Terrorist democrats Lose Again In Court
Err America in the Shitter
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Dec. 14, 2006 - Upholding the legality of October's Military
Commissions Act, a federal court ruled here yesterday that detainees at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, do not have the right to challenge their detention in
U.S. courts.
Judge James Robertson issued a decision and order in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia dismissing the habeas corpus case of Salim
Ahmed Hamdan, a former driver for Osama bin Laden who is being held at
Guantanamo Bay. Robertson concluded that the Military Commissions Act
unambiguously withdraws the right of habeas corpus -- which allows people
who are imprisoned to go before a judge and challenge their detention --
from detainees and that this withdrawal is constitutional.
"The Suspension Clause does not guarantee the right to petition for habeas
corpus to non-resident enemy aliens captured and detained outside the United
States," Robertson wrote in his decision. In other words, Congress may
constitutionally deprive these detainees of the writ of habeas corpus.
Defense Department officials said they were pleased with Robertson's ruling,
as it removes federal court jurisdiction over Hamdan's case and similar
cases. Officials noted that Congress did provide in the Military Commissions
Act that detainees may challenge their detention before fair military
tribunals with an appeal to the D.C. Circuit, and that is more process than
the U.S. has ever provided to enemy combatants in past conflicts.
"We are, of course, pleased with the ... ruling," said Bryan Whitman, DoD
spokesman. "We are continuing to implement the provisions of the Military
Commissions Act passed by Congress, and we hope to bring individuals before
commissions by next summer. There are still facilities that need to be built
in order for commissions to proceed, and we're working on that."
Robertson granted Hamdan's first habeas petition in November 2004, and the
case made it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in June that
President Bush had overstepped his authority in creating the military
commissions. In September, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act,
authorizing military commissions and clarifying the rights of detainees,
specifically on the issue of access to courts.
The Military Commissions Act changes the nature of Hamdan's case, Robertson
said in his ruling.
"Hamdan is to face a military commission newly designed, because of his
efforts, by a Congress that finally stepped up to its responsibility, acting
according to guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court," he wrote. "It is
difficult to see how continued habeas jurisdiction could make further
improvements in his tribunal."
Related Sites:
Guantanamo Bay Web Special Report
Matti Partonen
"Err America in the Shitter" <bankrupt@Err America.com> wrote in message
news:458a7606$0$19992$a82e...@reader.athenanews.com...
> By Sgt. Sara Wood, USA
> American Forces Press Service
>
> WASHINGTON, Dec. 14, 2006 - Upholding the legality of October's Military
> Commissions Act, a federal court ruled here yesterday that detainees at
> Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, do not have the right to challenge their detention
> in U.S. courts.
A couple of points:
Democrat = a person who supports democracy.
In any western type democracy, those detainees would have the right to
challenge their detention in court. There would be no dispute about it.
Matti P.
Err America in the Shitter
"Matti Partonen" <matti.partonen__@__nokia.com> wrote in message
news:Pvuih.44964$Nb2.8...@news1.nokia.com...
>
> "Err America in the Shitter" <bankrupt@Err America.com> wrote in message
> news:458a7606$0$19992$a82e...@reader.athenanews.com...
>> By Sgt. Sara Wood, USA
>> American Forces Press Service
>>
>> WASHINGTON, Dec. 14, 2006 - Upholding the legality of October's Military
>> Commissions Act, a federal court ruled here yesterday that detainees at
>> Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, do not have the right to challenge their detention
>> in U.S. courts.
>
> A couple of points:
>
================
Exactly
Matti Partonen
"Err America in the Shitter" <bankrupt@Err America.com> wrote in message
Democrat = a person who supports democracy.
You may have heard of democracy. It is the mode of government that is used
in most western countries, elections and all. That is what a democrat
supports.
But I suppose this is futile: I do not think you have the ability to
understand. Even if you do not understand, at least have the courage to
present your views as your own and not as mine as you cowardly have done
above.
Matti P.
Err America in the Shitter
"Matti Partonen" <matti.p...@dlc.fi> wrote in message
news:UNCih.6449$b74....@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>
> "Err America in the Shitter" <bankrupt@Err America.com> wrote in message
> news:458ae426$0$19961$a82e...@reader.athenanews.com...
>>
>> "Matti Partonen" <matti.partonen__@__nokia.com> wrote in message
>> news:Pvuih.44964$Nb2.8...@news1.nokia.com...
>>>
>>> "Err America in the Shitter" <bankrupt@Err America.com> wrote in message
>>> news:458a7606$0$19992$a82e...@reader.athenanews.com...
>>>> By Sgt. Sara Wood, USA
>>>> American Forces Press Service
>>>>
>>>> WASHINGTON, Dec. 14, 2006 - Upholding the legality of October's
>>>> Military Commissions Act, a federal court ruled here yesterday that
>>>> detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, do not have the right to challenge
>>>> their detention in U.S. courts.
>>>
>>> A couple of points:
>>>
>>> Democrat = a person who supports terrorists NOn Us Constitutional
>>> rights.
>> ================
>>
>> Exactly
>
> Democrat = a person who supports democracy.
>
> You may have heard of democracy.
YOU may have heard of th Bill of Rights. Nowhere in it does it allow those
rights to foreign born terrorists like you.