nytimes.com — The Supreme Court’s most recent ruling was a good day for people who abhor President Bush’s attempts to turn Guantánamo Bay into a constitutional-rights-free zone. For years, with the help of compliant Republicans and frightened Democrats in Congress, President Bush has denied the protections of justice, democracy and plain human decency.
Jun 13, 2008 View in Crawl 4
blapierreJun 14, 2008
The ideas that this country were founded on, embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, state that every human being has inherent rights by virtue of being a human and that one of those rights is the right to question why you are being held, habeas corpus, except in very specific circumstances. It does not matter whether you are a "citizen" or not, it is your right as a human being.
vambramJun 15, 2008
I agree with Fred Thompson, when he wrote, "In reading the majority opinion I am struck by the utter waste that is involved here. No, not the waste of military resources and human life, although such a result is tragically obvious. I refer to the waste of all those years these justices spent in law school studying how adherence to legal precedent is the bedrock of the rule of law, when it turns out, all they really needed was a Pew poll, a subscription to the New York Times, and the latest edition of “How to Make War for Dummies.” It is truly stunning that this court has seen fit to arrogate unto itself a role in the most important issue facing any country, self-defense, in a case in which Congress has in fact repeatedly acted. This was not a case where Congress did not set the rules; it did. But the court still decided – in the face of overwhelming precedent to the contrary – to intervene. This decision, or course, will allow for "President Bush Is Rebuffed” headlines, the implication being that the Administration was caught red-handed violating clearly established Constitutional rights when in fact the Administration, and the Congress for that matter, followed guidelines established by the Supreme Court itself in prior cases."
terr01Jun 16, 2008
"No, we did NOT give out-of-uniformed illegals combatants any rights"BECAUSE THE CATEGORY DOES NOT EXIST! It is wholly a fabrication of the Bush Administration.Hell, we captured NAZI SPIES inside the United States, with no uniform!And they were charged in a criminal court for espionage!You obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Closed AccountJun 16, 2008
Translate the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights in every language (Arabic) bolt it to the front door of the UN and lets see who has rights !!
jagpopJun 17, 2008
Some grad student may wade through here some decade in the future (who can say?) trying to cull some insights about us (the denizens of the Bush Era). That grad student could probably use some help: Why did he put quotes around "feelings"?Well, we, the denizens of the Bush Era, live in an age before it was ever guessed that trees *like* to be hugged. Difficult to imagine, I know,but true. Feelings in our Era were associated with Jello (hope you still have Jello!). And that was a very bad thing.Now Conservatives were into *thinking* about hard, cold facts.They were uncompromising in their dedication to the truth. But they weren't all bad. They did call us Liberals "well meaning". But Liberals were untrustworthy because we could miss the big picture while wringing our hands together in worry about peoples feelings and this left us without longterm foresight.By now, seeing as you are a grad student from the future, you know that Bush and Condi Rice were geniuses. They told us that all their disasters,all their incompetence, all their callousness, lawlessness, narrowness, secretiveness, corruption and greediness would inevitably lead decades in the future to something good. And so you know. But at least us Liberals were right about trees.
girwenJun 18, 2008
The Supreme Court did just fine. But Bush and others should go to jail at the least: ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT ...Article 5Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court1. The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes:... (b) Crimes against humanity; (c) War crimes; (d) The crime of aggression....Article 7Crimes against humanity1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack: (a) Murder;... (e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law; (f) Torture;...2. For the purpose of paragraph 1:... (d) "Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law; (e) "Torture" means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions;... (g) "Persecution" means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity;... (i) "Enforced disappearance of persons" means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time....Article 8War crimes 1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes. 2. For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means: (a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:... (ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments; (iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health; ... (vii) Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement; <a class="user" href="http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm">http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/cst ...</a>
nimblepruneJun 19, 2008
didnt kill women and childeren to make a point...your logic is flawed
oneeyejeffJun 20, 2008
I still hate New York Times because they censored my comments many times – not a single comment published! Since I am a hearing impaired man and blind in one eye, I wrote several comments in the past and online newspapers refused to publish because they hate the truth and realism. As you know that New York Times is the most bigotry newspapers in the world because their conservative minds often censored the people of the freedom. Conservative minds = Bigotry minds! I thought this country is the land of the freedom because of US constitution, especially for the first amendment that provides the freedom of the press – expression of people minds to speak out for themselves and people across the globe. Shame on New York Times for the censorship!
deanblackoakSep 10, 2008
Man, you people are all way to literal. Let me rephrase, a person accused of committing a crime on American controlled soil (a crime committed here, not another country) is guaranteed due process by the constitution. You do not have to be a citizen, just a person. Jesus!