SCOTUS puts soldiers at Great Risk...

[Judge]

Here's an article by a Gitmo prosecutor which she discusses some of the very concerns I expressed the last few weeks over the SCOTUS expanding Constitutional rights to non-american terrorists...



Supreme Court ruling puts soldiers at great risk

By Kyndra Rotunda June 20, 2008



When Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts was confirmed, he told the U.S. Senate that justices should act like umpires. They should call the balls and the strikes but shouldn't step up to bat. A majority of the court, led by Justice Anthony Kennedy, ignored Roberts' advice and suited up. But they're not playing baseball. They're suiting up to run America's war.

The court has decided to grant constitutional rights to detainees held in Guantanamo Bay. Now detainees can challenge their detention before U.S. judges in U.S. courts. Because Kennedy says so, military commanders must justify battlefield captures and prove to a U.S. judge that decisions they made on the ground—in a faraway land during a battle—were justified. Kennedy admits that the court has not done this before and that there is no case precedent.

Not only does this decision come out of left field (remember that during World War II the United States held 400,000 prisoners of war on U.S. soil without granting them access to U.S. courts) but, tragically, their decision puts American troops at risk and will lead to more U.S. deaths on the battlefield because it makes it more difficult for soldiers to detain the enemy.

What's more, the court has no reason to step in. Under current rules, detainees held in Guantanamo Bay receive more rights than POWs under the Geneva Conventions. Roberts, in his dissent, called existing military procedures "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants."




As a JAG officer (a lawyer) in the Army Reserves, I have been deployed three times in the global war on terror. I was a legal adviser in Guantanamo Bay and a prosecutor at the Office of Military Commissions. I have seen the procedures that Roberts discusses—and the conditions at Guantanamo Bay—firsthand. The U.S. military gives all detainees in Guantanamo Bay elaborate proceedings where they can call and cross-examine witnesses and rebut the evidence against them. They are even assigned a personal representative to help them through the process. The military affords all detainees these procedural rights, even those captured in battle with AK-47s in their hands. Under the Geneva Conventions, POWs have fewer rights. They receive a brief hearing with no lawyer and no personal representative.

And what happens when the U.S. decides that a detainee is an enemy combatant? The detainee stays at Guantanamo Bay. But the digs aren't bad. Detainees enjoy up to 12 hours of recreation time a day where they can play sports like Ping-Pong, basketball and soccer. They can work out in the exercise room, take various classes, garden, watch videos and go to the library. They are guaranteed eight hours of sleep every night and 20 minutes of uninterrupted prayer time five times a day. Guards can't interrupt detainees during prayer times, even if they're not praying.

The existing procedures (the ones the Supreme Court thinks are deficient) are so generous that the military paroles hundreds of suspected terrorist detainees back to the battlefield, although no international law, including the Geneva Conventions, requires it. At least 5 to 10 percent of those released re-enter the fight and put soldiers' and civilians' lives at risk. One killed a judge who was leaving a mosque in Afghanistan; another went back to fighting the U.S. and assumed leadership of an Al Qaeda-aligned militant faction in Pakistan; and, most recently, a released detainee became a suicide bomber.

The problem isn't that the U.S. is releasing too few detainees—it is releasing too many. Even Kennedy seems afraid to let these detainees loose. His opinion says that a remedy for violating their constitutional rights might be conditional release—or no release at all.

Australian detainee David Hicks wore an $800 Brooks Brothers suit to his trial in Guantanamo Bay, paid for by the U.S. government. Hopefully, the government will rethink that practice when it hauls 200-plus detainees from Guantanamo Bay into the U.S. for their hearings. It is a strange and perverse system that awards terrorists who attack the U.S. with constitutional rights and a better wardrobe.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in his dissent, chastises the Supreme Court for warping our Constitution and blatantly misconstruing case precedent. But his last sentence is the most poignant: "The nation will live to regret what the court has done today."

Army Maj. Kyndra Rotunda was a legal adviser in Gitmo and a prosecutor at the Office of Military Commissions. She is the author of "Honor Bound: Inside the Guantanamo Trials."

Supreme Court ruling puts soldiers at great risk -- chicagotribune.com

[eric_t12]

well if we just nuked them and christianized those left we wouldn't have any soldiers at risk!






"why dont you call your congressman" and tell them to make a law restricting the supreme court's scope, "instead of whining about it on this forum?"

sound familiar?




i would want them to give americans fair and just proceedings should they be captured by insurgents.

maybe you don't.




leaders lead by example - not by killing and imprisoning those who disagree and being seeming hypocrites when it comes to fairness under the law - even towards our enemies.

[Whatsisname]

No person shall be .... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

End of story.

[eric_t12]

Originally Posted by Whatsisname

No person shall be .... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

End of story.

not to mention i know of noone that thinks the constitution GRANTS the rights it spells out - simply... well... spells them out.




they're given to us by our 'creator'. they're natural. which means that we all have them. to think that someone doesn't have them simply because they're not a US citizen kind of negates that entire belief... regardless of their 'evil' - whether real or implied.

