Supreme Court for the 3rd time rules in favor of Gitmo Prisoners against Bush

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2008 3:00 AM GMT
    THIS IS GREAT NEWS FOR OUR CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY !!!! PER-MSNBC-- The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Gitmo detainees rights to appeal to American Civil Courts, to challenge their indefinate imprisonment without charges under bush. Justice Kennedy (for the majority decision) stated that "the laws and constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times" !!!! For the decenting judges, Scallia said the decision "will make the war harder on us, it will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed" (HE SOUNDS LIKE A BUSH PARROT) The vote was 5 for, and 4 against !!! Bush has stated that he is with the decenters, and that he will consider trying to get a law passed against this ruling. MEN !!! THIS BATTLE FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF ALL WHO COME IN CONTACT/CONFLICT WITH OUR GOVERNMENT IS FUNDAMENTAL TO OUR DEMOCRACY !!! This is why it is so important to vote for OBAMA, the Candidate who will abide by his oath to uphold the constitution, BACKING AWAY FROM THE LAW BREAKING PRECIDENTS OF THIS BUSH ADMINISTRATION !!!! WE DARE NOT RISK A VOTE FOR McCAIN WHO PARROTS MUCH OF WHAT BUSH HAS DONE TO TAKE OUR COUNTRY's FREEDOMS BACK HUNDREDS OF YEARS TO PRE HABEAUS CORPUS TIMES!!!! FOR OUR COUNTRY's DEMOCRACY's SAKE WE MUST HAVE A DEMOCRAT IN THE PRESIDENCY WHEN IT COMES TIME TO APPOINT ANY MORE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES. THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS VOTE SHOULD BE A WARNING TO US ALL!!!! We should never allow our government to treat anyone in a way that we don't want to be treated ourselves, if we do we put ourselves at eventual risk of the same treatment.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2008 4:59 AM GMT
    I personally think it's a good ruling, and one that may in some ways help American credibility abroad -- not a reason for ruling a certain and there are, I think, definitely merits in the arguments against the ruling (Scalia's comments, however, are full of hot air, as he's asked to decide based on what is or isn't constitutional and not what may or may not save American lives -- important for sure, but not his role.)

    Honestly one of our issues internationally is that we say one thing, but do another. You can't promote human rights and democracy with any credibility while at the same time acting in opposite ways, no matter who is involved, at least not now and in this age when information is all too available as it is seen all to easily as hypocrasy.

    But honestly I wouldn't assume too much by the ruling. The Supreme Court does what it does, and sometimes throws up a surprise or two, and sometimes not -- but is overall a rather independant body. It's neither neutral or unbiased, but it does provide a check to the other parts of government -- as it's designed to do. Rightly or wrongly and you may disagree with the decision of the court, but it's business as usual and neither activist nor not, and there's more than one way of seeing things, but business as usual in a democracy involves differences of view, and limits on one person or one branch's power.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2008 12:53 PM GMT
    Of course I think it's a seriously stupid ruling, Anthony Scalia agrees with me.

    The American people didn't win out, Al Qaeda and the Taliban did.

    So, let the chips fall where they may. If this helps the gitmo terrorists attack us, so be it.

    The war with the terrorists is unlike previous wars and our Constitution is inadequate in handling it. Just like it was inadequate in 1861. Unlike the Confederates though, the terrorists use our Constitution as a weapon against us.

    How many American citizens are you willing to sacrifice for your unbending view of the Constitution?


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2008 1:56 PM GMT
    The president of the United States is set by the constitution as commander-in-chief of the millitary. Every one of these people in Gitmo were captured on the battlefield. None of them were in uniform and as such, should not be protected under the Geneva convention. The millitary tribunals that were set up were done by the US congress. Congress is the sole arbitor of court juristiction in the United States. It can make the court system in whatever fashion it chooses to make. It can even limit what type of cases it hears.

