[Winstonm]

From Salon.com

Quote

"In 28 of 33 Gitmo detainee cases heard so far, federal judges have found insufficient evidence to support keeping them in prison."  Virtually all of those detainees were held for many years without charges and with no opportunity for judicial review.  Once they finally got into a court, federal judges (including Bush-43 appointed judges) in the vast majority of cases concluded there was virtually no credible evidence ever to justify their detention.  Just consider what that fact, standing alone, means about what our Government has been doing.

[Lobowolf]

I don't think it says much, if anything, about what the government has been doing. The question was never whether there was "enough evidence to hold them"; it was whether they were constitutionally entitled to raise the issue. Once Scotus determined (5-4 last year) they're entitled to habeas challenges, it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that many if not most of those challenges would succeed.

[Winstonm]

Lobowolf, on Aug 9 2009, 10:13 AM, said:

I don't think it says much, if anything, about what the government has been doing. The question was never whether there was "enough evidence to hold them"; it was whether they were constitutionally entitled to raise the issue. Once Scotus determined (5-4 last year) they're entitled to habeas challenges, it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that many if not most of those challenges would succeed.

I suppose you also mean there was no problem with holding U.S. citizen Jose Padilla in military prison without charges, then?

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Aug 9 2009, 10:23 AM, said:

Lobowolf, on Aug 9 2009, 10:13 AM, said:

I don't think it says much, if anything, about what the government has been doing.  The question was never whether there was "enough evidence to hold them"; it was whether they were constitutionally entitled to raise the issue.  Once Scotus determined (5-4 last year) they're entitled to habeas challenges, it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that many if not most of those challenges would succeed.

I suppose you also mean there was no problem with holding U.S. citizen Jose Padilla in military prison without charges, then?

he can answer for himself... for me, it was a travesty... i don't see a huge push to give back the civil liberties we've lost, though... at least not yet

[cherdanno]

luke warm, on Aug 9 2009, 12:59 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Aug 9 2009, 10:23 AM, said:

Lobowolf, on Aug 9 2009, 10:13 AM, said:

I don't think it says much, if anything, about what the government has been doing.  The question was never whether there was "enough evidence to hold them"; it was whether they were constitutionally entitled to raise the issue.  Once Scotus determined (5-4 last year) they're entitled to habeas challenges, it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that many if not most of those challenges would succeed.

I suppose you also mean there was no problem with holding U.S. citizen Jose Padilla in military prison without charges, then?

he can answer for himself... for me, it was a travesty... i don't see a huge push to give back the civil liberties we've lost, though... at least not yet

Would you like to see one? If so, that would be something you and me agree on - in the WaterCooler, no less!

[luke warm]

cherdanno, on Aug 9 2009, 01:38 PM, said:

Would you like to see one? If so, that would be something you and me agree on - in the WaterCooler, no less!

i'd like to see homeland security abolished; i'd like to see civil liberties again as the ultimate... but what i'd like to see is irrelevant, it's too late

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Aug 9 2009, 05:21 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Aug 9 2009, 01:38 PM, said:

Would you like to see one? If so, that would be something you and me agree on - in the WaterCooler, no less!

i'd like to see homeland security abolished; i'd like to see civil liberties again as the ultimate... but what i'd like to see is irrelevant, it's too late

I agree with all three comments.