Comments on: Supreme Court Rules Detainees Now Have Legal Rights

By: djthedj

djthedj — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:08:23 +0000

Jimmy, it must really suck to live life like a scared little punk child at all times. What a disgusting little coward! Keep me safe! Keep me safe!! Take away all my rights just keep me safe! You are truly disgusting! What a gutlesss dispicable little man! You don’t deserve to live in America. The founding fathers put bullets in the heads of cowaardly scum like you….thank god.

By: Jimmy the Dhimmi

Jimmy the Dhimmi — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:42:37 +0000

The ruling requires that the government make a charge against people it wants to hold. If they cannot make a charge, they have no business holding them.

And if a high value target is captured due to classified information that would compromise American counter-terror operations if made known, then the suspect gets released. Perhaps the message being sent by the court is, Take no prisoners.”

By: J. Harden

J. Harden — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 04:46:15 +0000

The practical effect here is that Gitmo probably won’t be receiving any more detainees. Which is too bad for the terrorists, because if I were a terrorist I’d take Gitmo over Eqypt or Saudi Arbia anyday. I’ve always wondered why we were running a Club Med for jihadists. Gee, waterboarding or a car battery hooked to genitals and finger nails pulled out – I’ll take my Koran, prayer rug and “coerced interrogation” in the Carribean anyday. Poor terrorists, say hi to rendition.

By: gerryf

gerryf — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:12:27 +0000

Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy–this ruling does nothing of the sort and you know it.

You suggest that all these people who are being held are terrorists and quite simply the only proof you have is from people who have lied so many times they have no credibility.

The ruling requires that the government make a charge against people it wants to hold. If they cannot make a charge, they have no business holding them.

By: Pdx632

Pdx632 — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:49:50 +0000

Isn’t kind of sad that our Supreme Court has become nothing more than partisan hackery. We can just about guess the outcome and who will vote what way on every case that goes before them. Maybe we need term limits on them as well.

By: Jimmy the Dhimmi

Jimmy the Dhimmi — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:21:26 +0000

Well, this ruling establishes that if you adorn a uniform and only attack military targets, avoiding civilian casualties according to Geneva conventions, you have less rights than a terrorist who hides amongst civilian populations waging an unconventional war by deliberately targeting civilians. If there is ever a conventional conflict in the future, it is better if your soldiers use human shields and do not wear uniforms, and attack soft targets rather than military ones – that is, if you’re worried about the aftermath for your “troops.”

Terrorism is no longer more disdainful than conventional war, in fact, its just a violent crime. It is as if the only way a foreign criminal can obtain the same rights as an American citizen is if they commit an act of terror.

By: kranky kritter

kranky kritter — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:19:16 +0000

What wj said. Further, they won’t have to be released if they receive access to some sort of timely enacted due legal process. Its the indefinite detention based solely on some shadowly say-so that troubles most folks who are troubled by it.

By: wj

wj — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:41:34 +0000

Of course, Scalia might have noted (correctly!) that applying habeas corpus to mundane criminal defendants “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed,” too. Is that a reason to junk it altogether? It would seem be, on his reasoning.