That idiot Bush didn't have any evidence that Boumediene was a terrorist and yet he was held captive for 7 1/2 years. For what? So he could brag about how they had captured terrorists who were plotting to bomb the U.S Embassy. Your hero Bush is no hero to me. He oughta be in prison for war crimes but my guess is that he'll get a pass because "everyone makes mistakes." He was nothing but a complete joke from start to finish.
Bullshit, Thompson says they were already given process - only the process the Supreme Court had previously required! He said Congress and the President "worked together" to decide the system, but all Congress did was pass a law saying the President could set up whatever system he wanted. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the government's counsel said not to worry about whether anyone was innocent, because they could protest their innocence to their interrogators! No further process required.
They said they weren't terrorists, that's the whole point of habeas corpus, to determine guilt. And foreign nationals absolutely do have due process rights under our Constitution, you would have to ignore both the plain text of the Constitution (no PERSON shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law) and also countless Supreme Court precedents, holding over and over again that non-citizens have due process rights, this isn't something the Supreme Court just made up.
Until Congress unconstitutionally tried to limit the writ leading up to this case, it had ALWAYS been granted to non-citizens. Non-citizens were always granted the writ starting on day 1 of the Constitution, and the writ was extended to aliens at common law as well. The writ can be issued to any person who detains another under color of U.S. law, whether the detainee is a citizen or not, that's the way it had always been, it was the dissent who wanted to create a rule out of nowhere.
@ThunderPigBlog Are you serious? Hrmmm, so how do you feel about the idea that the 14th Amendment addresses due process and equal protection as "all persons under the jurisdiction" of the Constitution? Or maybe we can look at the case Rasul v. Bush where foreign nationals were given the right to file pleas for habeas corpus of their family members detained in Guantanamo? Oh, and yes, Guantanamo IS under our jurisdiction
@ThunderPigBlog The Supreme Court gave them rights because it is the right thing to do. It's a scary world knowing you can be detained for associating with the wrong people. If these people are truly guilty of crimes, the judicial system we trust to do the right thing domestically will continue to rule in the favor of justice.
There is a troubling assumption that all of the detainees are terrorists. The internal system which should have allowed an innocent person to be eventually released was flawed. The supreme court was correct; but it was close. The Supreme Court appears to be a divided court. Algerian humanitarian worker, Lakhdar Boumediene, swept up after 911 (in Bosnia!) and taken to Guantanamo, was treated sadistically by guards and medical professionals.
F yeah they have rights, Innocent until proven guilty, What are YOU going to do when they institute martial law, and throw YOU into prison indefinately, without charges, and with no court proceedings.... ooooh waaaah but i have rights.... WAKE THE FUCK UP PPL< if there guilty, then they will be found guilty by a court of law!!!!
I'm not for terrorists being let free, but I do think that we are constitutionally bound to allowing these individuals writ of habeas corpus, dspite how we feel about them. It is not a foreign territory, it is under our sovereign rule, not Cuba's. This is the same case as with England's territories in the 19th and early 20th century. Once, again, I'm advocating the constitution, not terrorism or whatever. This was a hard decision and both sides made good arguments.I feel this one was legitimate
These terrorists have no rights under our Constitution because they are not US Citizens!!!
Most of them have been captured on the field of battle without uniform and carrying weapons...under the Geneva Conventions...our soldiers would have the right to summarily execute them on the spot, or after interrogating them.
What kind of a retard suggests that foreign nationals have ANY rights under our constitution???
Actually, what you're saying about most of them being captured on the battle field is a total myth. The minority of them are captured on the battlefield. Boumediene was released, by the way. 7 1/2 years for an innocent man. Does that mean anything to your conscience?
The constitution says that, read the Fifth Amendment, no PERSON shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The line Supreme Court cases backing up that proposition are endless, there is no deviation from precedent here. They said they weren't captured on the battlefield carrying weapons, and that's what the Supreme Court said they had to be given the opportunity to prove.
So, this bitch has been kicked off her radio show temporarily. Her show sucked anyway. I'll be voting for McCain in the fall, but the more these fringe idiots keep opening their fat mouths, the more it hurts McCain.
That idiot Bush didn't have any evidence that Boumediene was a terrorist and yet he was held captive for 7 1/2 years. For what? So he could brag about how they had captured terrorists who were plotting to bomb the U.S Embassy. Your hero Bush is no hero to me. He oughta be in prison for war crimes but my guess is that he'll get a pass because "everyone makes mistakes." He was nothing but a complete joke from start to finish.
roguegirl29 11 months ago
Bullshit, Thompson says they were already given process - only the process the Supreme Court had previously required! He said Congress and the President "worked together" to decide the system, but all Congress did was pass a law saying the President could set up whatever system he wanted. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the government's counsel said not to worry about whether anyone was innocent, because they could protest their innocence to their interrogators! No further process required.
number154 2 years ago
@number154:
Terrorists or foreign nationals have no rights whatsoever under our constitution.
