Judge Napolitano Analyzes the Supreme Court Gitmo Ruling!

[VailPatriot]

Both Shep and Napolitano are completely, utterly and dangerously WRONG.

Enemy combatants are not mere criminals charged with a misdemeanor or of violating some civil law, they have committed acts of war against our nation.

If you do not understand the difference then you are not equipped to participate in this discussion.

[CrimsonFlameRTR]

@VailPatriot

No such thing as an enemy combatant outside of wartime.

[metallicafannick]

@VailPatriot the point is that several of those people aren't enemy combatants. A fair portion of them were turned in just for the money. They just want the ability to see what they have been charged with and what the evidence is. Like I said, there is a fair portion of these people that never did anything wrong and dont have any connections to any terrorist group

[socalcraigster]

Where is the Fox propaganda douche?

[wannabestudd]

Whoever posted this video.

How is this GOP propaganda?????

If anything this is Libertarian propaganda which I love.

But no this condems fucking retards like McCain and Bush

[HugeJohn51]

Is anyone else shocked to see this type of reaction from Fox? I can't believe they didn't freak out- instead they agree with it! Wow anything is possible I guess.

[YoungRenaissanceMan]

its bc theyre not bias like these idiots claim u wanna see bias watch the other news, listen to talk radio thats bias fox is news w/ opinionaters that r presented as people w/ opinions not jounalists like olbermann claims to be

[1802ibrahim]

to find the truth go to

watch?v=E9Gb1MOH9ls

watch?v=be4pYYwMimI

watch?v=Jnx8qLjvApI

[YINever]

amindbody, why do you have to display sneering condescension when it is abundantly clear you didn't understand a word that I said in the first place? I'll give you that you can actually type competently, unlike most of the other idiots on this site.

yboldt14, yes habeas corpus is not some unique American principle. As noted in the dissent, this flies in the face of not only American precedent but centuries of English common law.

[yboldt14]

YINever, I suspect we disagree on the ruling, but it is clear that you have a deeper understanding than I of the history of rulings concerning the handling "enemy combantants". I am not terribly learned in this area. However, it is my understanding that the decision was influenced by the fact that the detainees are not considered POWs, which in the past gave government's the legal right to "throw away the key" as Napolitano puts it. What is your opinion on that.

[yboldt14]

I cannot feel comfortable with the idea of the American government detaining someone for years without charging them with a crime. A government should not take away the rights of an individual without proving they had done something wrong. Regardless of legal precedent, I cannot see how this can be justified.

BTW, I am not so ignorant to believe many of the detainees do not deserve what they are getting. But that is missing the point, which I'm sure you recognize.

[YoungRenaissanceMan]

well w/ ur logic we should give rights to the nazis from ww2, u wanna help people who wanna blow u up and ur kids cause they want to go to heaven then fine, u wanna give rights to the people who would do 9/11 fine when 9/11 happens again then come back and say they deserve rights

god were headed towards 9/11 again...

[yboldt14]

Why don't you say 9/11 a few more times. Mentioning my children, nazis, or a number of other triggers is all you people think should be necessary to end a 'debate' on these issues. "What about the children!". You know what, I am thinking about my children. We are LESS safe and MORE vulnerable, and our freedoms have been diminished to boot. Talk about letting the terrorists win.

What about BEFORE 9/11? Why do we never talk about what caused 9/11? The foreign policy of the US is pure insanity.

[yboldt14]

YRM: this mentality is the same one that supported the locking up of Japanese Americans in WW2. We literally rounded them up and put them in concentration camps. The things we did in that time were atrocious. We should learn from them, instead of compounding our mistakes in the name of correcting them.

[YoungRenaissanceMan]

comparing apples and oranges dumbass

lmao

u cant compare the paranoia over jap. americans to people who are trying to blow u up lol

my god r u that stupid? lol

[yboldt14]

Sure you can. We are talking about the way in which government may deal with people they consider a threat to national security. The American way (in theory) is to put a neutral third party between the government and its target to determine if it has the right to incarcerate the individual. If you have a problem with that, or don't seem to understand it, you can consult the founders.

You clearly do not understand the fundamentals behind this system, and why it was implemented.

[YoungRenaissanceMan]

lmao ur funny i understand that the enemy should be treated as enemies the jap americans were just that americans with rights u wanna compare them to evil terrorists fine shows what a joke u r :D

[yboldt14]

Well, enemies to whom? The government or the people? Why assume their interests are the same? How can you be so sure the government ONLY locks up the evil people? You think they will not abuse this right?

