Habeas Corpus Upheld! Supreme Court Rules against G.W.B.

[Knot4Prophet]

On June 12, 2008, in the case of Boumediene v. Bush, Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the 5-4 majority holding that Guantanamo Bay prisoners had a right to the habeas corpus under the United States Constitution and that the Military Commissions Act (Section 7 - 2005) was an unconstitutional suspension of that right.

This is a victory for human rights and renewal of faith in the American Justice System.

Guantanamo Bay has been at the center of a legal battle since 2002 when it was first used for detainees in the "War on Terrorism." The first battle against bush by illegally held detainees was won in 2004, with Rasul v. Bush, when the Supreme Court decided that they do indeed have jurisdiction in Guantanamo Bay and that the detainees do in fact have a right to file a writ of habeas corpus.

This is also in line with the Geneva Convention, which was designed to cover all types of "combatants" whether they were official POW's or "unlawful combatants." The distinction was that POW's would get specific rights while detained as outlined in the Third Geneva Convention but that "unlawful combatants" who were detained in a country foreign to them, would at least have access to the local justice system for addressing their rights to habeas corpus, among other things.

The International Committee of the Red Cross was quoted in the Supreme Court's 2004 decision for Rasul v. Bush in 2004:

Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law," because in the opinion of the ICRC "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action".

It is obvious to anyone with even a fractional reserve of brain cells, that the Bush Administration used the location of Guantanamo Bay specifically in hopes of suspending the detainees rights under the Geneva Conventions and any rights they may have had on U.S. soil.

After losing the earlier court battle in 2004, the Bush Administration created the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006, in hopes of establishing a chimera of justice for the detainees, while still attempting to circumvent Geneva.

In the most recent Supreme Court decision against Bush, the newly created Military Commissions Act (section 7 only) was struck down as unconstitutional because the court found they were "inadequate" based on the fact that detainees cannot know the full charges against them, often had no counsel, were not allowed to present witnesses or cross-examine government witnesses, and detainees could be convicted by hearsay alone.

The Supreme Court received over two dozen briefs of amicus curiae on the case, including some written strictly on the history and application of Habeas Corpus in England, Scotland, Hanover, Ireland, Canada, British-controlled territories, India, and the United States. Twenty-two amicus briefs were filed in support of the petitioners, Messrs. Boumediene and Al Odah, and four were filed in support of the respondents, the Bush Administration.

Several other cases were amalgamated with Boumediene in this decision.

For more background on these and related legal proceedings:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Odah_v._United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasul_v._Bush

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant_ ... w_Tribunal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detainee_Treatment_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_C ... ct_of_2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant_ ... w_Tribunal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo ... nment_camp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawful_combatant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POW

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism

The final link there about the "definition of terrorism" is a thought provoking article.

The success for human rights upheld by the Supreme Court in U.S. Law is inspiring in that even in the face of terrorism, the United States law can be shown to work, even for suspected terrorists in a political climate of retribution. The Executive Branch of the United States government is not above the law and cannot circumvent it, even for suspected terrorists. We should all breathe a sigh of relief that Habeas Corpus has been upheld, a real victory for humanity since the inception of Habeas Corpus when it was first codified in the Magna Carta 1215.

[April]

I guess that means we can't hack off their hands & feet, douse them with gasoline, light them on fire, and then drag their charred corpses through the streets, now, huh?


Or video tape them being beheaded and send the tape to their families?

This is good news, I guess...says something about us as a nation when somewhere in some branch of the govt there is still someone left with some civilized decency. I hope it won't be our downfall.

But if you can't see the irony in all of this, then let me explain:

These prisoners come from a country where they have no rights. They like it that way...it's their religion. They want the rest of the world that way, as well. They would like none better than to kill all the infidels, meaning us...and take away our rights. They are determined to take over the world, one country at a time, turning any and all countries into ones that live under islamic law. That is their goal, that is their plan, and that is what this war is about to them...and it began many years ago.

What rights do women have where they come from? What rights do non-muslim have where they come from? Why is it that way? Who made it that way? They did. That's how they want it. They like it that way.

But they get captured and start complaining that they have no rights that they wouldn't give any American prisoner if it had been the other way around...and you know it. They wouldn't even give their own those rights.

The fact they are still alive to complain about anything at all, is a testimony to how much more civilized we are than them, no matter how many rights we denied them.

If the tables were turned and it was them detaining Americans, how do you think they would be treating them, and how many rights would their American prisoners have? Would their American prisoners have had a chance to live as long as we have let them live? Or would there have been more video taped beheadings? Or more with their hands & feet hacked off, burned alive, and their charred corpses dragged through the streets for the crowds to cheer and spit upon them?

That is the horrific irony.

[Vladd44]

The whole idea of a "war on terrorism" is absurd. Just an excuse to take people's freedom away.

