Best line ever:
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times." I'm still sooo happy.

Thank goodness... What about all the people being held on Navy ships?
Bush need to be brought up on war crime charges.

Oh, I'd vote with the majority.

supercharger~ Being held on a Navy ship usually only lasts for a few months. That's really a non-issue, since they're talking about people who have been held for years.

From Stephley's mouth to Liberty Sugar. I think we've found where Sugar get's their information

I'd have voted in the minority, but I'm not a judge, so it isn't worth much.

Oh shut up, Scalea. Seriously, what a fearmonger. "If you do this [fundamental American value], innocent Americans WILL DIE!!!" I'm so sick of this cheap trick.

"It is always a simple matter to drag the people along [into an unwanted war], whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

-Hermann Goering, a Nazi officer and a principal engineer of the Holocaust

Wow. Nice quote, The City Girl.

(you are so pretty City girl!)

This is really shocking! I need to digest for a little while. Wow!

Very nice City!

That is a nice quote. Tell it to the 3,000 in the twin towers. They'll rest easy knowing that this is all a Bush propagana coup.

it's about time our judicial branch fights back! someone has got to stop the madness.

Tell the thousands of Iraqis that they died to save us from terrorists. Tell the cabdrivers of the Middle East that they could be arrested to make us save from terrorism. Tell the grandkids that we had a Constitution but got scared one day and tore it up.
Two wrongs don't make a right U.D.

Again, prove that we've killed thousands of Iraqi civilians on purpose. I don't know anything about cabdrivers from the middle east. Please enlighten me. The constitution is alive and well. I don't see anyone tearing it apart.

LOVE that quote, City Girl!

That is a nice quote. Tell it to the 3,000 in the twin towers. They'll rest easy knowing that this is all a Bush propagana coup.

why is it whenever we discuss upholding this country's constitutional values 9/11 gets brought up? so because we were attaceked we should torture and hold detain suspects indefinitly without access to a lawyer. these are principles our country was built upon. principles that al-qaeda set out to change. why we are outraged that other countries deny rights to their prisoners but not outraged that we do, is beyond me.

"Checks and Balances" strikes again!

I love the quote CityGirl, it forces a broader perspective for analysis of the issue... agree or disagree, I think it is good to step back and reevaluate what we're doing...

Then you aren't looking beyond your window - the Supreme Court just said to the President, for the third time, you have to obey the Constitution. Go to http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ and read how many people in Iraq die each week due to errant bombs, missiles, bullets -our errant bombs, missiles and bullets. Is it better because it's not as personal as suicide bombing?
If you don't know that we've had cabdrivers, waiters and government workers picked up and put in detention then you're simply choosing not to read anything that alters your view.

Flutter, just noticed the baby - I kept thinking it was a butterfly! Cute pic.

I brought that up because we did nothing in the 90's, in the name of our principles, and we have two attacks on the twin towers, the USS Cole, and an embassy attacks. I'm relieved that we are finally fighting back.

fighting back at the cost of our constitution, do you understand the kind of precedent it sets to bend habeas corpus? terrorists okay i get it but do you honestly think that some shoddy government lawyer would not use this ten years down line if it was ruled constitutional.

thanks stephley, this is a pic of my nephew vs a smash cake.

I don't see how putting these people on trial will cause MORE deaths. This isn't about NOT detaining people, it's what we do with them AFTER we detain them. Either way, they can't commit any killings (besides their own suicides) if they're kept in a small cell.

If they are guilty, then evidence will be found against them and they will be convicted and put away (or put to death).

Sooooo, someone please explain to me how putting them on trial will result in more deaths???

Grrrrrrrrrr....don't get me started on the supposed Navy prison ships allegations.

How are we destroying our constitution? Since we began taking these people prisoner, we've been working with the courts to figure out how to try them. It's a slow process, and that's a good thing, because, as you've pointed out, this will most likely set precedents, when trials can finally begin.

Nica - The crux of the argument is where are they to be tried? Military court, or civilian court.

But UD, do you agree with Judge Scalia's assertion? that "the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Because i think that's a very incendiary and irresponsible thing to say and is not rooted in truth.

one of the pillars of the constitution is the right to counsel and the right to a speedy trial, when the president himself denies those rights to a us prisoner, the constitution begins to disintegrate.

oh and as a side note because this always comes up when i debate conservatives on the constitution, i am pro 2nd amendment also

you know 9/11 happened 7 years ago and yet it's used as an excuse for everything america has done in the following years. Dear God let it go!!!!! I am so sick of 9/11, truth b told if i hear about it andthe 3000 who died again i'll throw up and the muslims are killers, fear mongering is so annoying and it's apthetic that everyone buys into that load of crap. the more afraid and stupid people get, the terrorists win, people should stop cowering and get on with their flipping lives!! A whole race has been condemned for it by ignorant people which is far worse than 9/11.

