Enemies Welcome in U.S. Courts

As a non American, I can easily say that what people outside America respect about the USA is the fact that there is "rule" of law in the US no matter who you are. This is supposed to be the one country in the world where the State has been held in check against infringing on the rights of indivduals and as cumbersome and expensive as the legal system may appear to most Americans, we in the world outside America do wish, though we don't often express it, that our legal system was something like yours. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not condoning terroism here but Gitmo is a slap in the face of what America stands for. If Saddam was running Gitmo, nobody would be terribly surprised, after all Saddam is one of the bad guys. However we're talking about the USA, the land of the good guys. America was admired throughout the world for setting the standard in fairness and respect. Of course many of you would argue that it's stupid to play by the rules when the likes of Al Qaeda clearly have no respect for the rules and like Bush (who has never faced a real war nor had the guts to oppose war), would argue that we should not denny ourselves valuable information by reffusing to torture people or holding people without trial. After all this is what the enemy does and we have to show the enemy that you are tougher etc etc. It can be said that without Gitmo and torture, it would be like fighting a war with one hand tied behind your back. But that's precisely the point. A democracy that claims to respect human rights and have compassion must fight this war in exactly that manner. The War Against Terror is as much a war against ideology as well as brute force. America is trying to people that it is better than the terrorist. But when Gitmo, Abu Gharib etc come around, how does America become better than the terrorist by doing what the terrorist do? The Supreme Court is doing the right thing, even if Americans may not see it. This decision upholds the decency that has made America such a great nation that the rest of the world looks up to. If anything this is a step in the right direction to creating a winning global coalition against the war on terror.

During WWII did not our two countries imprison without trial German combatant? It is call a prisoner of war, and Gitmo is a prison war camp. Actually illegal war combatants can be executed on the battlefield. Of course USA is more humane than that so these illegals are being held until the war is over. We are actually treating them like they are legal combatant, which they are not. Under international law illegal combatants do not have any rights. Last point not one person being held down in Gitmo is an American.

good points Tigertang, and Citizen_Stuart, With places like GITMO, things like Abu Graib, and many other incidents I don't care to name, the US is not living up to its good name. I believe FIRMLY in my nations ideals and I believe firmly that we can get back to those ideals. I think that this supreme court decision is a step in the right direction. If we have evidence to convict someone of terrorism then our justice system will do its job. If there isn't enough evidence to convict, then we need to let these people go.

what about people caught up in the same dragnet and labeled terrorists? At what point do they get the option to "prove" that they are not terrorists but are in fact innocent. What if YOU are labeled a terrorist and put in one of these places. Apparently, up until very recently, the Bush administration said that even US citizens could be labeled enemy combatants or whatever and locked away without any rights whatsoever. So how would you go about proving your innocence?

How can someone confess if they are innocent?

Try this on for size. http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3281595/Presidential-authority-to-detain-enemy.html That is up to the military court to determine, not a civilian one. I say let the Geneva Convention Rules apply, when an enemy combatant is not in a uniform, then he can be considered rabble and shot on the spot, and all it takes is a corporal to give the order. That will solve a lot of this nonsense from the liberal anti-American pro-terrorist groups.

Whatever happened to "innocent until proven ..." Whenever I've sat on a jury trial, one of the questions the lawyers ask us is this: After hearing the accusations, but before hearing any evidence from either the defense or prosecution, what verdict would you render? There is only one legal verdict that CAN be rendered. Not Guilty. An accusation that one is a terrorist is not evidence of guilt of terrorism.

Feel free to share with us what the Supreme Court Justices don't know about the constitution that you do. Share your knowledge so that you may enlighten the rest of us. Of course we could take courses and courses on constitutional law and still not agree with each other on various interpretations. That is what the Supreme Court Justices are there for after all, the interpretation of the law, right? But I am up for a discussion on what specifically you think the issue is here, and I am eager to hear your perspective. Peace

It is MORE dangerous that even a guilty person should be punished without the forms of law than that he should escape. - Thomas Jefferson Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer - William Blackstone