Trump says no more GITMO Transfers, Pentagon tells him to STFU.

[Moonglow]

The United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that prisoners held as “enemy combatants” at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba can immediately file habeas corpus petitions in US district courts challenging the legality of their confinement. Most have been held at the US naval base under brutal conditions, enduring solitary confinement and torture, for more than six years. None has ever had the merits of his case reviewed by a court of law.

The majority opinion in the case, Boumediene et al v. Bush, was authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, considered the “swing” vote on the court, and joined by the four high court liberals—John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Stephen Breyer.

The ruling does not question the executive branch’s ability to declare someone an “enemy combatant,” an unprecedented power the Supreme Court upheld four years ago in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. (See “The meaning of the US Supreme Court rulings on ‘enemy combatants’”) Nor does Kennedy order the release of any prisoner.

Nevertheless, Kennedy’s opinion is a rebuke to a cornerstone of the Bush administration’s so-called “global war on terror.” By holding unconstitutional the provision of the 2006 Military Commissions Act (MCA) stripping Guantánamo Bay prisoners of their habeas corpus rights, the Supreme Court has stopped the Bush administration from continuing to use the naval base as a legal limbo, where it can imprison people indefinitely without regard for either domestic or international law.

US Supreme Court upholds habeas corpus for Guantánamo Bay prisoners - World Socialist Web Site

Since we are a nation of laws, theses detainees have the ability to be tried or released....Holding them in limbo undermines the laws of our nation..

 

[miketx]

The United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that prisoners held as “enemy combatants” at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba can immediately file habeas corpus petitions in US district courts challenging the legality of their confinement. Most have been held at the US naval base under brutal conditions, enduring solitary confinement and torture, for more than six years. None has ever had the merits of his case reviewed by a court of law.

The majority opinion in the case, Boumediene et al v. Bush, was authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, considered the “swing” vote on the court, and joined by the four high court liberals—John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Stephen Breyer.

The ruling does not question the executive branch’s ability to declare someone an “enemy combatant,” an unprecedented power the Supreme Court upheld four years ago in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. (See “The meaning of the US Supreme Court rulings on ‘enemy combatants’”) Nor does Kennedy order the release of any prisoner.

Nevertheless, Kennedy’s opinion is a rebuke to a cornerstone of the Bush administration’s so-called “global war on terror.” By holding unconstitutional the provision of the 2006 Military Commissions Act (MCA) stripping Guantánamo Bay prisoners of their habeas corpus rights, the Supreme Court has stopped the Bush administration from continuing to use the naval base as a legal limbo, where it can imprison people indefinitely without regard for either domestic or international law.

US Supreme Court upholds habeas corpus for Guantánamo Bay prisoners - World Socialist Web Site

Since we are a nation of laws, theses detainees have the ability to be tried or released....Holding them in limbo undermines the laws of our nation..

Except in the case of enemy combatants.

 

[Meathead]

Talking out the wrong orifice aren't you?

He was ripped a new orifice about two months ago, so he still confuses them.

 

[Moonglow]

The United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that prisoners held as “enemy combatants” at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba can immediately file habeas corpus petitions in US district courts challenging the legality of their confinement. Most have been held at the US naval base under brutal conditions, enduring solitary confinement and torture, for more than six years. None has ever had the merits of his case reviewed by a court of law.

The majority opinion in the case, Boumediene et al v. Bush, was authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, considered the “swing” vote on the court, and joined by the four high court liberals—John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Stephen Breyer.

The ruling does not question the executive branch’s ability to declare someone an “enemy combatant,” an unprecedented power the Supreme Court upheld four years ago in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. (See “The meaning of the US Supreme Court rulings on ‘enemy combatants’”) Nor does Kennedy order the release of any prisoner.

Nevertheless, Kennedy’s opinion is a rebuke to a cornerstone of the Bush administration’s so-called “global war on terror.” By holding unconstitutional the provision of the 2006 Military Commissions Act (MCA) stripping Guantánamo Bay prisoners of their habeas corpus rights, the Supreme Court has stopped the Bush administration from continuing to use the naval base as a legal limbo, where it can imprison people indefinitely without regard for either domestic or international law.

