Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
General TopicsAncient HistoryMedieval PeriodBritish HistoryWhat IfArchaeology
War History
War HistoryWorld War IIUS Civil War
HistoryKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

History Forum / General / British History / February 2007



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

D. C. Court Of Appeals: Detainees Can't Challenge Cases

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
D. Spencer Hines - 20 Feb 2007 16:25 GMT
"U.S. citizens and foreigners being held inside the country normally have
the right to contest their detention before a judge. The Justice Department
said foreign enemy combatants are not protected by the Constitution."

DSH
--------------------------------------------------------

Court: Detainees Can't Challenge Cases

Feb 20 10:47 AM US/Eastern

By MATT APUZZO
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Guantanamo Bay detainees may not challenge their
detention in U.S. courts, a federal appeals court said Tuesday in a ruling
upholding a key provision of a law at the center of President Bush's anti-
terrorism plan.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled
2-1 that civilian courts no longer have the authority to consider whether
the military is illegally holding foreigners.

Barring detainees from the U.S. court system was a key provision in
the Military Commissions Act, which Bush pushed through Congress last year
to set up a system to prosecute terrorism suspects.

The ruling is all but certain to be appealed to the Supreme Court,
which last year struck down the Bush administration's original plan for
trying detainees before military commissions.

The Military Commissions Act was crafted in response to that decision
and the president hailed it as a necessary tool for bringing terror suspects
to justice.

Civil libertarians and leading Democrats decried the law as
unconstitutional and a violation of American values. The law allows the
government to indefinitely detain foreigners who have been designed as
"enemy combatants" and authorizes the CIA to use aggressive but undefined
interrogation tactics.

But the most criticized provision of the law was the one stripping
U.S. courts of the authority to hear arguments from detainees who said they
were being held illegally.

Attorneys argued that the detainees aren't covered by that provision
and that the law is unconstitutional.

"The arguments are creative but not cogent. To accept them would be to
defy the will of Congress," Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote.

U.S. citizens and foreigners being held inside the country normally
have the right to contest their detention before a judge. The Justice
Department said foreign enemy combatants are not protected by the
Constitution.

Randolph and Judge David B. Sentelle ordered that the hundreds of
cases pending in the lower courts be dismissed.

Judge Judith W. Rogers dissented, saying the cases should proceed.

"District courts are well able to adjust these proceedings in light of
the government's significant interests in guarding national security,"
Rogers wrote.
kevinmccabe@yahoo.com - 20 Feb 2007 23:37 GMT
> "U.S. citizens and foreigners being held inside the country normally have
> the right to contest their detention before a judge. The Justice Department
[quoted text clipped - 51 lines]
> Department said foreign enemy combatants are not protected by the
> Constitution.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we usually bitch when Islamic
Military groups behead Americans in Iraq? Perhaps I'm in a minority,
here, but there's a certain pot, kettle, black argument that springs
to mind when we start clipping civil rights just because the Shrub
likes it like that. Of course, I always thought U.S. use of torture
was bad thing as well.

McCabe
The Highlander - 21 Feb 2007 22:33 GMT
>"U.S. citizens and foreigners being held inside the country normally have
>the right to contest their detention before a judge. The Justice Department
[quoted text clipped - 60 lines]
>the government's significant interests in guarding national security,"
>Rogers wrote.

Yet another reason why European tourists will be staying away from the
US in droves this year.

The Highlander

Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are  
not necessarily those of The Highlander.
D. Spencer Hines - 22 Feb 2007 02:40 GMT
Hilarious!

Tourists coming to the United States have nothing to fear...

Not unless they are terrorists.

Foreign enemy combatants aren't protected by the American Constitution --  
and never have been.

Tourists are required to pass through the same security processes, checks
and procedures as American citizens.

Any sensible Nation has or is implementing such procedures -- and constantly
updates them as new technologies come on line and situations change.

If Canada and Canadians had been subjected to the infamous attack of 11
September 2001, or a similar one, Canadians and other foreigners would be
more sensible about these necessary Wartime Measures.

The Israelis have had FAR more intrusive and stringent security procedures
in place for decades.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Fortem Posce Animum

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:25:34 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
<poguemidden@hotmail.com> quoted the following:

>"U.S. citizens and foreigners being held inside the country normally have
>the right to contest their detention before a judge. The Justice Department
>said foreign enemy combatants are not protected by the Constitution."

MATT APUZZO -- Associated Press Writer
>--------------------------------------------------------
>
[quoted text clipped - 56 lines]
>the government's significant interests in guarding national security,"
>Rogers wrote.

Yet another reason why European tourists will be staying away from the
US in droves this year.

The Highlander

Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.

>Yet another reason why European tourists will be staying away from the
> US in droves this year.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> The views expressed in this post are
> not necessarily those of The Highlander.
William Black - 22 Feb 2007 06:55 GMT
> Hilarious!
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Tourists are required to pass through the same security processes, checks
> and procedures as American citizens.

International tourism by air to the US has dropped from 9% of the world
total to just over 5% of the world total in the past three years.  World air
tourism has increasedby 27% in the same period.

Your tourist industry is being killed your government,  which is run by a
gang of paranoid Texas oil men who think that all Muslims are out to kill
them.

Nobody wants to go to the USA because your immigration officials routinly
insult and humiliate people for no good reason.