    The Supreme Court has stepped WELL out of it's powers. They have essentally given constitutional rights to unlawful enemy combatats. This would mean that we have to give Miranda rights to enemys captured on the ground. This also means that if we released anybody, they can then sue the US government for false imprisonment. The 5 left wing justices left the scope of the ruling purposly vauge. This way, the courts will review all the issues that come as a fallout of this ruling.

    Liberals with all their hate have focused it all on George Bush. You all try to destroy him at any cost, even if the cost is your own country (which isn't too hard to believe because you hate this country as it presently is). Most of yo don't know this, but what you believe in an ideology of based on Marxism, ideals that while under the guise of helping the least of us, are responsible for the death of hundreds of millions around the world.

    You see this as another black eye to the president who has not let a single terrorist attack happen on American soil in 7 years. What it truly is, is an attempt to curtail the US influence which you see as moraly repugnant and to quote Michelle Obama "downright mean". So enjoy your victory against your own country now, because it will bite you all in the ass one day.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2008 2:05 PM GMT
    Although I have not read the case, and I probably wouldn’t understand it anyway: having no experience with American Constitutional Law, I’d like to add my two pence.

    The coalition justify their draconian actions to combat the ‘new threat’ posed by ‘international terrorism’ and this is necessary to win the ‘War on Terror’ (WOT). The WOT has been used by states to campaign against who they decide to be an enemy, with innocents being caught in the metaphorical crossfire. (1) States and regimes which stand against the liberal and democratic values which the coalition is ‘fighting’ for have jumped onto this international bandwagon to justify their actions. Russia uses the WOT as its reason d’être in Chechnya,(2) as such regimes now ‘[fear] less critical scrutiny’ from bodies like the UN which are dominated by states in the coalition. This WOT eludes definition, this ambiguity allows politicians to reserve the right to bleat the phrase adapting it to. It is a war which conceived to have an end: ‘there is no territory contested; no peace talks conceivable…’ it continues as long as there is fear the ‘enemy’ will strike. The danger is no longer Al-Qa’ida or any other organisation, even with their destruction, their ideology will live on in those who have been radicalised by draconian and imperialist actions of states.



    The detention at Guantánamo Bay, much the same as internment under Margaret Thatcher, has the potential to antagonise an entire community. The Muslim community feels marginalised and believe the anti-terror laws are directed at them. This is perpetuated by incidents such as the Forest Gate raids which show that preventative tactics do not always work and may snare innocents. The harsher the methods, the more isolated a community will become. This is why the approach in criminal law is to prosecute after the offence. For terrorism this is not an option as the physical and political damage is already done. This is one of the fundamental issues surrounding terror legislation, and governments should cease seeing security and liberty as standing in tension.

    With the onset of ‘international terrorism’ and the WOT, states have subjected principles of domestic law which would have been previously understood as ‘fundamental’ to severe scrutiny. Following attacks there is an understandable temptation for politicians to act quickly and to be perceived to be in control of the situation, especially in a political system like the US. To a certain extent curtailment of Civil Liberties are effective, but there needs to be a point which states cannot cross. Some human rights should be seen as fundamental, and should be respected.

    Guantánamo has been described as the ‘vanishing point of the law’(4) where ‘bad people’(5) are sent by the US government using extra-judicial means. This totally disregards habeas corpus; the cornerstone of the rule of law.(6) The US does have ‘exclusive [executive] control’(7) over the territory, and their disregard to the rule of law makes great case for a change in the international legal order with regards to terrorists. There is a need for the rule of law whenever someone’s liberty is at stake; Lord Bingham judged that it even applied in a ‘terrorist situation.’ It is submitted however that this principle should be taken further in a terrorist situation; the presence of the rule of law is paramount. In response to terrorism the state often overreacts, and the judiciary needs to scrutinise such actions. It would be a ‘familiar tool of tyranny’(icon_cool.gif for the executive to remove liberty without proving the guilt of the accused. People often postulate the question, ‘would you rather detain 100 innocents or let one terrorist through the net?’ in a civilised society which believes in freedom and the equality of all people the answer must be the latter, acting in any other way to clamp down on suspected terrorists will only jeopardise the society the state is attempting to protect, marginalising the very communities which are needed to combat terrorism.