You give unchecked power to people and you should expect them to abuse it. And you should expect them to tell you its for your own good. No government would ever shrink itself or deny an offering of power. Most times, they probably sincerely believe it's in the best interest of the country.

[YoungRenaissanceMan]

well im pretty sure that when they catch them planning to blow ur dumbass up that theyre evil u got that dumbass? is that getting through ur fricking head?! r u just that stupid?

[yboldt14]

Yes, you have it all figured out. Quite the intellectual debate we're having here. I am going to assume you are 12 years old and that is why you are incapable of actual discourse. In which case I should have stopped wasting my time long ago.

[YoungRenaissanceMan]

hey bud im 19 and hey u wanna keep posting stupid comments go ahead and keep looking stupid...

[avb212002]

Have you asked yourself why they want to blow us up?

[YoungRenaissanceMan]

ya bc they believe theyll go to heaven for trying to start the armageddon of their religion, i hope ur not one of those whacklos who says theyre blowing us up bc they cant stand the way we treat them lol

[avb212002]

First of all, I'm not a whacko to my credibility I'm an iraq veteran that not that long ago I probably sounded similar to you, but not as idiotic. Anyways I'm going to use strictly logic to your replied statement. You are saying they are blowing us up for reasons having to do with religion...OK, why do they attack the United States and not other countries? Please dont say because we are free and powerful.

[YoungRenaissanceMan]

ok if u really are a vetran im sorry that ud be a gero and a dumbass at the same time bc they attack various countries

got it? good :)

[avb212002]

You are half correct with why they want to blow us up, for the same reasons why we are in Iraq. The terrorist leaders lie to their suicide bombers or any terrorist to carry out their agenda, just like our government lied to us about weapons of mass distruction. However, they have a motive to attack us, we do to "OIL".

[YoungRenaissanceMan]

ok here are the facts yes FACTS:

- govt did not lie to us about wmds, bad intel screwed us up

- we dont attack terrorists for their oil im paying 4.50 at the pump mainly bc we dont get enough oil from our middle eastern allies espc. iraq, we attack them bc they pose a threat to our safety

- we are in iraq bc of bad intel and the need to get more middle eastern allies anything else out of ur mouth would be conspiracys made by the loony left

[avb212002]

Its seems we are not going to get through eachother. More than anything I hope you support the troops as much as I do. I think we can come to an agreement there. More than half the country and troops dont want to be in iraq because of this unconstitutional or unjustified war that had nothing to do with 9/11. More than 90,000 iraqui civilians have been killed including innocent people and children. More than 4000 troops have died. Our military is stressed out and dimishing.

[avb212002]

Having said that, if you feel strongly about fighting terrorist maybe you should join the military. No offense dude. Also watch this video. "Is Ron Paul serious? Blowback in 1979 from a 1953 coup?"

[YoungRenaissanceMan]

this war is constitutional and just, there were mistakes but not bad enough to throw those red. loony claims. our military is stressed but NOT diminshing u can thank clinton for that after gutting it,and now ur instigating our troops are murderers bc innocents are killed by terrorists that are battling us? ive thoguht of joining but i have other plans thats why i respect them bc unless i join they got more balls than me, i dont watch videos from loons or ron paul related

[avb212002]

I dont know where you are getting your information from, but is out there. The fact that you are not willing to look or here at other peoples ideas, means you are illogical and says a lot of what you want to believe. I'm an American and forget all the political jiberish...left, red, right. I do what I think is right. Just like when I was in the military I choose no sides. I never called our troops murderers. I was there, for me to think or say that would be idiotic. Is the result of this war.

[avb212002]

Also, you might want to know that Ron Paul recieved more support from our active duty military than any other candidate. I have the video to prove it.

[YoungRenaissanceMan]

no i dont take loony idaes seriosu bc there a waste of time and an insult to itelligent debate, ive heard that about the loony rep candidate w/ a bunch of 9/11 truthers backing him up and i have no idea how true that is but it still makes him no less nuttier

[amindbody]

Judge Napolitano is insightful. He is one of the few fair-minded, logical, reasoned, balanced, non-partisan, strictly Constitutional-minded individuals. I watch Fox for the hot female reporters, Red Eye and O'Reilly, but they have become increasingly conservative. Hannity has 2 shows, Huckabee, Rove & Laura Ingraham are Republican and their people except for E.D. Hill are Republican or conservative. I don't know what the Judge is but I wish Paul and Napolitano could be our next leaders.

