Judges Say U.S. Can't Hold Man as 'Combatant' »
Posted by: santa0 1 year, 2 months agoThe federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., ruled yesterday that the president may not declare civilians in this country to be "enemy combatants" and have the military hold them indefinitely.
Read Full Story at nytimes.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 29
-
-
100%
jovial1 year, 2 months ago
The Republican Congress. That's the problem. They let the President rule the country without question. Putting in unqualified judges and unqualified cabinet leaders. The Republican Congress and Senate was to busy revelling in their new power to make Democrats eat crow, to realize they were hoodwinked as well.
Reply-
100%
santa01 year, 2 months ago
i just saw a picture of this guy...
its possible that they are detaining him because of his MASSIVE mullet.
i dont know that there are any laws against it so it would be hard to punish him otherwise. but it is huge. and it is vile.
if the mullet IS the reason, id have to say this may be the first time ive agreed with the bush administration,
Reply
-
-
0%
gamahuche1 year, 2 months ago
"But the military cannot hold him, Judge Motz wrote. "The president cannot eliminate," she wrote, "constitutional protections with the stroke of a pen by proclaiming a civilian, even a criminal civilian, an enemy combatant subject to indefinite military detention."
Finally someone has the guts to stand up to the constant attacks on the Constitution by this president.
Its also important to continue to presume innocence until guilt is proved.
Even to suggest that he's "probably" guilty before any real evidence is heard is to accept inference that has not been verified. This also undermines the rule of law.
Reply-
100%
jeffery11 year, 2 months ago
Isn't amazing that this criminal cabal has gotten away with so much? You can blame those that support this administration and what it stands for, authoritarianism in the name of conservatism, and voted them in and refuse to hold them accountable.
Well, that is why the Founding Fathers didn't create a democracy but rather a republic, to mitigate the crimes that politicians can get away with with the backing of the majority. For now, the courts are able and willing to do their job and protect our rights. We must keep Bush from appointing more of his right-wing believers to any bench though.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
santa01 year, 2 months ago
well i hope that noone is an actual terrorist...
and im not an idiot. if they were holding this guy for tht long he probably IS an actual terrorist...
but its of absolute importance that we hold him on trial. convict him. THEN send him to jail somewhere where the guards will look the other way while people who can REALLY do some damage get to work.
all denying him due process does is ****** on our constitution, which if bush is right and they DO hate our freedom, is EXACTLY what a terrorist wants.
Reply -
100%
jovial1 year, 2 months ago
That's the problem. The Democrat's are afraid to be associated with, or called a terrorist sympathizer. So they vote against their true beliefs to passify right wing extremist's. It doesn't matter whether a person is a terrorist or not, justice cannnot be denied any man. If they are terrorists let it be proven and judgement passed. If they are not let them free. Let justice reign.
Reply -
100%
ETproductions1 year, 2 months ago
If he is an actual terrorist, then it shouldn't be too much to ask of the government that they charge him as such, bring forth the evidence, try and convict him as such.
Locking up people on vague suspicions and hearsay evidence provided by people trying to save their own skins is NOT the American way, and sets aside judicial precedents built since the Magna Carta was issued in 1215.
Reply
-
-
-
42%
MikeFromCanada1 year, 2 months ago
I'm glad to see the courts finally grew a pair. However I'm getting a vision of two judges being replaced.
Reply
-
-
100%
tkyrchncs1 year, 2 months ago
FINALLY! Why is it always the judiciary that has to be the brave defenders of our rights? The people who established these rights were legislators and executives. Why do their successors try so hard to deny our constitutional liberties? Are not ALL federal officers sworn to uphold the constitution? Where in the world did this president get the idea that it is ok to arrest people and hold them incommunicado indefinitely? Was he born and educated in the same nation as I was?
Reply -
-
-
100%
HannibalBarca1 year, 2 months ago
After six years in prison the courts haven't determined if this man is a terrorist as he has not had his day in court but you have already found him guilty and you haven't even talked to him, doesn't this bother you on Sunday morning after church when you get together with your Pastor for coffee?
Reply -
33%
Candida1 year, 2 months ago
aniokly: "The secoind time we found they they died at the scene."
Who were they? Were you there when they died at the scene?
Reply -
100%
discoverer11 year, 2 months ago
What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Are you so ready to give up that right and let that creeping loss of rights work its way up to your level?
Reply
-
-
100%
jordan111 year, 2 months ago
Oh oh. Here's how this plays out; There are 13 judges on this court. Nine were appointed by Reagan, Nixon, & bush the first. Four were appointed by democratic Presidents. Two of the three judge panel that heard this case were appointed by Clinton. They are the one's who ruled against denial of Habeas Corpus. The third was one of the conservative appointees, and voted for denial. NOW they are trying to reconvene the court, and allow ALL of the judges to decide this, according to Thom Hartmann.
This is the same court which ruled against Padilla, & were overturned by the Supreme Court.
Reply -
0%
discoverer11 year, 2 months ago
It's getting easier to imagine a time when we will be at risk for discussing our dissent with the Bush administrations goals to eliminating our rights to challenge their decisions. Meanst while the corporations get the benefits of being an individual yet do not have to pay for violating the laws, like stealing from the public (Halliburton) or selling Addictive drugs to the public while lying to them about the potency, and murdering innocent people without consequence such as Blackwater does in Iraq on a regular basis. People without incredible wealth will be silenced and punished for small crimes or the suspicion of being a threat to the government while the rich are immune from prosecution by a justice system that is totally politicized. Much of this has come to pass, the rest is at our doorstep. What will it take to trigger a massive reaction from the public? Will we dare go to the rallys without wearing a mask? These are indeed sad and scary times.
Reply -
0%
evelyna1 year, 2 months ago
Who made up the name enemy combatant? Here are a few more-conspirast theorist in foreplay, pre-criminal intentions, firearm fantasy. All they have to do is make up a name even before a crime is committed.
The court system and prisons will be flooded with people who will spend 5 years and more waiting for a trial.
Reply
Submitted By:
santa0
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Also Propping This Article
Helixbuilder
ciera-marie
berkeley
Ratskii
mamasan
tehranchik- jordan11
ekklesiawarrior- pedro-dos-pistolas
ETproductions
Groups Watching This
No groups are watching this story. Why not share it with your group?
