Court: Accused May Bbe Help Forever Without Charge or Evidence

[JBeukema]

The appeals court standard for detention has been laid out over the last year in a number of significant cases, and as with today’s case, each time in the government’s favor. The results have been a boon for the Obama administration’s efforts to keep certain Guantanamo detainees in custody.
Today’s decision further clarifies that standard by declaring that the government doesn’t need direct evidence that a detainee fought for or was a member of al-Qaeda in order to justify a detention.

http://www.propublica.org/article/appeals-courts-makes-it-easier-for-govt-to-hold-gitmo-detainees

 

[George Costanza]

The appeals court standard for detention has been laid out over the last year in a number of significant cases, and as with today’s case, each time in the government’s favor. The results have been a boon for the Obama administration’s efforts to keep certain Guantanamo detainees in custody.
Today’s decision further clarifies that standard by declaring that the government doesn’t need direct evidence that a detainee fought for or was a member of al-Qaeda in order to justify a detention.

http://www.propublica.org/article/appeals-courts-makes-it-easier-for-govt-to-hold-gitmo-detainees

Bad link.

And what does "Bbe" stand for?

 

[Liability]

And what's wrong with being helped?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The appeals court standard for detention has been laid out over the last year in a number of significant cases, and as with today’s case, each time in the government’s favor. The results have been a boon for the Obama administration’s efforts to keep certain Guantanamo detainees in custody.
Today’s decision further clarifies that standard by declaring that the government doesn’t need direct evidence that a detainee fought for or was a member of al-Qaeda in order to justify a detention.

http://www.propublica.org/article/appeals-courts-makes-it-easier-for-govt-to-hold-gitmo-detainees

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.

 

[George Costanza]

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.

 

[Liability]

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.

Yeah yeah. Very realistic. Not only is that not likely to happen "pretty soon." It isn't going to happen at all.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

The appeals court standard for detention has been laid out over the last year in a number of significant cases, and as with today’s case, each time in the government’s favor. The results have been a boon for the Obama administration’s efforts to keep certain Guantanamo detainees in custody.
Today’s decision further clarifies that standard by declaring that the government doesn’t need direct evidence that a detainee fought for or was a member of al-Qaeda in order to justify a detention.

http://www.propublica.org/article/appeals-courts-makes-it-easier-for-govt-to-hold-gitmo-detainees

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.

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.

 

[Liability]

http://www.propublica.org/article/appeals-courts-makes-it-easier-for-govt-to-hold-gitmo-detainees

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.

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.

You make the very same mistake you guys REFUSE to correct.

The ACTUAL Fifth Amendment says, in FULL,

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

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.