[YINever]

I'm wondering what the point of posting this video is, considering that both Napolitano and Smith seem to agree that this is a positive ruling. This is despite the fact that all American and English (common law) precedent are decisively against allowing habeas corpus rights for enemy aliens held in foreign territory. The SCOTUS has invented (and allowed for further inventions of) federal and constitutional laws, but this hardly means that these laws were either existent or inviolable.

[amindbody]

Are you dumb? Cite when the US govt declared war against, uh, which country did the detainees come from again? NOT IRAQ. We might as well declare war against all nations considered to be Middle East, oh, wait, we are supporting some of them. I'm glad about this decision.

[YINever]

You're the idiot because your comment doesn't address what I am saying at all.

[amindbody]

Yes, I did. If someone steals your identity and makes terrorist threats, which can be very insignificant as saying you're going to join the Taliban, the US govt can detain you without ever telling you why and you WOULD NOT have a right to a lawyer because the govt would name you as an enemy combatant, therefore you wouldn't fall under Habeus Corpus before this decision. The point of this video was simply to broadcast that the Executive Branch can't simply detain you forever without telling you.

[YINever]

No they cannot, per the proper previous SCOTUS rulings regarding American citizens. The government failed to establish proper conditions for suspending habeas corpus rights in regard to US citizens, and I support that. That is not all that controversial. This ruling has little to do with executive priority (it pertained to Acts of Congress) and had to do with foreign citizens on foreign soil. Unlike you, I am quite capable of distinguishing these issues and holding consistent opinions.

[amindbody]

Let me put it in terms you can understand. If another Israel gets attacked and it finds you to be part of the attack and they detain you in a foreign military prison without telling you why for 6, 7, 8, 10 years, what do you think the US govt would say about the country detaining you without giving you an explanation of your detention? As O'Reilly would say, wise up.

[Achilles222]

Judge Napolitano is wrong. The U.S. Constitution is not a document that applies universally. This decision flies in the face of a century of precedent on how to handle foreign combatants. By his own admission, the evidence gained against these men would either not stand up in an American court or compromise the sources of the evidence and hence compromise our security. Judge Napolitano does sound noble. The next time one is tempted to sound noble, think of those people who burned alive on 9/11.

[yboldt14]

The Constitution applies to persons, not citizens. Precedence? Even the worst villians in history had some respect for habeus corpus. It is a mentality like this that allowed the "PATRIOT" Act to pass. If you want to live in a police state, move to China. You can't lock up people without due process in America. And nothing, not a terrorist attack, can change that. You are not doing a service to those who died in 9/11 by destroying the very essence of America.

[amindbody]

Yes. Give me liberty of give me death, a wise man said. Every generation needs a new revolution, another wise man said. Peace through strength is bullshit. Should be strength through example. If we keep our principles, the world will respect us more and actually want to help us against unscrupled people, but most republicans, some democrats and other idiots don't understand. It may be a theory but must be applied. Principles can't be discarded for human lives. I will sacrifice myself.

[Achilles222]

The Constitution does not apply to the entire world. The principles that motivate the U.S. Constitution apply to everyone, but the laws and founding documents is our unique way to apply universal principles. Our laws and institutions apply only to those who have entered into agreement with the State to abide by American laws within American jurisdiction.

[yboldt14]

The "principles" apply to everyone but the laws don't? Let's say this is true, which I do not believe, are you ok with this? Should there be such a wide gap between what we accept as principle and what we practice?

And Habeus Corpus is not some unique American principle. Also, I don't recall "entering into an agreement with the State to abide by American laws". The Constitution restricts how government may act, it does not place qualifiers on who it must act this way towards.

[Achilles222]

Well, it is not so much what we accept in practice vs. principle as it is what we accept for ourselves and people who attack us who are not party to our particular way of doing things. Personally, I believe there are too many loopholes for Americans introduced mainly by the Warren Court. Some of these restrictions on police and prosecutors date back earlier. Some reforms were needed and peculiar to the U.S. though. This application of habeas corpus is unprecedented in English or American history

[Achilles222]

As for your not explicitly agreeing to the Constitution, this is a well-known criticism of the social contract theory that the Constitution is based on. The counter-argument is that the agreement in implicit rather than explicit. We agree to it by our continuing to live here without revolting against the institutions and laws it sanctions. I agree social contract theory is controversial. But that is the centerpiece to my argument. Lastly, the issue of jurisdiction limits your last point.

