Court: Accused May Bbe Help Forever Without Charge or Evidence

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by JBeukema, Mar 29, 2011.

  1. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705
    http://www.propublica.org/article/appeals-courts-makes-it-easier-for-govt-to-hold-gitmo-detainees
     
  2. George Costanza
    Offline

    George Costanza A Friendly Liberal

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    5,179
    Thanks Received:
    1,087
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Los Angeles area.
    Ratings:
    +1,187
    Bad link.

    And what does "Bbe" stand for?
     
  3. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,049
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,063
    And what's wrong with being helped?
     
  4. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,575
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,992
    Good the detainees in Gitmo are NOT US citizens, were not caught by police nor in America, but rather on the BATTLEFIELD. This decision has nothing to do with Us citizens or US Citizens rights.
     
  5. George Costanza
    Offline

    George Costanza A Friendly Liberal

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    5,179
    Thanks Received:
    1,087
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Los Angeles area.
    Ratings:
    +1,187
    Pretty soon, all it will take is someone telling authorities that their neighbor is a terrorist and the police will be able to sweep the neighbor up and hold him indefinitely, without counsel, without a trial.

    Fine if the guy actually is a terrorist. Not so good if the only problem is, the neighbor hates his ass and wants to mess with him.
     
  6. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,049
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,063
    Yeah yeah. Very realistic. Not only is that not likely to happen "pretty soon." It isn't going to happen at all.
     
  7. Bill O'Olberman
    Offline

    Bill O'Olberman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2009
    Messages:
    818
    Thanks Received:
    124
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +124
    The Fifth Amendment says "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Under the US Constitution, due process isnt simply entitled to US citizens its entitled to every person. I couldnt think of a much more unjust deprivation of liberty than holding someone without producing any evidence of wrong doing.
     
  8. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,049
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,063
    You make the very same mistake you guys REFUSE to correct.

    The ACTUAL Fifth Amendment says, in FULL,
    If you bothered to take note of the slightly highlighted words of the ACTUAL Fifth Amendment, you MIGHT notice something. It is concerned with the rights of citizens with regard to criminal justice.

    It was not written to suggest that an enemy combatant captured in time of war, etc., is entitled to a criminal trial.

    Those are very very different matters.

    When a soldier is shot in time of war, where's the fucking "due process?" When he is DRAFTED to serve in that war, where's the fucking "due process?"

    When a spy or saboteur was captured and (in the past, anyway) subject to summary execution, who said he got a "trial?"

    How about a captured (uniformed) legal enemy combatant? When they got thrown into POW camps and held for the duration of the hostilities, did they have a right for a criminal justice court of law to decide if there was probable cause? Did they get all manner of habeas corpus access to the Courts to protest the duration of how long they were being held without a trial? Did they have a "right" to a lawyer?

    Give me a fucking break.

    If a legitimate soldier could be held without a trial for as long as hostilities continued, then why on Earth should a captured illegal enemy alien combatant be entitled to MORE "rights" than the legal enemy combatants?

    Bottom line: PROPERLY understood, holding illegal enemy alien combatants does not implicate the Fifth Amendment AT ALL.
     

Share This Page