these people

are guilty of anything, because they haven't been CONVICTED of any criminal action, nor have most of them even been CHARGED. Furthermore, it's doubtful there's any evidence, else they would have been, at the very least, brought up on charges.

Second of all, most of those tortured (yes, tortured) weren't guilty of anything. Around NINETY PERCENT of prisoners there were found to be innocent. So, the point of employing Nazi-like brutality was...what?

As for the US having enemies...well, no shit Sherlock! The problem is, we're attacking the WRONG ENEMIES!

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dave420]

87. For crying out loud :)

Nothing. Has. Been. Proven.

There. Have. Been. No. Trials.

You're making assertions like you know them to be true, saying they ARE terrorists, that they DID attack US troops. None of that has been proven in a court of law.

[billyoc]

33. How, exactly, do you equate

giving them a trial with giving them "a thank you medal, a certificate of thanks voted on by Congress and a million dollar each I am sorry pay off package."?

[Wisc Badger]

37. They are foreign born non-US citizens

in an armed conflict against our nation. You can make a good argument that they are POW's but they are not US citizens, and for the life of me I can not see how they merit constitutional rights.

This is just the kind of thing that (remember this is a Cahtah appointed judge) convinces people that the Democratic party can just plain not be trusted to keep the country safe.

I am a recovering Republican and a 17 plus year USN vet (with a disability) but this is just the kind of thing that annoys me about Democrats.

These people are our enemies, they are not our friends,they merit humane treatment and not torture (though I have no problem at humiliation of them), but not blanket US constitutional rights.

[Beetwasher]

59. Good Grief! ARE YOU READING THE OTHER RESPONSES IN THIS THREAD????

The constitution doesn't give ANYONE rights. It's RESTRICTS OUR GOV'T from INFRINGING ON YOUR (AND EVERYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET's) ALREADY INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS. It specifically outlines what the US gov't CAN do. Anything that's not clear or covered, goes to the courts to decide.

Get it?

[TahitiNut]

64. Read: "I am a recovering Republican, (I just can't stand the Bush GOP)"

If I were to identify the fundamental difference between a liberal and a Republican (of today) it would be the narcissistic elevation of 'citizenship' above that of basic human rights that now pervades the thinking of people on the 'right' ... very, very much the same corruption in thinking that destroyed the Roman Empire.

It's a virus. It's so embedded in the thinking processes that it takes an incredible amount of educamation to dislodge it.

It's part of an indoctrinated worldview. This is really beyond partisanship or any other issue - it's fundamental.

[bvar22]

71. That attitude was also the foundation...

... of the Nazi movement.

[Mr_Spock]

73. He is still too Republican to understand any logic at all.

It's a disability and should be treated as such.

[Hissyspit]

76. "These People Are Our Enemies..."

They were rounded up by members of the U.S. Military. Not Constitutional Scholars, Attorneys, or Members of a Trained Police Force. Of course innocent people got caught up.

[Beetwasher]

35. Do You Trust The Bush Admin? Is Everyone They Say Is A Terrorist REALLY

a terrorist? You're sure about that? That's why there are constitutional protections and that's why EVERYONE is entitled to their day in court and to a fair, open trial.

If Bush says YOU are a terrorist, would you want a trial? He could you know. He could claim everyone who posts on this site is a terrorist, and under his new rules he could send all of us to Gitmo w/ no trials, no access to lawyers and keep us their indefinitely. Nice, huh? That's where this is heading if it's not stopped. Is that what you want? Or even the possibility that it COULD happen? That's ok w/ you?

Think about it. Think long and hard about it, because that is what you are saying. You are saying you TRUST Bush to determinen who is a terrorist and who deserves a trial.

[Wisc Badger]

39. I was not caught in a foreign land

that had declared its belligerent intentions to us (IE Afghanistan) armed and fighting the United States.

Now I do not believe for one New York second that our involvement in Iraq is justified or wise.

But we are talking about people taken in Afghanistan in an open fight against our nation. POW I have no problem with that and wish that we had declared them as such.

But they are not US citizens and the constitution does not apply.

[Beetwasher]

41. WRONG!

The constitution applies to EVERYONE because it limits the actions of the US gov't. It deals w/ HUMAN rights, NOT American rights.

And you are ALSO wrong about Bush ONLY applying this to people caught in foreign lands. He CAN apply this to you, if he deems you a terrorist or enemy combatant REGARDLESS of your US citizenship. You didn't know that, huh? Now it makes a difference because it can effect YOU personally?

You are so sure that all those people in Gitmo are guilty? You're sure about that? Or IT doesn't matter to you, because they're foreigners? So anyone Bush claims is guilty is guilty? That's ok w/ you?

[NYC Liberal]

48. Exactly. The Constitution doesn't

GIVE rights, it merely LISTS them,

A mistake too many people make.

[TahitiNut]

55. "A mistake too many people make." ... AMEN!

It's absolutely appalling! There is NOTHING more fundamental to the very basis upon which this nation was founded. Nothing.

The total and complete idiocy of thinking that human rights are created or granted by any Constitution, least of all ours, is beyond appalling.

Absolutely no person who fails to comprehend this should ever be permitted to graduate from high school. I'd rather give a diploma to someone who couldn't add two numbers together or read "see spot run" than allow anyone failing to comprehend this basic foundation to carry a diploma.

It's enough to make a buzzard retch! :grr:

[Hissyspit]

75. The Assumption of Innocent Until Proven Guilty Is A Concept

Enshrining an ideal, which if, is good enough for one person, can be extrapolated into: 'it's good enough for all persons.' Unless, you really do not believe it, of course.

[PapaJoe]

82. No Place to Hide

Okay, just be careful what you say. They just might decide you are the enemy one day. Then, where are you going to run to?

