SCOTUS: Gitmo detainees have rights in court

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The Supreme Court has ruled that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

The justices, in a 5-4 ruling Thursday, handed the Bush administration its third setback at the high court since 2004 over its treatment of prisoners who are being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iS3b8Pd...nTUvFwD918IUCO0

[almaty 19]

a just ruling ....

[one...two...tree 2,762]

hallelujah.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Indeed it is, brother Dean.

I can't for the VJ neocons to show up and start ranting about activist librul judges though!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

bump.

[almaty 19]

Indeed it is, brother Dean.

I can't for the VJ neocons to show up and start ranting about activist librul judges though!

bump it a few times and they be here

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Indeed it is, brother Dean.

I can't for the VJ neocons to show up and start ranting about activist librul judges though!

bump it a few times and they be here

[almaty 19]

bush administration///

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I agree - a just ruling.

To clarify - I think fixating on what the detainees "deserve" is missing the point. That isn't what its about at all. Simply - you cannot pick loopholes in the constitution - especially when it comes to human rights. That goes beyond the treatment of POWs and terrorists, as much as carries has obvious implications for an unscrupulous government (worse than this one) to turn those "emergency powers" on everyone else.

The constitution should be absolute - not a "pick and choose if the need justifies" as Strauss would have us believe.

[kerewin21 2]

The Constitution ROCKS!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The Constitution Rocks and Bush Sucks!

[HAL 9000 96]

I agree - a just ruling.

To clarify - I think fixating on what the detainees "deserve" is missing the point. That isn't what its about at all. Simply - you cannot pick loopholes in the constitution - especially when it comes to human rights. That goes beyond the treatment of POWs and terrorists, as much as carries has obvious implications for an unscrupulous government (worse than this one) to turn those "emergency powers" on everyone else.

The constitution should be absolute - not a "pick and choose if the need justifies" as Strauss would have us believe.

Ahhh technicalities. Deserving usually implies some sort of legal due process which they really have not been afforded in how long?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I agree - a just ruling.

To clarify - I think fixating on what the detainees "deserve" is missing the point. That isn't what its about at all. Simply - you cannot pick loopholes in the constitution - especially when it comes to human rights. That goes beyond the treatment of POWs and terrorists, as much as carries has obvious implications for an unscrupulous government (worse than this one) to turn those "emergency powers" on everyone else.

The constitution should be absolute - not a "pick and choose if the need justifies" as Strauss would have us believe.

Ahhh technicalities. Deserving usually implies some sort of legal due process which they really have not been afforded in how long?

I'm sure you've heard that the argument that questioning the legality of black-hole prisons implies some sort of support for the inmates. Ordinarily that would be a deemed a "Red-Herring", but in this case "Kipper" seems appropriate.

[HAL 9000 96]

I agree - a just ruling.

To clarify - I think fixating on what the detainees "deserve" is missing the point. That isn't what its about at all. Simply - you cannot pick loopholes in the constitution - especially when it comes to human rights. That goes beyond the treatment of POWs and terrorists, as much as carries has obvious implications for an unscrupulous government (worse than this one) to turn those "emergency powers" on everyone else.

The constitution should be absolute - not a "pick and choose if the need justifies" as Strauss would have us believe.

Ahhh technicalities. Deserving usually implies some sort of legal due process which they really have not been afforded in how long?

I'm sure you've heard that the argument that questioning the legality of black-hole prisons implies some sort of support for the inmates. Ordinarily that would be a deemed a "Red-Herring", but in this case "Kipper" seems appropriate.

We have a plane standing by for you...