ThunderPigBlog 2 years ago
They said they weren't terrorists, that's the whole point of habeas corpus, to determine guilt. And foreign nationals absolutely do have due process rights under our Constitution, you would have to ignore both the plain text of the Constitution (no PERSON shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law) and also countless Supreme Court precedents, holding over and over again that non-citizens have due process rights, this isn't something the Supreme Court just made up.
number154 2 years ago
Until Congress unconstitutionally tried to limit the writ leading up to this case, it had ALWAYS been granted to non-citizens. Non-citizens were always granted the writ starting on day 1 of the Constitution, and the writ was extended to aliens at common law as well. The writ can be issued to any person who detains another under color of U.S. law, whether the detainee is a citizen or not, that's the way it had always been, it was the dissent who wanted to create a rule out of nowhere.
number154 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheMintyhippo93 1 year ago
@ThunderPigBlog Are you serious? Hrmmm, so how do you feel about the idea that the 14th Amendment addresses due process and equal protection as "all persons under the jurisdiction" of the Constitution? Or maybe we can look at the case Rasul v. Bush where foreign nationals were given the right to file pleas for habeas corpus of their family members detained in Guantanamo? Oh, and yes, Guantanamo IS under our jurisdiction
TheMintyhippo93 1 year ago
@ThunderPigBlog The Supreme Court gave them rights because it is the right thing to do. It's a scary world knowing you can be detained for associating with the wrong people. If these people are truly guilty of crimes, the judicial system we trust to do the right thing domestically will continue to rule in the favor of justice.
TheBetaMale 9 months ago
Wow, Algerian humanitarian worker Boumediene was actually completely innocent. OOPS!
You Americans are all a bunch of dumb asses!
IshidaTakeshi1 2 years ago
There is a troubling assumption that all of the detainees are terrorists. The internal system which should have allowed an innocent person to be eventually released was flawed. The supreme court was correct; but it was close. The Supreme Court appears to be a divided court. Algerian humanitarian worker, Lakhdar Boumediene, swept up after 911 (in Bosnia!) and taken to Guantanamo, was treated sadistically by guards and medical professionals.
Search You Tube: v=PaZ4_Iwzvhk"
Bigstubby1 2 years ago
F yeah they have rights, Innocent until proven guilty, What are YOU going to do when they institute martial law, and throw YOU into prison indefinately, without charges, and with no court proceedings.... ooooh waaaah but i have rights.... WAKE THE FUCK UP PPL< if there guilty, then they will be found guilty by a court of law!!!!
hargrovesm 3 years ago
I'm not for terrorists being let free, but I do think that we are constitutionally bound to allowing these individuals writ of habeas corpus, dspite how we feel about them. It is not a foreign territory, it is under our sovereign rule, not Cuba's. This is the same case as with England's territories in the 19th and early 20th century. Once, again, I'm advocating the constitution, not terrorism or whatever. This was a hard decision and both sides made good arguments.I feel this one was legitimate
logrenbeg 3 years ago
These terrorists have no rights under our Constitution because they are not US Citizens!!!
Most of them have been captured on the field of battle without uniform and carrying weapons...under the Geneva Conventions...our soldiers would have the right to summarily execute them on the spot, or after interrogating them.
What kind of a retard suggests that foreign nationals have ANY rights under our constitution???
ThunderPigBlog 3 years ago
Actually, what you're saying about most of them being captured on the battle field is a total myth. The minority of them are captured on the battlefield. Boumediene was released, by the way. 7 1/2 years for an innocent man. Does that mean anything to your conscience?
kainedamo 2 years ago
The constitution says that, read the Fifth Amendment, no PERSON shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The line Supreme Court cases backing up that proposition are endless, there is no deviation from precedent here. They said they weren't captured on the battlefield carrying weapons, and that's what the Supreme Court said they had to be given the opportunity to prove.
number154 2 years ago
Fred should have been the Rep. nominee. Boumediene v. Bush decision is GARBAGE!! These Terrorists are NOT EVEN covered under the Geneva Conventions!!
yankeekack 3 years ago
So, this bitch has been kicked off her radio show temporarily. Her show sucked anyway. I'll be voting for McCain in the fall, but the more these fringe idiots keep opening their fat mouths, the more it hurts McCain.
carrieyazel 3 years ago
She is renegotiating for a better contract...it goes with success.
Laura Ingraham and Fred Thompson represent the conservative movement pretty well...
ThunderPigBlog 3 years ago
Oh, and punks(or punkettes) like you should watch your language. Using that kind of language in meatspace could get you hurt.
ThunderPigBlog 3 years ago
I don't think McCain would want carrieyazel's vote, considering the incredible ignorance and lack of character shown by this moron.
Fred Thompson is on point in showing the folly of the Boumediene decision by the SCOTUS Libs.
carrieyazel's comment sucks anyway and is emblematic of a fringe idiot that can't stop opening its fat mouth.
averageworkinggal 3 years ago