Your thoughts on the Supreme Court recent ruling on Guantanamo trials?
Topic: Far case status
July 23, 2019 / By Emeline Question:
Are we turning soft or are we protecting the "rights" of foreign nationals picked up on the battlefield? It is the executive branch's job among other things to direct operations that protect this country from overthrow. Are we tying their hands by this decision? Has the Supreme Court overgrown their britches or is this a legitimate area they are supposed to influence? Do they really believe they are upholding the law or are they grabbing more power than was originally intended for them? Maybe like many other cases they should have said they did not know and suggest the congress do their jobs by legislating before they feel the need to do so themselves.
Neddie, just how much power are you willing to accept from the Surpreme Court. They may very well the most powerful branch of government to date?
tetraedronico, that's you opinion and though i'm not sure I agree with it I respect it. I too believe it can be patriotic to dissent.
barbara o, you are wasting valuable energy on vast internal conspiracies theories when you should be looking at the much more concrete and immediate threats such as Islamo-fascism. And no, I don't think Bush or any of his backers are behind it all. Bush may be guilty of pandering to big business but not is not guilty wholesale murder of American for his political gain. This is absolutely absurd. Your head has been infected by this vitriol from somewhere. I'd consider the source of all this nonsense, then trace it back to it's source and so on. Then you might find a real conspiracy. Funny thing about projection, you can make just about anything fit what you want it to fit. I encourage you to find a balanced persepctive as the extremes are usually just that, extreme.
Best Answers: Your thoughts on the Supreme Court recent ruling on Guantanamo trials?
Christine | 1 day ago
At issue is the status of the Guantanamo prisoners.
If they are considered prisoners of war, then Geneva Convention prohibits putting them on trial. Instead, they are simply to be held captive until the end of hostilities. Given that Islamic aggression shows no sign of ending soon, that will be the remainder of their natural lives.
If they are NOT prisoners of war but instead are considered terrorists/saboteurs, they only have the right to be shot in the head or otherwise summarily discarded, or used for information gathering purposes. Geneva Convention only grants mutual protection to those who abide by it, which the Islamists clearly are not.
Our own civil court system does not apply to foreign fighters captured on the battlefield. We do not have civil laws applicable to their actions or status.
If there must be some sort of trial, only a military court is qualified for the job. In that case, merely being caught armed on the battlefield should be sufficient evidence for imprisonment for the duration of the conflict.
So far, hundreds of prisoners have been released from Guantanamo. Quite a few of them have been recaptured on the battlefield. Another went and blew up a bunch of civilians in Egypt...
👍 190 | 👎 1
Did you like the answer? Your thoughts on the Supreme Court recent ruling on Guantanamo trials?
Share with your friends
We found more questions related to the topic: Far case status
Originally Answered: How would it work if a supreme court's ruling was unconstitutional?
The USSC has made clearly unconstitutional rulings before. Dred Scott comes to mind -- persons of African descent, whether free or not, could never be citizens. Usually the Legislature fixes it pretty quickly or ends up fighting a war over it. Until that happens, the court's ruling is the law of the land. Kelo v. City of New London (using eminent domain to take private property and give it to another private owner) riled up people enough that many states quickly changed their laws to prevent it. I expect soon to see legislation limiting the fallout from Citizens United (corporations can use general funds for electioneering).
In recent years, rulings have become pretty narrow to avoid wide-sweeping changes. They are pretty paranoid these days about stare decisis (obey precedence). But the court can and does overturn itself (as Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education), often by incremental change (chipping away at Roe v. Wade, or Miranda, or various search and seizure cases.)
The court can't issue a ruling if it doesn't have a case in front of it. It has no investigative or advisory power. The court can't say... "Oh, by the way -- natural born doesn't mean what you think it does" unless a case makes to them. THIS court in particular won't touch a case where the Constitution clearly gives a specific power to one branch. In Obama's case, there's a couple of places in the Constitution that apply. 1. Only Congress and the Electoral College can qualify a president-elect. 2. Congress has the sole power to remove a sitting president. 3. The Judicial power extends to all cases and controversies (Standing).