[amindbody]

The Judge is correct. Yes, evidence gained may have been through bad channels, which is why the Bush administration named these detainees 'enemy combatants". It's great day because our govt has to prove their guilt. Patriot Act gives the govt the right to detain us for however long they want without stating why if they suspect terror. If someone steals your identity and makes terrorist threats, our govt could detain YOU and never have to tell you why you are detained. Then you would be FUCKED!!!

[KARStarla]

Thank You Judge!! I cant agree more!

[KARStarla]

Thank YOU Supreme Court! I so AGREE!

[ClassicFIHD]

So let me get this straight. Now when a Soldier captures an Enemy Combatant, the Soldier has to read them their Miranda Rights and charge them with a crime within 72 hours. So all the captives we have now will probably get off on a technicality if they were not read their Miranda Rights. Can a Solder legally charge someone with a crime? Do they have to be trained and authorize to write a citation? Do Soldiers now have to collect evidence at the scene while being shot at?

[milliradian]

Miranda is a warning.

[ClassicFIHD]

What's your point? When a cop arrests you he tells you your legal Miranda Rights which are spelled out in the "Miranda Warning", last line the cop asks you if you understand your rights.

First thing a defense lawyer will ask you is have you been given you Miranda Rights.

[ClassicFIHD]

milliradian

FYI, these are your rights from the Miranda Warning:

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you."

Then the Cop asks you "Do you understand these rights?"

[milliradian]

No no, that is your warning. You already had your rights before Miranda, they come from the Bill Of Rights. If Miranda gave you your rights, you had none until the 1960's...impossible :P

[ClassicFIHD]

Yes you already had your rights, but you may not know them.

Look at the Miranda v. Arizona case were Ernesto Miranda confessed to a crime and he not aware he had the legal right to remain silent and to have a attorney present during questioning before he confessed. So his defense was he was not aware he had those legal rights and he was released.

Now before you are arrested you are informed of your rights so you cannot use ignorance of your legal rights as a defense.

[ClassicFIHD]

milliraddian,

FYI

Miranda Rights:

As a result, American English developed the verb Mirandize, meaning "to read to a suspect his or her Miranda rights" (when the suspect is arrested).

Notably, the Miranda rights do not have to be read in any particular order, and they do not have to precisely match the language of the Miranda decision, as long as they are adequately and fully conveyed.

Google it!

[milliradian]

No, mirandize = inform someone of their rights. The rights you've always had...Not to inform someone of their "Miranda rights" You are as stubborn as me :)

[ClassicFIHD]

Can you not read, or can you not comprehend?

Did you google it yet?

Miranda warning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As a result, American English developed the verb Mirandize, meaning "to read to a suspect his or her Miranda rights" (when the suspect is arrested).

Do you see the word "MIRANDA RIGHTS"? in the meaning of "MIRANDIZE"?

GOOGLE IT! It's right there

"THE VERB MIRANDIZE, MEANING "TO READ TO A SUSPECT HIS OR HER MIRANDA RIGHTS".

SEE "MIRANDA RIGHTS"?

[milliradian]

I am capable of reading. I have above average comprehension. I knew from the beginning of your argument that you were sourcing Wiki for your argument. Trouble is. You are an ultracrepidarian, and unwilling to see it. Miranda is not a right, it is a warning. Google it, It's right there! :)

[ClassicFIHD]

Here then,

From U.S. Constitution OnLine.

Since then, before any pertinent questioning of a suspect is done, the police have been required to recite the Miranda warning. The statement, reproduced below, exists in several forms, but all have the key elements: the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. These are also often referred to as the "Miranda rights." When you have been read your rights, you are said to have been "Mirandized."

[ClassicFIHD]

I never said Miranda was a right, I said it requires an officer to inform a suspect of his rights which are "the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney".

[YoungRenaissanceMan]

n were softer on terror another 9/11 just getting set up all over again..

[YoungRenaissanceMan]

i dont understand i thought fox was right wing :D

[LandOfTheBrave01]

The US will have to show that Marvin Bush was in charge of Security at the WTC, and this would show the judge opportunity. The US will be forced to show the documents in relation to PNAC, which has the signatures of Bush and Cheney. This will show motive. Indeed, Bush and Cheney need Habeas Corpus once they leave office, because most Americans want to lock them up and throw away the key. Forever!.. so indeed Habeas Corpus!

[LandOfTheBrave01]

Napolitano hit the nail on the head. When Bush and Cheney are tried for treason against this Country, they will have all of the rights promised to them the Constitution guarantees. They will even have the writ of Habeas Corpus, in which we will be forced to present all the evidence against them in a timely manner.

