Heller Decision

[The Rabbi]

I'm lazy, I know.

Does anyone know about when the Heller decision is due to be handed down? It seems like it was supposed to be this month.

[G27]

All I've hard was "in June"...

[Mike.357]

I did not know there was a deadline.

I would not be suprised if they held off deciding if at all possible.

I for one would rather they get it right than get it out in a hurry and maybe be wrong.

[Warbird]

They are scheduled if I recall rightly to end the session on the 23rd, so most decisions should be made by then. If they choose, which they usually do not they can add days to the end of the session or the middle of the month if they chose which they have already done. For instance, they almost always release decisions on Monday, however this Thursday is set for a decision day, though they did not disclose which decision if any would be released on Thursday. tomorrow.

[Im Neero]

It should be any day now. They've been releasing opinions like champs lately from the last session. They're supposed to release at least one tomorrow morning.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

[GLOCKMEISTER]

the last one about Gitmo suprised the hell out of me.

[Guest nraforlife]

the last one about Gitmo suprised the hell out of me.

Yes, and I hope it doesn't give an advance warning on their Heller decision

[Guest bkelm18]

Well, I'm kinda on the fence about today's Gitmo decision. While I agree that the suspension of Habeas Corpus is trampling on a very basic right, some of those men down there are very dangerous terrorists and should not be afforded the same rights as a purse snatcher.

[Guest Len]

Actually, I think you should hope that. Clearly the Court (or at least 5 of the justices) feel the right of habeas corpus trumps the govt's legitimate need to safeguard national security. That sounds like a "pro individual rights" mindset to me -exactly what we are hoping for in Heller.

Look for June 16 or 23 as the big day.

Yes, and I hope it doesn't give an advance warning on their Heller decision

[The Rabbi]

Somehow when I look at the justices who were "pro individual liberties" on this case I don't see pro-gun people.

I do see people who think the US isn't really so dangerous. So why not extend unwarranted civil liberties to enemy soldiers or allow gov'ts to ban guns?

[Smith]

Well, I'm kinda on the fence about today's Gitmo decision. While I agree that the suspension of Habeas Corpus is trampling on a very basic right, some of those men down there are very dangerous terrorists and should not be afforded the same rights as a purse snatcher.

No, it makes perfect sense. I think soldiers should be collecting evidence for prosecution and detaining prisoners with miranda and making sure there aren't any abuses of said captives all the while being shot at in a active war zone. It will also be great when those soldiers have to return to the states to testify against their prisoners.

[Mark@Sea]

Extending habeus corpus to POW's... well, there is a lesson to be drawn from that. All according to the geneva convention, too. Shame about the loss of intelligence, though.

[Guest nraforlife]

Solution. Don't take too many prisoners.

[The Rabbi]

Solution. Don't take too many prisoners.

I thought about this.

There is a law of unintended consequences out there. If I were in the military and knew that the sleazeball who had just been trying to kill me was going to get constitutional protection I would do my best to make sure he didnt get that far.

[Guest racr28]

That is the correct answer. Bad guy=Dead Guy, Simple.

I thought about this.

There is a law of unintended consequences out there. If I were in the military and knew that the sleazeball who had just been trying to kill me was going to get constitutional protection I would do my best to make sure he didnt get that far.

[Guest nraforlife]

I thought about this.

There is a law of unintended consequences out there. If I were in the military and knew that the sleazeball who had just been trying to kill me was going to get constitutional protection I would do my best to make sure he didnt get that far.

As long as he didn't have his hands up and a news crew was around.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

When it comes to terrorist captured on foriegn soil while trying to kill us.... you interrogate them in the field and use whatever means necessary to find out what they know... then shoot them while they are trying to escape.

[dralarms]

When it comes to terrorist captured on foriegn soil while trying to kill us.... you interrogate them in the field and use whatever means necessary to find out what they know... then shoot them while they are trying to escape.

+1,000,000,000

[G27]

It's worth remembering two things:

1] Habeus Corpus does not equal 'letting them go' - it just means we have to pay attention to the 6th Amendment. I think that's fair.

2] This judgement does not apply to POW's, just to the GTMO detainees. Remember that a very small percentage were actually captured by US troops (and not in battle) - something like 85% of them were turned in for ransom by fine folks like the Northern Alliance - people even the US military openly said they don't trust, but since they are the enemy of our enemy...

Fact is, if we don't treat these 'enemy combatants' (the same thing any one of us can be called by Homeland Security at any time) by the same rules we treat our own citizens, we're not serving the Constitution. Habeus Corpus is nowhere in the Constitution, but it's closely tied to the 6th Amendment. We have to be 'better' than these guys.

