Home > Opinion > Public Opinion: Tell Us What You Think About the Supreme Court's Decision Allowing Guantánamo Bay Detainees to Appeal in U.S. Civilian Courts

Public Opinion: Tell Us What You Think About the Supreme Court's Decision Allowing Guantánamo Bay Detainees to Appeal in U.S. Civilian Courts

Reader Comments
Back to article

i believe patrick walsh has no idea what hes on about and has lied about his occupation.
Any questions Gary?

Mike Hunt of MO 7:08AM February 11, 2011

kyoto responsible efforts fuel models agreement contends

robertlame of IL 12:29PM July 05, 2009

Guantanamo detainees are prisoners of war. Now here's a little American history for you, Gary:
The U.S. Constitution, specifically Article VI, paragraph 2, states that "this Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land."
If there is any doubt as to the interpretation of this article, the Army’s Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, spells it out clearly:
In consequence, treaties relating to the law of war have a force equal to that of laws enacted by the Congress. Their provisions must be observed by both military and civilian personnel with the same strict regard for both the letter and spirit of the law which is required with respect to the Constitution and statutes enacted in pursuance thereof.
The treaties relating to the law of war which the United States has signed are the U.N. Charter and the Geneva Conventions.
Any questions, Gary?

Patrick Walsh (veteran: Captain, Infantry of NJ 10:27PM June 13, 2008

When any human can deny another human of anything, then if unchecked, then any human is in danger from that person. In this case, to deny the detainees, regardless of who, what, when, or any other excuse (excuse me, justification), means that any American can be branded as terrorist, then we lose habeas corpus rights.
For the third time, the Supreme Court is saying that everyone under the American Flag has habeas corpus rights. It would be nice if Americans woke up.

gary of TX 7:00PM June 13, 2008

Dred Scott was an infamous decision that denied human beings--and American human beings, no less--their basic rights. The Supreme Court's recent decision is completely the antithesis of Dred Scott. Mr. Beckius contradicts himself or else he doesn't know his American history.
As for the comment that the detainees "should have all been 'put away' years ago," it's quite obvious that it's Mr. Beckius who ought to be put away.

Patrick Walsh (veteran: Captain, Infantry of NJ 3:24PM June 13, 2008

This is probably the worst decision the court has made since " Dred Scott". What are they thinking? We messed around too long with the detainees, they should have all been "put away " years ago. I'm glad I am riding off into the sunset of my life rather than just starting out with the way things in this country ar going now.

John Beckius of AZ 2:59PM June 13, 2008

Once again, the Supreme Court has risen above hysteria and partisan politics to affirm the principles our Founding Fathers risked their lives to bequeath us. And one of the most important concepts to men like Washington, Jefferson, and Madison was the right of habeas corpus.
If we capture enemy combatants and transport them to U.S. soil (yes, Guantanamo, like any other American military base or embassy, is American soil--once again affirmed by our Supreme Court), we must treat them according to the provisions of the Geneva Convention. In addition, we can not let them languish in limbo for eternity.
Many of our past enemies did not follow the rules when it came to American prisoners. Americans were justifiably outraged. So why is there now a clamor to become like our enemies in the past? We're supposedly the "good guys," remember?

Patrick Walsh (veteran: Captain, Infantry) of NJ 2:33PM June 13, 2008

If you don't have habeas corpus, then people like Bush and Cheney might just spirit reporters, bloggers, and political enemies off to perpetual secret imprisonment under the doctrine of unitary executive power. Who knows what is being held at Guantanamo and elsewhere? Perhaps some innocent parties who are merely the victims of vindictive enemies in Afghanistan making up false charges. I can relate to that, having had a crazy man harass me for a long time with false charges to the FBI, courts, local police, etc.
Of course it is hard to feel sympathy for what are probably mostly terrorists at Guantanamo, but still they have a right to a hearing before they are executed. It's not their fault that Bush launched perpetual crusade in the Middle East and left Afghanistan undone. The alternative to habeas corpus is keeping people in prison forever without a hearing.

Luther of IL 2:30PM June 13, 2008

It astonishes me that so many people are willing to allow the government to infringe on basic freedoms - for anyone - to obtain a temporary increase in safety. If it is convenient or safer to take their rights today, the government will find it convenient to take yours tomorrow. Where is the courage our founders had?

Ernie of MD 1:19PM June 13, 2008

This is so wrong. The U.S. Supreme Court is out of Control they no longer interpret the laws the way the Courts was intended to do they think they have to changing them. Someone please answer this questions for me, "who is more important these the Guantanamo Bay detainees who are nothing more or less than terrorist or the people of this land?" I don't make sense to me why the U.S. Supreme Court would safety of the people of the United States below the people who have no rights in this country. Where is the loyalty?

Wayne Walley of MO 12:37PM June 13, 2008