    It is common knowledge that the ‘guests’ in Guantánamo are subjected to torture, and the reality is, not all detainees are involved in terrorism. Some the ‘bad guys’ have been released with no charges sought, such as with the Tipton Three. Regardless of their ‘guilt,’ international conventions(9) are categorical, torture is never permitted, attaining the status of jus cogens.(10) All governments of democratic states must respect human rights,(11) even if the result is democracy needing to fight ‘one hand behind its back.’(12) This is the price one pays for democracy, and this is what separates people with democratic values and those who are attempting to destroy it. People are fundamentally flawed in asserting that in ‘exceptional moments’ a civilised society can sacrifice the rights afforded by jus cogens. If a state deviates from a jus cogens such as torture it will potentially unravel the social, political and legal fabric of the very society and people it aims to protect. The stated disregard of the law and due process shows that even the states which have been founded on freedom and democracy sometimes cannot cope with the threat of terrorism.

    Personally I generally fall down on the security side of the debate, however I see some Civil Liberties and Human Rights as sacrosanct and this is why I agree with the outcome of the case.


    ----------------------------------------------

    (1) For example the Forest Gate Raids

    (2) J. Russell, Chechnya: Russia’s “War on Terrorism” First Edition, (Oxford; Routledge, 2007)

    (3) Cannot find where I quoted that from

    (4) Marine Colonel William Lietzau, quoted in Rose, Guantanamo, 23

    (5) President Bush, White House Press Conference, 17th July 2003

    (6) P. Sands, Lawless World, First Edition (London; Penguin, 2005) page 144

    (7) R (Abassi) v. Sec. of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2002] EWCA Civ 1598 para 67

    (icon_cool.gifA v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 54 para 226

    (9) Such as the United Nations Convention Against Torture 1987

    (10) Prosecutor v. Anto Furundžija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-A, Judgement, 21 July 2000

    (11) People’s Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India 2003 SOL Case No 840

    (12) Public Committee Against Torture v. Israel, May 26, 1999 at page 845
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2008 2:42 PM GMT
    I certainly hope that in the future the US military will not make the same serious mistake of taking terrorists prisoner. Gutting the bastards like fish on the battlefield will do nicely.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2008 7:56 PM GMT
    philadelphiabound>>>Your exactly right !!! Bush is the commander in chief!!! His not however set up as the "DICTATOR" IN CHIEF !!!!! We have a constitution that guarantees that our government from top to bottom cannot incarcerate anyone without the right to a hearing. That right is granted to all who come in contact with our government under any and every circumstance. THIS RIGHT IS FOR YOUR BENEFIT AS WELL AS ANYONE ELSE INCLUDING A TERRORIST !!! Don't be so foolish as to ignore the worlds history of governments jailing people they claim to be in the wrong. Hundreds of years ago Habeaus Corpus came about to protect all humans from government leaders run amuck such as this bush "KING GEORGE" WANNABE !!! don't forget that our soldiers have fought for more than 200 years to guarantee freedoms such as habeaus corpus, so that no-one woule have their freedom taken away without his right to his day in court to prove his innosence. If you have any smarts, you do not want to live under a dictorship where he (in this case bush) can claim someone to be an enemy combatant for any reason he deems appropriate, therefore placing that person beyond the reach of fair and reasonable laws. Allowing such ignorance as bush/cheneys to stand would potentially mean that I since I disagree could be deemed an enemby combatant. IT IS STUPID AND IGNORANT TO GRANT SUCH POWER TO ANY LEADER !!!! THINK !!!!!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2008 8:05 PM GMT
    John43620 saidHow many American citizens are you willing to sacrifice for your unbending view of the Constitution?