If we don't have any charges/proof on these folks after five years, it's time to let them go. Yah, some of them may indeed be terrorists (and if they weren't before, they may be now), but following the Constitution doesn't mean none of the good guys will die or that bad guys won't get away - regardless, it's still what makes this the greatest country in the history of the world, and if we continue to respect the Constitution (no matter how badly it hurts sometimes), we'll continue to enjoy the greatest country on earth!

Sorry for the long post, just had to get that off my chest...

[Im Neero]

It's worth remembering two things:

1] Habeus Corpus does not equal 'letting them go' - it just means we have to pay attention to the 6th Amendment. I think that's fair.

2] This judgement does not apply to POW's, just to the GTMO detainees. Remember that a very small percentage were actually captured by US troops (and not in battle) - something like 85% of them were turned in for ransom by fine folks like the Northern Alliance - people even the US military openly said they don't trust, but since they are the enemy of our enemy...

Fact is, if we don't treat these 'enemy combatants' (the same thing any one of us can be called by Homeland Security at any time) by the same rules we treat our own citizens, we're not serving the Constitution. Habeus Corpus is nowhere in the Constitution, but it's closely tied to the 6th Amendment. We have to be 'better' than these guys.

If we don't have any charges/proof on these folks after five years, it's time to let them go. Yah, some of them may indeed be terrorists (and if they weren't before, they may be now), but following the Constitution doesn't mean none of the good guys will die or that bad guys won't get away - regardless, it's still what makes this the greatest country in the history of the world, and if we continue to respect the Constitution (no matter how badly it hurts sometimes), we'll continue to enjoy the greatest country on earth!

Sorry for the long post, just had to get that off my chest...

\

Somebody had to say it. I agree.

[Smith]

It's worth remembering two things:

1] Habeus Corpus does not equal 'letting them go' - it just means we have to pay attention to the 6th Amendment. I think that's fair.

2] This judgement does not apply to POW's, just to the GTMO detainees. Remember that a very small percentage were actually captured by US troops (and not in battle) - something like 85% of them were turned in for ransom by fine folks like the Northern Alliance - people even the US military openly said they don't trust, but since they are the enemy of our enemy...

Fact is, if we don't treat these 'enemy combatants' (the same thing any one of us can be called by Homeland Security at any time) by the same rules we treat our own citizens, we're not serving the Constitution. Habeus Corpus is nowhere in the Constitution, but it's closely tied to the 6th Amendment. We have to be 'better' than these guys.

If we don't have any charges/proof on these folks after five years, it's time to let them go. Yah, some of them may indeed be terrorists (and if they weren't before, they may be now), but following the Constitution doesn't mean none of the good guys will die or that bad guys won't get away - regardless, it's still what makes this the greatest country in the history of the world, and if we continue to respect the Constitution (no matter how badly it hurts sometimes), we'll continue to enjoy the greatest country on earth!

Sorry for the long post, just had to get that off my chest...

No offense, but that is one of the most thought out ignorant responses I've seen. The total mis-application of citizen rights and war time prosecution is glaring. It is an emotional response rooted in a lack of understanding of law and war.

[BryanP]

No offense, but that is one of the most thought out ignorant responses I've seen. The total mis-application of citizen rights and war time prosecution is glaring. It is an emotional response rooted in a lack of understanding of law and war.

I'm pretty sure you have that exactly backwards. The attitude of "They're the bad guys, we should be able to do any damn thing we want, laws be damned!" is the over-emotional response of someone who doesn't want to consider the ramifications of those actions.

[Guest nraforlife]

Just remember that red is positive and black is negative. IF it saves one GI, or US citizen, crank it up Danno...

[Im Neero]

It is an emotional response rooted in a lack of understanding of law and war.

That attitude scares me.

[G27]

I'm pretty sure you have that exactly backwards. The attitude of "They're the bad guys, we should be able to do any damn thing we want, laws be damned!" is the over-emotional response of someone who doesn't want to consider the ramifications of those actions.

Thank you - this is PRECISELY what the US Constitution is about - protecting those without rights from oppression from the majority.

Look, I want to blow these guys to Kingdom Come, but that's not the right thing to do - that's not what built this country. We've always been above that, allowing the laws to punish those who broke them (even unto Nuremberg).

It's how you treat those under your power that shows your character.

And no, I'm not some 'emotional liberal' - I'm just a strict constitutionalist.