If that was the argument, then it should have been settled years ago. But everytime the court said the detainees deserved a hearing, Congress intervened. From the Washington Post:

"The court has confronted the issue before, ruling in 2004 in Rasul v. Bush that federal habeas corpus statutes extended to Guantanamo Bay detainees because of the unique control that the U.S. government has over the land.

The Republican-led Congress responded by changing the law, and after another adverse court ruling and at the urging of the Bush administration, it passed the Military Commissions Act in 2006. The legislation endorsed a military system for designating detainees as enemy combatants and for trying those charged with crimes. It also strictly limited judicial oversight. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/12/AR200806...

nyra-kinda reminds me of a family guy quote "9/11 changed everything, lois"

You tell 'em HF.

Anything that makes war more difficult on us, ties our hand (so to speak), will cost more American lives. It'll probably be the lives of soldiers, but those are still American lives. Is it incendiary? Yes. Is there truth to the statement? Again, yes.

Nica - Then there's the reason this has taken so long to get resolved. The Supreme Court and comgress are at odds as to how these prisoners should be tried.

Exactly, Nicachica. And thank you megnmac, stephley, MartiniLush, mondaymoos, and Jillness! It is a pretty pertinent quote.

UnDave, you're right. The families of the 3,000 people who died on 9/11 do deserve justice. So why, then, are we using our money and resources to pursue strategies that are converse to the principals upon which our country was built, rather than going after the mastermind behind these attacks, Osama Bin Laden?

Another quote: "I just don't spend that much time on it, to be honest." George W. Bush, regarding the capture of Osama bin Laden.

I would have voted with the majority. As for Justice Scalia's comment (who's best bud off the bench is Justice Ginsberg btw)

"The nation is "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

I agree with the fact that it makes the war harder to wage. As for the assertion that more Americans will be killed because detainees have legal representation and are not kept in limbo is really just quite baffling to me and surprisingly irresponsible on his part to say.

What makes America strong is our will to be true to whom we are, not our ability to stoop to the level of our enemies. To wage a war in protection of our principles and in its defense disregard the very principles which we have spilled the blood of over 4,000 lives for is a masterpiece of disgrace.

Sure war is hard and not to mention one of the clear failures of humanity, but if you're going to wage one be true to your cause.

the problem with the thinking with this country is the ability to not look ahead and see the long term consequences. we dont get to set aside the constitution when we see fit, not for gay marriage, not for supposed gun control and not for suspected terrorists(i say suspected because they have yet to be charged). the idea is to protec americans within the scope of ours and international laws. if we cant then why do we have them?

hypnotic-i would love to be a fly on the wall for a friendly conversation between scalia and ginsburg

Just a clarification. They were not being tried in traditional military court. So the issue is not technically civilian vs. military.

From NY Times:

At issue were the “combatant status review tribunals,” made up of military officers, that the administration set up to validate the initial determination that a detainee deserved to be labeled an “enemy combatant.”

The military assigns a “personal representative” to each detainee, but defense lawyers may not take part. Nor are the tribunals required to disclose to the detainee details of the evidence or witnesses against him — rights that have long been enjoyed by defendants in American civilian and military courts.

I am disgusted at Scalia's argument.

It's almost always harder to do things the *right* way. The protection of rights aren't there only when it's expedient to have them. They need to be there especially when it's NOT expedient.

Beautifully put, hypnoticmix.

I think its cute how Liberty and Citizen's avatars make them look stereotypically Liberal and Conservative (AND the L=Liberty and the C=Conservative!!!!). Liberty is all librarian, brunette with glasses and Citizen is all preppy and very Reese Witherspoon circa "Election."

or maybe i'm reading too much into it?

omg, Liberty just winked at me! Totally makes my day.

Back at cha...

nica cracked the citizensugar code

Does anyone know the official name of the case so I can find it and read the whole thing?

I would have definitely voted with the majority. Everyone has the right to a fair trial, which the prisoners of gitmo, and other war prisoners have not received. Case in point: Omar Khadr, a Canadian who has been detained.

The US was also behind deporting Canadian Maher Arar to Syria where he was tortured. Arar was a citizen of Canada who worked as an engineer, nowhere close to a terrorist. I know I've only provided Canadian examples, but those are the two I've heard about the most.

lavieenrose love your screen name. That's my cousines screen name on another cite. I wonder if it's you/her, LOL.

Boumediene v. Bush, No. 06-1195

The links I found went to pdf, so I can't include it here. I'll keep looking.