US Supreme Court upholds habeas corpus for Guantánamo Bay prisoners - World Socialist Web Site

Since we are a nation of laws, theses detainees have the ability to be tried or released....Holding them in limbo undermines the laws of our nation..

Except in the case of enemy combatants.

Try reading, it helps enlarge your knowledge based brain functions...

 

[Moonglow]

Sounds like you're drunk on body fluids again.

Nothing better than a cup of your own blood...

 

[Desperado]

Donald Trump will be the worst President in the history of the USA

His election: It's a sign of the times

I would not be surprised if he came out as the anti-Christ. He probably covers up his 666 tattoo with that ridiculous hairdo

I doubt that, Obama set that bar pretty high! Going to be tough for anyone to beat his mark.

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

Since we are a nation of laws, theses detainees have the ability to be tried or released....Holding them in limbo undermines the laws of our nation..

How so? Your opinion is held by many others, but still many others have differing opinions on this matter

No law has been undermined if you cannot name the law and the specific undermining action.

You can say holding people legally declared as enemy combatants in limbo undermines some notion or ideal you hold up as representing some ideal of what America is supposed to be all about

But you know quite well that if the nation's history is taken into account, your ideals and such are more myth than reality

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

I doubt that, Obama set that bar pretty high! Going to be tough for anyone to beat his mark.

Reality is Trump lowers the bar and wins negative labels with every tweet, utterance, and action

Look at the level of debate and public speaking since the primaries? Look at how the President elect has no clue he is not President yet

 

[Moonglow]

Since we are a nation of laws, theses detainees have the ability to be tried or released....Holding them in limbo undermines the laws of our nation..

How so? Your opinion is held by many others, but still many others have differing opinions on this matter

No law has been undermined if you cannot name the law and the specific undermining action.

You can say holding people legally declared as enemy combatants in limbo undermines some notion or ideal you hold up as representing some ideal of what America is supposed to be all about

But you know quite well that if the nation's history is taken into account, your ideals and such are more myth than reality

I already posted the 411 on the law of habeas corpus...
Habeas corpus (/ˈheɪbiəs ˈkɔːrpəs/; Medieval Latin meaning literally "You may have the body") is a recourse in law whereby a person can report an unlawful detention or imprisonment before a court, usually through a prison official.

 

[miketx]

I doubt that, Obama set that bar pretty high! Going to be tough for anyone to beat his mark.

Reality is Trump lowers the bar and wins negative labels with every tweet, utterance, and action

Look at the level of debate and public speaking since the primaries? Look at how the President elect has no clue he is not President yet

That's some serious delusions there.

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

Since we are a nation of laws, theses detainees have the ability to be tried or released....Holding them in limbo undermines the laws of our nation..

How so? Your opinion is held by many others, but still many others have differing opinions on this matter

No law has been undermined if you cannot name the law and the specific undermining action.

You can say holding people legally declared as enemy combatants in limbo undermines some notion or ideal you hold up as representing some ideal of what America is supposed to be all about

But you know quite well that if the nation's history is taken into account, your ideals and such are more myth than reality

I already posted the 411 on the law of habeas corpus...
Habeas corpus (/ˈheɪbiəs ˈkɔːrpəs/; Medieval Latin meaning literally "You may have the body") is a recourse in law whereby a person can report an unlawful detention or imprisonment before a court, usually through a prison official.

and the detainees at GITMO have been declared to have, and have exercised their rights under hc

 

[miketx]

In the United States, indefinite detention has been used to hold terror suspects during the War on Terror. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, section 412 of the USA PATRIOT act permits indefinite detention of immigrants;[7] one of the most highly publicized cases has been that of Jose Padilla,[8] whose ultimate prosecution and conviction in the United States have also been highly controversial. The indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay has been called a violation of international law by the United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and Human Rights Watch.[9][10][11][12]

