Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Yakk · 06-17-2008, 06:03 PM

Did the supreme court free the non-American citizens imprisioned on nothing but the say of the President for 5 years without access to habius corpus? Did it state that those who kept them imprisioned over those 5 years should be punished for their action?

As far as I can tell, the answer is "no" and "no".

I'm sorry, kidnapping someone, "interrogating" them with arbitrary classified torture mechanisms, and holding them for 5 years with no option to contest the imprisonment in anything that isn't a kangaroo court, is already a "fuck you".

If I read the ruling right, the Supreme Court simply said "the kangaroo court you produced isn't good enough. Feel free to make up a new kangaroo court, hold them, torture them as much as you want, and then come back to us in a few more years and we'll see if that new kangaroo court is enough."

What the ruling doesn't say is "you have failed to uphold habeus corpus, and as such you may not legally hold these individuals any more". Or declared that individuals who held these individuals illegally are guilty of kidnapping, illegal imprisonment, etc. Or said "Given the extreme delays, you have 1 week to place these people in front of a civilian judge, and that judge has the power to release these individuals if insufficient evidence for imprisonment is presented within 2 months."

Those would be a "no, this isn't right, you aren't allowed to do it, stop it". Instead, it appears like it is being treated as a minor procedural error.

06-17-2008, 06:03 PM	#198 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	Did the supreme court free the non-American citizens imprisioned on nothing but the say of the President for 5 years without access to habius corpus? Did it state that those who kept them imprisioned over those 5 years should be punished for their action? As far as I can tell, the answer is "no" and "no". I'm sorry, kidnapping someone, "interrogating" them with arbitrary classified torture mechanisms, and holding them for 5 years with no option to contest the imprisonment in anything that isn't a kangaroo court, is already a "fuck you". If I read the ruling right, the Supreme Court simply said "the kangaroo court you produced isn't good enough. Feel free to make up a new kangaroo court, hold them, torture them as much as you want, and then come back to us in a few more years and we'll see if that new kangaroo court is enough." What the ruling doesn't say is "you have failed to uphold habeus corpus, and as such you may not legally hold these individuals any more". Or declared that individuals who held these individuals illegally are guilty of kidnapping, illegal imprisonment, etc. Or said "Given the extreme delays, you have 1 week to place these people in front of a civilian judge, and that judge has the power to release these individuals if insufficient evidence for imprisonment is presented within 2 months." Those would be a "no, this isn't right, you aren't allowed to do it, stop it". Instead, it appears like it is being treated as a minor procedural error. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.