    As many as it takes, including myself. It's called having the integrity to stand up for principles.
    How many foreigners are you willing to kill out of petty arrogance?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2008 8:11 PM GMT
    Philadelphiabound said
    You see this as another black eye to the president who has not let a single terrorist attack happen on American soil in 7 years. What it truly is, is an attempt to curtail the US influence which you see as moraly repugnant and to quote Michelle Obama "downright mean". So enjoy your victory against your own country now, because it will bite you all in the ass one day.

    Would that include terrorist acts committed by nationals as well or do you make special distinctions just for Islamics?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2008 8:13 PM GMT
    JOHN !!! you said !!!

    The American people didn't win out, Al Qaeda and the Taliban did.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>About 70 to 80 percent of the American public se right through bush bullshit and agree with the supreme court majority, AMERICANS HEREBY RETAIN THE RIGHT TO CLAIM A DEMOCRACY WHICH DOES NOT SUPPORT DICTATORS JaILING ANYONE CONFRONTED BY THEIR GOVERNMENT WITHOUT THEIR RIGHT TO A DAY IN COURT TO PROVE INNOCENSE !!!

    So, let the chips fall where they may. If this helps the gitmo terrorists attack us, so be it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I were held as those prisoners at gitmo were and are being held, YOU CAN DAMN BET THAT I WOULD KILL THE ASSHOLE RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING MY RIGHTS AWAY !!!! So now that I have said that, under bush enemy combatant mindset, I could now be put away, and have no right to question "KING GEORGE" !!!!! I DO NOT THINK SO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



    How many American citizens are you willing to sacrifice for your unbending view of the Constitution? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If this happens, place the blame squarely where it belongs on bush/cheney despotic policies, we have laws that even they are not above, that is why this is called a democracy here in the US !!!! DON'T BE STUPID ENOUGH TO ALLOW ANY LEADER SUCH POWER AS BUSH WANTED TO CLAIM !!!!!! He IS a DAMN FOOL and HIS C-GRADE STATUS IN COLLEGE SURE SHOWED UP ON THIS ISSUE !!! WHAT A LOSER HE IS, AND THE ENTIRE WORLD SEES HIM AS SUCH !!!! WAKE UP !!!!!!!!


  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jun 13, 2008 11:37 PM GMT
    This was like a Duh ruling...
    it doesn't take a law degree to see that The Bush Criminals went against everything in the constitution
    when they made up this crazy scheme in Gitmo

    There are 270 detainees left there
    and only 87 of them have crimes that can be brought against them right now
    The Bush Administration has ALREADY relaeased 600 over the last 4 years
    Some of them can be released right now because they know they did nothing wrong but their countries won't take them
    AND WE'VE HELD THEM FOR 7 YEARS!!!!
    so ya think these guys might be a WEE bit radicalized right now?
    What a friggin' mess
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14350

    Jun 13, 2008 11:41 PM GMT
    The Supreme Court made an excellent move with this ruling for the Gitmo Bay prisoners. All the torture and other harsh treatments of these foreign prisoners is dead wrong and violates the US Constitution. Bush was wrong from day one on this issue and the supreme court handed his administration a well deserved defeat. The point is whether the constitution is adequate or not is irrelevant, it is still the supreme law of the land in the USA. This court ruling will greatly help the USA repair its seriously damaged credibility with the rest of the world. As for you guys screaming about these prisoners being terrorists, stop being so damn paranoid. If our country would change its foreign policy especially concerning the Middle East and quit siding with Isreal all the time, we would not have to worry about terrorist attacks. You there are two sides to every story. It is time for America to consider the Arab viewpoint and not just the goddamned troublemaking Isrealis.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 14, 2008 12:49 PM GMT
    If they made that ruling in 1942 the Nazi and Jap POWs would have had a day in court. The Supreme court seriously overstepped it's bounds on this one.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 14, 2008 1:25 PM GMT
    I think it was HILTER who engaged in wrongful imprisonment tooicon_question.gif

    Torture is Torture
    Unequal access to Justice is Criminal

    And we expect third world countries to treat people in a human fashion?

