TREAT COMBATANTS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES AS YOU WOULD TREAT ITS CURRENT CITIZENS.
Richard Miniter spoke on the Dennis Miller show today, in terms of the recent SCOTUS ruling regarding terrorists housed at Gitmo which, essentially, would afford the terrorists at Guantanamo more rights than soldiers fighting for the United States of America who labor and work under the UCMJ: the Universal Code of Military Justice.
Miniter said that, by this decision, we have essentially guaranteed that terrorists will target the involved courts, the involved judges, the involved jails with focused violence and bombs in hopes of freeing, liberating, confusing or shattering the official entities involved with processing and determining the future of Islamofascists.
If you are an American citizen put in the brig, you are only provided an Article 32.
Terrorists now, under this ruling, have more rights than our own American soldiers serving this country.
Still, at Guantanamo, it will be years before these persons will get a hearing. Will they have to be read their Miranda Rights on the field of battle? It is possible that the answer is “yes.” As with the Miranda results in the 60’s, the chance equals a 500% increase in violence.
The SCOTUS pulled this ruling completely out of its ass.
Shayana Kadidal [Attorney, Center for Constitutional Rights]: “It was in February of 2002 that the Center for Constitutional Rights and our co-counsel brought the first habeas case in federal court on behalf of detainees held at Guantánamo. Yesterday, June 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the part of the Military Commissions Act that attempted to block the federal courts from hearing the claims of our clients at Guantánamo was unconstitutional. The Court first determined that the individuals at Guantánamo have a right under the Suspension Clause to challenge their detention, basing its decision on fundamental separation of powers principles that informed the Framers understanding of habeas, rather than on the incomplete records of historical habeas cases. The pragmatic approach it took in deciding that the writ reaches Guantánamo still leaves space for similar challenges to U.S. detention facilities elsewhere in the world. The Court then found that the DTA statute failed to provide an adequate substitute for this constitutionally-required habeas review, because it did not make release from custody available as a remedy, offered no procedures for petitioners to present new, exculpatory evidence, and denied them the ability to bring the full range of legal challenges available in a habeas proceeding. As a result, the Court struck down the jurisdiction-stripping section of the MCA that deprived the petitioners of their constitutional right to habeas.