[dave420]

88. WRONG AGAIN

Damn you're on FIRE today!

You're guessing they've taken arms against the US. These aren't people who lose a firefight and come out with white flags, these are guys pulled out of their beds at 5am, or hauled off from their car at a checkpoint, to not see their family again for YEARS.

You're guessing whether they're guilty or not. If you love your constitution so much, give it to them. Let them try and use it for protection. If they're guilty, they will MOST CERTAINLY fail. That's the beauty of the constitution.

As has been demonstrated here many times before, the Constitution DOES apply to EVERYONE the US gov't deals with. EVERYONE. Whether you like it or not!

[genieroze]

44. No, we can do this instead.

Today, on Democracy Now!, the U.S. broadcast premiere of a documentary film called “Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death.”

The film provides eyewitness testimony that U.S. troops were complicit in the massacre of thousands of Taliban prisoners during the Afghan War.

It tells the story of thousands of prisoners who surrendered to the US military’s Afghan allies after the siege of Kunduz. According to eyewitnesses, some three thousand of the prisoners were forced into sealed containers and loaded onto trucks for transport to Sheberghan prison. Eyewitnesses say when the prisoners began shouting for air, U.S.-allied Afghan soldiers fired directly into the truck, killing many of them. The rest suffered through an appalling road trip lasting up to four days, so thirsty they clawed at the skin of their fellow prisoners as they licked perspiration and even drank blood from open wounds.

Witnesses say that when the trucks arrived and soldiers opened the containers, most of the people inside were dead. They also say US Special Forces re-directed the containers carrying the living and dead into the desert and stood by as survivors were shot and buried. Now, up to three thousand bodies lie buried in a mass grave.

watch it
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3267.htm

[Bridget Burke]

70. Ever hear of the Nuremberg trials?

The Allies tried the top Nazis. Monsters? Maybe. But we managed to charge them & try them. In public. In front of the world.

Are a bunch of Afghani goat herders worse monsters than Hitler's gang?

[Hissyspit]

74. Prob Most Were Not Guilty Of Anything, Mistaken ID, Revenge Arrests...

http://www.alternet.org/rights/21105/

[dave420]

86. Again

There's no proof they ARE taliban. They might have just been regular Afghani people trying to live their lives as best they can. We don't know for certain. It's all just guessing.

You're jumping to conclusions here.

The constitution does not affect everyone around the world, unless those people are held by the US government, as where the US has a government or military presence (as in embassy or military base), US law is in effect. That means the constitution. That means Gitmo.

When I travel to the US as a tourist (I'm British), I am covered by the constitution. You can't have two sets of laws, for citizens and non-citizens. If you don't want the constitution extended to non-citizens, fine - try and get it changed. Just realise that by doing so, America will slip even further towards the "bad guys" camp, and away from the "good guys". A nation can't be free when it refuses to treat others as well as it treats its own people.

[American Tragedy]

30. Thank God for separation of powers

At least one out of three branches of government still registers a pulse! Thank you, Judge Joyce Green.

[tom_paine]

31. Unfortunately, in Totalitarian Nations like ours, dissenting judicial

rulings are simply ignored.

In more "advanced" Totalitarian Nations, like Imperial Amerika, where "the enslavement will be with the consent of the enslaved", so to speak (i.e the Mighty Bushevik Propaganda Machine will preclude any opposition and discredit any that dares slip through), this will involve a few well-placed Orwellian Phrases to "smooth over" the action.

Then the ruling will be ignored, and more lies and Orwellian Lip Service will be applied if anyone has the audacity to criticize The Party or Der Fuhrer and bring up that inconvenient reality.

This judge's ruling is EXACTLY as meaningless as if he had ruled against Hitler and the Nazi Party in 1938.

The Judge, however, is fortunate, in that Karl Rove cannot have him mordered (yet) and so he will only have to contend with the usual personal and professional assassinations, rather than get shipped off to Gitmo, or perhaps "Camp Number Six" himself.

Lucky him. Now that's progress.

[Swamp Rat]

50. And don't forget the well-placed Bushevik thugs marching among us.

:D

[Nothing Without Hope]

53. I agree, but would like to point out that the judge isn't a man n/t

[tom_paine]

62. Wups. My bad.

Not surprising.

I'll bet more women than men stood up to Hitler, too.

[MHalblaub]

89. How can an US American loses his citizenship?

Is it possible at all?

[Solly Mack]

63. Gutsy ruling in this day and age

[Hissyspit]

77. Agree. Maybe...

...we found a judge who has seen "Judgment At Nuremberg" w/ Spencer Tracy.

[Supersedeas]

92. True, real integrity is hard to find these days.

[indepat]

78. I suspect Anton et al will set that lady judge straight

[GetTheRightVote]

80. Thank you Judge for bringing back the true American Way of Justice

:kick:

I wonder how long it will last before * destories it.

[struggle4progress]

81. kick

[NicRic]

84. Every Hunam Being has right to assumption of being inocent !

Just being an American born citizen does'nt make us more deservering of basic human rights ! Why does'nt one of our brave reporters asked our torture loving President what would Jesus do ? Seperate people into groups of U.S. Citizens as the priveledged superior beings from all others, and then allow dehumanizing treatment of the others ? Boy we are starting to look more and more like pre WW2 Germany ,at least as far as the line of thinking that to protect ourselves we have the right to treat others as less then human ! Iam sad that instead of human rights moving foward it is regressing backwards to a horrific time when people where treated like animals whos lives should be easily disgarded for the cause of pretecting the superior beings .A sick and disgusting way of thinking that will bring payback in the way of US Citizens becoming, if they havent already, the most hated people in the world. Thanks Mr. Bush, for showing the world once again the face of the ugly American !