    Consequences of this violation of Human Rights - will have a reaction.

    Just keep the cycle of violence going George- that will bring PEACE to the worldicon_lol.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 14, 2008 2:08 PM GMT
    John43620 saidSo, let the chips fall where they may. If this helps the gitmo terrorists attack us, so be it.


    That's just it though, isn't it? Some of them might not even be terrorists, and all of them should be able to be tried fairly.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jun 14, 2008 2:45 PM GMT
    John43620 saidIf they made that ruling in 1942 the Nazi and Jap POWs would have had a day in court. The Supreme court seriously overstepped it's bounds on this one.



    Sorry John...

    Can't have your cake and eat it too
    One of the MAIN reasons the Bush Criminals made their case for detaining these men in the FIRST place was because they weren't fighting for a foreign government

    The Geneva conventions, which Bush and cronies stated were antiquated states how you detain and treat POW's

    Psst... remember the Nuremberg trials and the Commissions in Manila after the War icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2008 4:13 AM GMT
    NNJfitandbi said[quote][cite]JustJohn said[/cite][quote][cite]John43620 said[/cite]How many American citizens are you willing to sacrifice for your unbending view of the Constitution?



    As many as it takes, including myself. It's called having the integrity to stand up for principles.
    How many foreigners are you willing to kill out of petty arrogance?[/quote]

    This debate is wrong-headed.

    [/quote]

    That comment wasn't really intended as a thoughtful addition to this debate. It was strictly for the educated-by-soundbite crowd.
    I do have a strong human rights leaning and think Gitmo is a relative disaster. At the very least, the US should treat all captives as legitemate POWs. We did, after all, declare a "war" on "terror." I believe our current treatment of captured non-combatants essentially negates any moral example we may have previously set and puts us on the same human rights footing as the Middle East, China, cold-war Russia, and the rest of their ilk.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2008 12:29 PM GMT
    "There in lies the rub". Our enemies know that they can't defeat us on a battlefield with conventional means so they use guerrilla tactics and our own Constitution as a weapon against us.

    So, are we going to allow the barbarians to defeat us by being inflexible or is our civilization worth preserving even if we have to temporarily depart from "normal" conventions?

    I can only offer a vote and an opinion, as most of us are so limited.

    I vote Republican and support any means to destroy those who use terrorist and guerrilla tactics. Any means.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2008 1:05 PM GMT
    John43620I vote Republican and support any means to destroy those who use terrorist and guerrilla tactics. Any means.


    Absolutes like this scare me a bit, man. I can easily imagine a situation of someone saying what you said but in this manner:

    I vote Republican and support any means to destroy those who destroy family values and promote the homosexual agenda. Any means.

    You can insert any issue in the italics; isn't that mindset dangerous? Looking at why people are behaving a certain way and addressing that issue is certainly a more enlightened approach, promotes understanding and mutual respect, and will definitely save lives. Right?
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jun 15, 2008 2:04 PM GMT
    John43620 said
    So, are we going to allow the barbarians to defeat us by being inflexible or is our civilization worth preserving even if we have to temporarily depart from "normal" conventions?

    I can only offer a vote and an opinion, as most of us are so limited.

    I vote Republican and support any means to destroy those who use terrorist and guerrilla tactics. Any means.





    But you see.... the "Dark side... if you will" quoting from the master criminal of them all

    really hasn't worked has it?
    For every "barbarian" as you call them
    ... and that's another issue about your way of thinking for another time
    but for every Barbarian captured your war criminal buds make another dozen

    Remember - this is a PR campaign *Remember hearts and minds
    You think your winning hearts and minds when you kill innocent muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan?
    You think you win hearts and minds when there's 60% unemployment in Bagdadh
    ...when your occupation displaced over 2 million people?
    ...when you set off a holy civil war?

