Supreme Court Justices Rule Terror Suspects Can Appeal in Civilian Courts

Leave it to the supreme court to screw things up.
you think they would have enough things here to flub-up in our own country instead of geting involved in another country.

This is what led us to be attacked the 1st time. You can put war criminals through the civilan court system.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/...

I forgot the NOT.
You can not put then through the civ courts

Billy wrote:

Leave it to the supreme court to screw things up.
you think they would have enough things here to flub-up in our own country instead of geting involved in another country.

I agree the screwed up but then you lost me...

GOOD! Let them fight for their innocence and be free! Terrorist are a figment of George Bush's imagination.

Its interesting that the USSC ruled that some people have rights. In the past they have been so opposed to the rule of law as to be hilarious.

Of course Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito all ruled against allowing anybody any rights. They should be charged in such a court. Perhaps they would "volunteer" for these "enhanced interrogation techniques."

Id iots.

Perhaps this is a first step toward America's return to values protected by the Constitution, a rebuttal of the Bush legacy.

Lance Winslow wrote:

Perhaps this is a first step toward America's return to values protected by the Constitution, a rebuttal of the Bush legacy.

Since when do civlians handle war criminals. Terrorist are enemys of war, they don't get put in our criminal justice system. Are you crazy?

Pudintain wrote:

<quoted text>
Since when do civlians handle war criminals. Terrorist are enemys of war, they don't get put in our criminal justice system. Are you crazy?

Read the article.

Pudintain wrote:

<quoted text>
Since when do civlians handle war criminals. Terrorist are enemys of war, they don't get put in our criminal justice system. Are you crazy?

This argument works, except for the fact that none of the detainees has been declared a prisoner of war.

-pb

No we should just let them all die there and keep them forever because we decided they're terrorists. It's not like they didn't have a fair trial and knew all the evidence against them. There was no secret classified information that these people were not granted in order to defend themselves.

They are enemy combatents and do not deserve the protection of the US Constitiution.

What's the count of those released that have rejoined the Taliban or blew themselves up???

We should all these people home, unharmed. Show the world the difference between Jesus and Mohammed.

It has been 7 years since the towers fell, and we are right back into letting the attackers run free in our country.

We already know they are conducting dry runs at airports testing our resolve. Then suing when exposed. And our courts keep ruling they can do this.

Dee wrote:

They are enemy combatents and do not deserve the protection of the US Constitiution.

The way it's set up now, the President could call YOU an enemy combatant, no oversight allowed, no questions asked and then YOU wouldn't deserve Constitutional protections!

It's a slippery slope

pbagosy wrote:

<quoted text>
This argument works, except for the fact that none of the detainees has been declared a prisoner of war.
-pb

They have been declared enemy combatants.

I have seen Pudintain post the stupidest rhetoric here on topix. Its time to get a hobby buddy.

bryts wrote:

It has been 7 years since the towers fell, and we are right back into letting the attackers run free in our country.
We already know they are conducting dry runs at airports testing our resolve. Then suing when exposed. And our courts keep ruling they can do this.

Uhm, Iraq did not attack us.