Oh yes,  and when was the last time an immigration afficer at a US
international airport actually had to shoot someone?

They all carry guns...

Goodness knows why, perhaps they feel inadequate in some way...

Signature

William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea

Fred J. McCall - 22 Feb 2007 14:26 GMT
:International tourism by air to the US has dropped from 9% of the world
:total to just over 5% of the world total in the past three years.  World air
:tourism has increasedby 27% in the same period.

That's nice.  Ask us if we care.

:Your tourist industry is being killed your government,  which is run by a
:gang of paranoid Texas oil men who think that all Muslims are out to kill
:them.

The preceding stupid remark is precisely why you're welcome to stay
home.

:Nobody wants to go to the USA because your immigration officials routinly
:insult and humiliate people for no good reason.

Hogwash.

:Oh yes,  and when was the last time an immigration afficer at a US
:international airport actually had to shoot someone?
:
:They all carry guns...
:
:Goodness knows why, perhaps they feel inadequate in some way...

Another egregiously stupid remark.  Where do you dream them up from?

All police officials tend to carry guns here.  More and more of yours
are starting to do likewise, even up to automatic weapons (which ours
do not carry).

Goodness knows why, perhaps they feel inadequate in some way...

Signature

"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
                              -- Thomas Jefferson

Dan - 22 Feb 2007 18:38 GMT
> Hilarious!
>
> Tourists coming to the United States have nothing to fear...
>
> Not unless they are terrorists.

Since the vast majority of "detainees" in Gitmo are not, and never have
been, terrorists, and have no ties to terrorism, except the color of
their skin and their accent (to American ears), methinks you have missed
the mark yet again with your vacuous pronouncements on subjects of which
you are woefully ignorant.

Have a nice day,

Dan
USAMA BIN MISSIN - 22 Feb 2007 04:01 GMT
YOU GUYS ARE GONNA FLIP AFTER READING THIS.

TODAY ON THE NEWS HERE IN CANADA, THE CONSERVATIVE GOVT OF STEPHEN
HARPER IS TRYING TO PASS AN ANTI-TERRORIST LAW SIMILAR TO THE ONE IN
THE USA. UNFORTUNATELY THE OPOSITION LIBERALS KEEP BLOCKING THE VOTE
OF ACCEPTANCE BECAUSE......(THIS IS NO JOKE ) ...ONE OF THEIR LIBERAL
MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT ( A TURBAN HEAD OF COURSE )  IS DIRECTLY RELATED
TO ONE OF THE TERRORISTS THAT BOMBED
AIR INDIA FLIGHT SEVERAL YEARS AGO.

i FEEL LIKE GIVING THIS INFO TO THE US CNN NEWS.  I BET YA THEY,LL
HAVE A FIELD DAY !

IN CASE YOU WANT TO HEAR THIS LIVE CHECK OUT CTV NEWS OR CBC AND TVA
IN MONTREAL CANADA IT,S ON THE EVENING NEWS.

> "U.S. citizens and foreigners being held inside the country normally have
> the right to contest their detention before a judge. The Justice Department
[quoted text clipped - 60 lines]
> the government's significant interests in guarding national security,"
> Rogers wrote.
Jack Linthicum - 22 Feb 2007 11:46 GMT
> "U.S. citizens and foreigners being held inside the country normally have
> the right to contest their detention before a judge. The Justice Department
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> upholding a key provision of a law at the center of President Bush's anti-
> terrorism plan.

So the Supreme Court, as it did previously, will simply tell the
Congress, now Democraticly controlled, to rewrite this nonsense to
comply with the Constitution.

Fun time is over, time to face the music.  The "terrorism" as
documented by the Justice Department Inspector General seems to
consist of fake marriages, drug trafficking and  immigration
violations. The JD uses the "terror" label to beef up their apparent
usefulness and activity.
Robert Peffers. - 23 Feb 2007 23:32 GMT
>> "U.S. citizens and foreigners being held inside the country normally have
>> the right to contest their detention before a judge. The Justice
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> violations. The JD uses the "terror" label to beef up their apparent
> usefulness and activity.

Get wise. If these, "Suspected", terrorists are taken prisoner outside USA
jurisdiction then they cannot be charged with breaking ANY USA laws as these
laws only apply within USA borders. If they cannot be charged with breaking
USA law then they cannot be tried under any USA legal system. If they cannot
be tried then they cannot be convicted. Thus they cannot be convicted then
they cannot be found guilty. So just why would the legal system have any
legal way to allow them to contest their detention for to do so would be to
expose the simple fact that they had broken on USA laws and their detention
can only be a war crime. If anyone cares to check back they will find I
pointed all this out when the USA first invaded Afghanistan and refused to
treat the prisoners taken as POWs.
Signature


Robert Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).

kevinmccabe@yahoo.com - 24 Feb 2007 03:05 GMT
On Feb 23, 3:32 pm, "Robert Peffers." <peffer...@btinternet.com>
wrote:

> >> "U.S. citizens and foreigners being held inside the country normally have
> >> the right to contest their detention before a judge. The Justice
[quoted text clipped - 47 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Funny. And there I was thinking that the original office of "The Great
Writ of Liberty" (habeas corpus) was to inquire into the legality of a
detention where a claim of lack of jurisdiction was interposed.
'Course, I also thought the U.S. Constitution said something about not
suspending that writ.

McCabe
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.