We will be forced to bring forth engineers and show demonstrations of how they brought down the twin towers and WTC7 using Thermate. Habeas Corpus will force the US to do this.

[YoungRenaissanceMan]

9/11 truther? lmao loon

[LandOfTheBrave01]

@YoungRenaissanceMan

Lets play a game. You type a word in the Youtube Search bar and analyze a video. Once you analyze the video you report back to this comment section with your findings. Deal?

Ok you type "Thermate" into the Youtube search bar. The 2nd video from the top will show the center core beams from the twin towers. Your to explain how an airplane crashing into the side of the towers was able to cut perfect 45 degree angles on beams at the base of the towers. Thank you Sir!

[YoungRenaissanceMan]

dont have time to play w/ loons :)

[LandOfTheBrave01]

LOL!! You fuckin pussy! You are so worthless. I made an easy game for you to play, and you took the path of a bitch. Now all your post are completely worthless to everyone reading comments in this section. You come in here and try and discredit fact, but with confronted with truth you run and hide like a bitch. Typical of your type who attack 911 truthers. 911 truthers are your worst fucking nightmare asshole. We are in your fucking dreams, bending you over and raping your thoughts!

[YoungRenaissanceMan]

wait ur a 9/11 truther? oh yeah u r ya ur worthless shit dont talk to me i have a life i have no time to play games w/ scum like u guess what 9/11 was done by terrorists sorry to burst ur bubble read popular mechanics they dissect ur conspiracies one by one or better watch the history channel doc on it im done w/ u conspiracist 9/11 was not an inside job dumbass bye :p

[LandOfTheBrave01]

@YoungRenaissanceMan

Lets play another game! Youtube search "Popular Mechanics Flying Circus".

The fact that you quoted Popular Mechanics means you have drank all the kool-aid and are a lost cause. I refuse to waste anymore time on you. You are completely and absolutely, astonishingly worthless. I mean damn man, were you really raised in a trailer park? You are a disgrace.. Get outta here!

[YoungRenaissanceMan]

im done w/ u scum ur a staind on our country spouting conspiracys like 9/11 was an inside job and shit like that good day sir and may you get a life and look up some actual facts bye now dumbass :)

[LandOfTheBrave01]

@YoungRenaissanceMan

You too! You have a nice day. I sorta feel kinda bad for calling you names. Your lack of intelligence is not your fault. Our society has failed you.

So take care man. Hopefully someday you will finally understand the truth. Take care bud!

Make sure you vote for change. This is our best chance to re-establish our educational system, in which perhaps the next generation will have a better chance at intellect than you have had. Vote Obama08!

[YoungRenaissanceMan]

a 9/11 truther supporting the lets have tea parties w/ terrorists guy

ok so lets recap whos endorsed oabama:

- jimmy carter

- john kerry

- olberloon

- hamas

- other terrorits

- 9/11 truthers

what change lol

screw off u worthless scum :) bye :p

[1962thunderbird]

Shep said it, "Its not called United States anymore"

Well no shit. You finally get it.

Scumbag

[freedommv1]

thanks for the clip.

[benjie2429]

you are the man Napolitano

[bebop54]

1 small step for habeus corpus ...

go napolitano .....

[troyg19]

There are apparently 4 Judges on the supreme court that don't mind committing treason!

[LiberalshateAmerica]

Anything good for the terrorists is good for liberals.

[BenAliGtor]

A victory for the US Constitution and America-despite how some Republitards may try to spin it. As far as "handcuffing the government", it's called "the rule of law". The judge is right: It IS a "good day."

[NEPatriot]

The dummies in black robes screw this country yet again! Kerry I think describes the war on terror as merely a criminal matter...BULL**** IT IS! The leftists once again show they are in the backpockets of terrorists. These terrorists MUST FACE EXTREME PUNISHMENT. They killed 3,000 AMERICAN Citizens. But I guess it doesn't matter to the leftists on the court, espcially Ruth Bader "ACLU/NAMBLA" Ginsburg.

[jeremy22227]

It's a complicated situation. Most people held at Guantanamo weren't picked up on a battle field. They were turned in for money by Pakistani warlords. And I'm actually comfortable with some of the Patriot Act.

But Habeas Corpus is too important a right in my mind. It existed long before our country did.

For example, one man was held because his friend was a suicide bomber. Only his friend was still alive in Germany. So they let him go after 2 years. 2 years!

[VinceP1974]

This government is working against us on ALL FRONTS.

ENOUGH

[ChuckyChuckster]

Thank you, Judge Napolitano.