Two of the requirements for standing are that 1. you can prove a harm to you that isn't shared by every other taxpayer, and 2. the court can fix that harm by a favorable decision. Since the USSC can't remove a sitting president or decide if evidence is correct or not, no one can have standing once a president is sworn in.
So -- the court can't invalidate the election as the Electoral College results were accepted by Congress. (Bush v. Gore was before the Electoral College met.) No case asking to invalidate the election can come up through the lower courts after the inauguration as no one can have standing at that point.
And to Mike T: If Obama is impeached and removed from office for the fraud of not being eligible, the election is not invalidated. The concept is "the de facto officer doctrine". The court has decided that if an officer (and the President is an officer) is later found to be illegitimate, his official acts stand. All appointments made, laws signed, treaties negotiated, etc. are regarded as done by the office, and the office is legitimate. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94...
Thank God they ruled the way they did. It is proof that there is still hope that the Consitution may still survive the unending and relentless attack by this administration. George W. Bush and Dick Chaney believe that they should be above the law. It is about time that at least one branch of government did its job and provided a check to their actions. Now if we could only get this republican controlled congress to do their jobs and impeach these criminals for the crimes they have committed against the citizens of this nation. It would be nice if we had individuals in congress who believed in the consitution more than the party which they represent. The consitution represents us all, the party only represents the persons of that party. I really wish congress would realize that the consitution protects them as well as the citizens.
The president is the one who has been overstepping his powers. He has violated the constitution by getting us in this war. He has voilated the constitution by not upholding the geneva conventions. But most of all he is implicated in the 911 attacks moreso than Osma Bin Laden. Afterall those planes did not have the capability to do the manuvers that they did on 911 unless someone with the global hawk techology over road their programs, so tell me where would 19 arab highjackers get access to that type of techology? And why have 6 of the highjackers listed showed up still alive? And why was there no investigation into 911, 3000 U.S. citizens murdered and no investigation. The 911 commission did not get approval for 444 days, then it was underfunded, did not have suppona powers, and was filled with individuals who most assuredly had conflict of intrest. If those towers came down because of fire and plane crashes and by a pancake theory, then why did they come down in dust instead of chunks? Why did WTC7 collapse that was not hit by any plane. Why did the terrorist fill the need to make a hugh turn to attack the pentagon when a direct hit would have wiped out the chief of staffs and Rumsfield? Why did the secret service allow the president to remain in a publized area when they were told possibley 20 highjacked planes were out before they ever entered Booker Elementary school. Why did George W. Bush sit there after being told the second tower was hit before even moving, he is grossly incompented or else he had knowledge of the attacks and knew he was not in any danger. How could a system be so incompetent as not to prevent the planes from flying into a building, when 100 times before 911 in the same year they responded to planes off course in less than 9 minutes but on 911 it took them 90minutes. Yet they excuted perfectly a procedure they had never before done and shut down all airports and grounded all planes.
I don't kown where you get your information from, but to me it was hopeful to see the supreme court act as they did. You may want to educate yourself about what is really going on in this country or you may find that you too can arrive at gitmo. 911 did not happen as the government stated that it did, could not have happened as stated. Which means that the terror strikes of 911 was an inside job. We need to find out who was responsible for 911 and we need to reverse these laws that do nothing to fight terror but are a direct attack on our consitution, or we may be saying hello to America's first dictator.
👍 80 | 👎 -5
The Guantanamo prisioners deserve their rigths to proper treatment and judgement having or not having done anything, this cases of abuses and torture is a black eye in American history and it really blurs the pride on liberty and freedom that America say it spreads and defends.
👍 80 | 👎 -11
Democracy worked in the U.S.A.,,,, but what about the Middle East,,
the Supreme Court gave Bush his power,, and they can take it away
👍 80 | 👎 -17