[Judge]

How stupid can one be?

We had a law restricting the SC's scope - it was called the Constitution and Separation of Powers.

And nobody's ever argued about the law not giving americans their due process....

Do you always have to bring up straw men or can you actually stay on topic for once??

Originally Posted by eric_t12

well if we just nuked them and christianized those left we wouldn't have any soldiers at risk!






"why dont you call your congressman" and tell them to make a law restricting the supreme court's scope, "instead of whining about it on this forum?"

sound familiar?




i would want them to give americans fair and just proceedings should they be captured by insurgents.

maybe you don't.




leaders lead by example - not by killing and imprisoning those who disagree and being seeming hypocrites when it comes to fairness under the law - even towards our enemies.

[Judge]

Since you didn't read it. let me help you out:

Under current rules, detainees held in Guantanamo Bay receive more rights than POWs under the Geneva Conventions. Roberts, in his dissent, called existing military procedures "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants."

In addition, the Constituion has always (until a few weeks ago) applied only to American citizens... I guess Washington et al knew nothing about freedom and liberties huh? To carry your 'concept; to it's logical conclusion in war, our troops couldn't 'deprive' the enemy of 'life' without a court hearing.... nice thought.

Originally Posted by Whatsisname

No person shall be .... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

End of story.

[Cannibul]

Originally Posted by Judge

Since you didn't read it. let me help you out:

Under current rules, detainees held in Guantanamo Bay receive more rights than POWs under the Geneva Conventions. Roberts, in his dissent, called existing military procedures "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants."

In addition, the Constituion has always (until a few weeks ago) applied only to American citizens... I guess Washington et al knew nothing about freedom and liberties huh? To carry your 'concept; to it's logical conclusion in war, our troops couldn't 'deprive' the enemy of 'life' without a court hearing.... nice thought.

Actually the Constitution applies to anyone in the US. Not just citizens.

[eric_t12]

And nobody's ever argued about the law not giving americans their due process....

you never said it was okay to hold jose padilla for 3 years without trial 'because he was possibly a high-value intelligence subject?'

maybe to you 3 years is all he was 'due'.

or maybe you just thought he was a filthy terrorist who obviously deserved it.


either way - you have made that argument before... if you'd like to refute the idea that it was okay to hold him for three years WITHOUT TRIAL - please, do so now.

Originally Posted by Judge

We had a law restricting the SC's scope - it was called the Constitution and Separation of Powers.

where does the constitution and "separation of powers" (was that written after the Bill of Rights???) state what you apparently imply it does? how did you come to this interpretation (because i find no wording even close to what you are apparently implying)? it seems like you're saying that the constitution says "only americans are entitled to these rights." i could have sworn almost all rights expounded upon by the constitution are begun with directly - or at least contain the words "the people".

knowing that i find no wording which you imply is there - i feel i must note this:

Thanks for the strawman argument. i'm glad you rail so hard against them, and use them so frequently.

[eric_t12]

Originally Posted by Judge

I guess Washington et al knew nothing about freedom and liberties huh?

you're one to talk.


maybe you should enlighten us on why its ok for us to have our firearms restricted at airports... or why its ok to hold someone (an american citizen, on top of anyone in general) for 3 years without trial, 'because the government says its ok.'

feel free, any time.

[Judge]

another post, more diversion and error - you never stop with either do you?

Call him by his correct name: Abdullah al-Muhajir, did have several appearances before courts - district and appeal and several upheld his internment. As I said, he had attorneys from the first day, and he had I believe 3 court appearances before the end of 2003.

Originally Posted by eric_t12

you never said it was okay to hold jose padilla for 3 years without trial 'because he was possibly a high-value intelligence subject?'

maybe to you 3 years is all he was 'due'.

or maybe you just thought he was a filthy terrorist who obviously deserved it.


either way - you have made that argument before... if you'd like to refute the idea that it was okay to hold him for three years WITHOUT TRIAL - please, do so now.

Separation of Powers - 'written after the bill of rights???? BWWAAAAHHHH....

You crack me up.

And you can show everyone where the Brits captured in the war of 1812 were given constitutional protections.... go on now, show us..

And the immigrants that are mass deported. Show us their judge and jury trial.... go on now....




where does the constitution and "separation of powers" (was that written after the Bill of Rights???) state what you apparently imply it does? how did you come to this interpretation (because i find no wording even close to what you are apparently implying)? it seems like you're saying that the constitution says "only americans are entitled to these rights." i could have sworn almost all rights expounded upon by the constitution are begun with directly - or at least contain the words "the people".

knowing that i find no wording which you imply is there - i feel i must note this:

Thanks for the strawman argument. i'm glad you rail so hard against them, and use them so frequently.