Guantanamo Prison .

In a world of civil and military courts , I see no need for a place like Guantanamo Bay prison . People over there are kept for years with no trials and in limbo . In Oklohoma bombing , people were tried and convicted by a judge and a jury . All around the world people should be tried by a judge and jury and either to be found guilty or innocent . Courts are there to decide legal issues and not the governments . So in a land of civil and military courts , there is absolutely no need to a place like Guantanamo Bay Prison .
What do you think ?.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That you need more education, like a 4 year tour of far away places.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

James R., for all his bitching, refuses to put the detainees up at his place. We don't want to put them up at ours either.

Nobody good wants to take them off our hands. Are you, and James R., saying that we should have killed them on the battlefield and spared us all the inconvenience?

'cause if you're saying we should put them us at our place, you're going to be disappointed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's designed to circumvent our law, and it should be closed as a detention camp, especially since the Supreme Court affirmed the fact that it is not beyond the jurisdiction of American law.

 

100% agreement.

 

Citation please?

 

Closing the law-free zone
By insisting that US law applies to Guantanamo, the Supreme Court has destroyed the prison camp's justification​

 

spidergoat i found the line about the supreem court dogeing issues about its own juristiction as strange from an australian context.

Rather than the political restraining the judicial in australia its the other way around. The high court is "god" in the australian sence and there has never been (as far as i know) and i HIGHLY doubt there ever will be a case where the goverment or even the parliment says to the high court "you do not have the right to oversite this legislation".

Less than a month ago the federal court struck down a set of regulations because they felt the terms set in them were just to broud to be aceptable under the australian constitution

 

You cited a news article, that has no legal standing as to Guantanamo.

The Legal Brief, please.

 

I still have to spoon feed ya huh? This is getting tedious. It's right in the article.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/06-1195.pdf

 

An interesting quote from the court's opinion:

“[T]he practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been,
in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments
of tyranny. The observations of the judicious
Blackstone . . . are well worthy of recital: ‘To bereave
a man of life . . . or by violence to confiscate his estate,
without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious
an act of despotism as must at once convey the
alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but
confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to
jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is
a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more
dangerous engine of arbitrary government.’

Alexander Hamilton The Federalist No. 84​

 

Now just what did they rule?

No prisoners have been released, and no order for their release has been issued.

No cases have been forwarded to any court.

So exactly, what is the scope and reach of the decision?

 

It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing, now what has the decision rendered?

 

Educate yourself.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/28/AR2007042801145_pf.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/15/terror/main4261852.shtml

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=1997083&page=1

 

The prisoners have the right of Habeas Corpus, just as if they were imprisoned on the US mainland.

 

Did you see teh NPR on Omar Khadr? You'd have to be made of stone not to be affected by it.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92563076

 

And it proves what? They have been cleared, and proven not to be EC, now exactly where should we send them?

They are no longer prisoners, but were do they belong? Why won't they return to their country of origin?

That is their option, but they refuse to go, why?

Because they believe, that to return to their Moslem Countries of origin, just might not be conducive to their staying alive?

And again what is your point? With out U.S. medical attention he would be dead, and this attention came right after a fire fight, were he took part, looks like they gave him great medical attention, and he appears to be well fed and healthy.

We were no longer holding them as prisoners, as soon as they had a place to go they were gone.

Maybe you should educat your self, if they are no longer judged to be enemy combatants, they are no longer prisoners.

 

What about Osama bin Ladens cook? barber? gardener? pedicurist?