    Think of it this way...
    Your a downtrodden Iraqi
    you hate Saddam ... given
    but then we come in and "Shock and Awe" Your Aunt Uncle and two cousins twice removed to death
    do ya THINK that might radicalize a few people???

    DO YA THINK??icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2008 2:28 PM GMT
    GQjock: Great to know that someone actually understands something about the MIDDLE EAST and N. America's impact on it.

    When the U.S. wrongfully detains(some innocent) POW - the message to the rest of the world is - then we don't have to follow the rules either - the cycle of abuse and power and control is then ampified, and rationalized as just!icon_evil.gif

    I have many friends in the Middle East(M.E.) and their lives are HELL - the PEOPLE do not want war, some of the dictators(GOVS.) do. The PEOPLE want the same as us, STABLITY and PEACE, not to mention reliable electricity and tele-communications.

    Being gay in some parts of the M.E. is a death sentence and a distorted rationalization to abuse gay people.icon_cry.gif

    SAILMAK/MWAAH and OPTUMicon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2008 2:35 PM GMT
    This is one case where the principals of democracy have won out over those of tyrrany. So, shove it up your ass Dubya.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 16, 2008 1:02 AM GMT
    Well, maybe now we can release "low level taliban-grunts, innocent Afghan villagers or ordinary criminals" and even some of our own allies imprisoned with false evidence.

    A review of 66 former detainees reveals that most of them were not the high level terrorists the Bush administration has said Guantanamo was created for.

    Read about the review here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 16, 2008 2:27 AM GMT
    Well no matter how you slice it, it's apparent few Americans actually trust President Bush, his administration and his supporters. There is far too much doubt and mistrust to actually believe his motives and actions are not driven by a personal agenda on some level.

    In the matter of the Supreme Court rulings. President Bush has often labeled any judge who has corrected his policies as an "activist judge" or "legislating from the bench" and he is not alone. Many people and organizations who have had a disagreement with a judge on matters of law and constitutionality instantly labels these judges with those titles while failing to remember that the judicial system is not in place to support any political agendas of certain parties or organizations. It is not there to represent anyone's special interest. The Judicial Branch is in place to support and enforce and push the agenda of the U.S. Constitution as it is the Supreme Law of the Land from which everything is derived.

    What we as Americans have to believe is that although our judicial systems is not perfect, it tries its best to be fair, impartial, unbiased, just, and working in the best interest of the living document known as the U.S. Constitution.

    The question was raised earlier as to how many American lives would you sacrifice in order to uphold the liberties, rights of persons and policies of the U.S. Constitution, one respondent stated "as many as necessary including my own".

    I hope you realize that while the President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, every serviceman swears with his or her life to defend one thing above all, from all enemies foreign and domestic... the U.S. Constitution, not the President or any U.S. Citizen. That is the same oath that any newly sworn in American makes and many do not realize that as they are Americans by the virtue of being born an American.

    If we waiver in anyway on the principles of our Constitution, then where will we waiver next? It is for without a doubt in the best interests of the nation at large that we allow no compromises on matters of constitutionality.

    While many may disagree with the recent ruling, the ruling did not direct the immediate release of the prisoners but merely means that We the People, must find a better way that does what must be done in order to safe guard our nation but also uphold the principles of freedom, liberty and justice as represented and provided by the U.S. Constitution.

    Being right and honorable is never easy but for the truly righteous, the challenges must be met and overcome for the sake of the integrity of the American people and the "Idea" of what America really is.

    Remember "Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the presence of justice" -Movie Quote, "Air Force One".


    -James R., Veteran
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 16, 2008 2:35 AM GMT
    PhiladelphiaBoundEvery one of these people in Gitmo were captured on the battlefield.

    Where in the world did you get that idea?