On November 29, 2011, the United States Senate rejected a proposed amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 ("NDAA") that would have banned indefinite detention by the United States government of its own citizens, leading to criticism that Habeas corpus in the United States has been undermined.[13][14] Congress and Senate approved the National Defense Authorization Act in December 2011 and President Barack Obama signed it December 31, 2011.[15] The new indefinite detention provision of the law was decried as a "historic assault on American liberty."[16] The American Civil Liberties Union stated that "President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law."[17] On May 16, 2012, in response to a lawsuit filed by journalist Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Wolf and others,[18] United States District Judge Katherine B. Forrest ruled the indefinite detention section of the law (1021) likely violates the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and issued a preliminary injunction preventing the U.S. government from enforcing it.[19][20][21][22][23]

In 2013, the House of Representatives[24] and the Senate[25] reauthorized National Defense Authorization Act. The amendments to effectively ban indefinite detention of US Citizens were defeated in both chambers. Moreover, on July 17, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second District struck down an injunction against indefinite detention of U.S. citizens by the president under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.[26] The appellate court ruled: "...Plaintiffs lack standing to seek pre enforcement review of Section 1021 and vacate the permanent injunction. The American citizen plaintiffs lack standing because Section 1021 says nothing at all about the President’s authority to detain American citizens." On December 26, 2013, President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014.[27][28] The NDAA provision first signed into law in 2012, which permits indefinite detention without trial, remains in law as of 2016.

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

I doubt that, Obama set that bar pretty high! Going to be tough for anyone to beat his mark.

Reality is Trump lowers the bar and wins negative labels with every tweet, utterance, and action

Look at the level of debate and public speaking since the primaries? Look at how the President elect has no clue he is not President yet

That's some serious delusions there.

ok. you're not a serious person

good bye

 

[Moonglow]

In the United States, indefinite detention has been used to hold terror suspects during the War on Terror. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, section 412 of the USA PATRIOT act permits indefinite detention of immigrants;[7] one of the most highly publicized cases has been that of Jose Padilla,[8] whose ultimate prosecution and conviction in the United States have also been highly controversial. The indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay has been called a violation of international law by the United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and Human Rights Watch.[9][10][11][12]

On November 29, 2011, the United States Senate rejected a proposed amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 ("NDAA") that would have banned indefinite detention by the United States government of its own citizens, leading to criticism that Habeas corpus in the United States has been undermined.[13][14] Congress and Senate approved the National Defense Authorization Act in December 2011 and President Barack Obama signed it December 31, 2011.[15] The new indefinite detention provision of the law was decried as a "historic assault on American liberty."[16] The American Civil Liberties Union stated that "President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law."[17] On May 16, 2012, in response to a lawsuit filed by journalist Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Wolf and others,[18] United States District Judge Katherine B. Forrest ruled the indefinite detention section of the law (1021) likely violates the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and issued a preliminary injunction preventing the U.S. government from enforcing it.[19][20][21][22][23]

In 2013, the House of Representatives[24] and the Senate[25] reauthorized National Defense Authorization Act. The amendments to effectively ban indefinite detention of US Citizens were defeated in both chambers. Moreover, on July 17, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second District struck down an injunction against indefinite detention of U.S. citizens by the president under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.[26] The appellate court ruled: "...Plaintiffs lack standing to seek pre enforcement review of Section 1021 and vacate the permanent injunction. The American citizen plaintiffs lack standing because Section 1021 says nothing at all about the President’s authority to detain American citizens." On December 26, 2013, President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014.[27][28] The NDAA provision first signed into law in 2012, which permits indefinite detention without trial, remains in law as of 2016.

And conveniently the Supreme court at this time can only review and not judge on the latest NDAA and their standing law..Yet the previous law on detainees was ruled unconstitutional...

 

[Maryland Patriot]

The democrats want those killers back in combat. With their new designation as refugee, they will be in Nebraska in no time.

Ive been to GITMO when I was in the Navy,
Ive driven through Nebraska several times.
Its hard to decide which one would be more taxing on ones soul to be stuck in.
I guess if you like looking at corn for four hours, Nebraska isnt so bad.