It was foolish for the allies to start the idea that new laws were needed to deal with situations after WW2. We did not need warcrimes tribunals then, nor do we need some other dubious legal venture to justify the punishment of terrorists now.

Last I checked destroying a building with or without people in it is a crime, killing people is a crime. Accessory before, during or after the fact is also a crime.

Just as the german war criminals should have been tried for an individual they were responsible for, so should modern day terrorists.

If they are acquitted, just pick another name of the thousands of options and have a new jury and a new trial. The right jury will come along.

[FuckEnvyVmins]

Renato Hughes and his two pal entered a house. Some says that he
allegedly broke into the house. Then, they beat up the step son of
Shannon Edmonds.

Then the robbers successfully brought a lot of cash after raping some
hot chicks and get away with it with the public blaming the victim as
usual. After all, who knows that the victim may have done something
wrong. Maybe the victim look at the wrong direction and hence provoke
the just robber to slaughter victims.

Well, that's what usually happens. Not this time though.

Shannon Edmonds shot the 2 kids in the back when they're fleeing.

In rare surprising case, the DA did what seems to be the right thing.
The DA charged Renato Hughes, the robber, with murder. When some
vermin choose to rob people's house, it's naturally liable for all the
risk that happen because of the robbery. Edmond didn't choose to get
rob. The robber chose to rob him. For once, it's kind of cool that
even a government can figure out that it's the robber's fault. Not
porn movie fault. Not the media. Not Hollywood. Not video games.

When people rob, killing robbers would help putting robbers population
under control. Hell, even government got things right once in a while
when the good guys show them who's tough.

In many countries, religious thugs can come from house to house
violating the owners' right to (even legally) watch porn and sell
liquor. In UK, we got good guys go to jail just for defending the
little right he still have from two vermins that want to rob him.

In US no... Thanks to people like Edmon. This is really a country of
the (relatively) brave. If we have more people like Edmon, it'll be
even braver.

When thieves victim die and die, people would expect that it's okay to
steal. That perhaps the productive should share more money to robbers.
Perhaps the victims should have been "nicer". They would think that
it's morally okay to steal. However, people like Edmonds reverse this
trend.

With more brave people like Edmon, one day, it'll be legal to pursue
thieves and slaughter their whole family if that's what it takes to
retrieve stolen properties when thieves fail to honor property right
by returning stolen properties.

It'll be a positive feedback. There will be less thieves. That means
less vote for thieves' right and more vote for property right. More
and more self defense will be legal. Then, there will be less thieves.
Then properties will be saver.

Sweet....

That's what should happen to all robbers. That's what all productive
people should do in this world when it's legal: Kill vermins and
parasites that get on their way, like Edmond. Vermins want to play
tough, we should play tougher. Promote death penalty. Kill burglars,
and robbers, protect properties.

The more we kill them the saver our property, which is the sole
purpose why we need government, killing thieves and robbers to protect
our property.

Please consult your lawyers about your right to kill vermins...
Killing vermins illegally can be very politically costly. Keeping it
legal will cut down political cost. The lesser the cost, the more we
can buy.

Also not simply because it's just means it's legal. There are idiot DA
and cops in the world that would give problems to self defender even
on clear cut case. However, working too hard to keep it legal, like
waiting till they hit or shoot first, can get you killed, which is a
very high cost.

So do it legally. I don't want to cause good people to go to jail (or
die) for the only important social value the world need, protection of
properties and killing vermins that get in the way of that. f**k
eradicating poverty, environmentalist, public school. There is only
one social value worthy for everyone and that's killing vermins to
protect the wealth of the productive. The market will take care the
rest. Believing otherwise means practicing envy bigotry. When
government ain't doin that, the world is already gun zone.

What do you think?

Hopefully more vermins die that way. Kudo for Shannon Edmonds. Way to
go. That's model citizen. That's how life work. That's the way things
work as there are still people opposing free market, kill or be
killed. Edmond do the right thing, he choose not to be killed.

Hip hip huraaaaaahhhh...

NB: As of this writing there is a doubt whether this is a real robbery
or just some drug deals gone bad. The home owners deal drugs (a crime
as victimless as killing vermins). However, the shot robbers have
robbery convictions. Also they never denied of beating up Edmon's step
son to the point of causing brain damage. If mistakes are made to
prosecute the surviving robber, it's most likely not a big one. Some
of the activities that described here may not be legal. Please consult
your lawyer before killing anyone (long before any possible encounter,
of course).
NB: Check http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/h ... nsatz1.jpg
to see what would happen to your whole family if you count on
government to protect you. Recently a US state attorney general
prioritize prosecuting porn rather than thieves, burglars, and
robbers. Think about it. If they think porn watchers are more
dangerous than thieves, what are the chance that one day they'll
presume that blacks, jews, muslims, christians, you, him, her, meat
eaters, vegan, deserve elimination? Want to live? Count on your own