PDA

View Full Version : Judge rules Afghan detainees can sue in US court


Madtown HD Junkie
April 2nd, 2009, 12:18 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaCrisis/idUSN02247373

A federal judge handed a defeat to the Obama administration with a ruling on Thursday that some of the detainees held at the U.S. military base in Afghanistan can sue in U.S. court to seek their release.

The Obama administration in February said in the case that it would follow the Bush administration's position that detainees held at the base in Bagram have no right to sue in federal court.

But U.S. District Judge John Bates rejected that argument and ruled three of the four detainees who brought the lawsuit can proceed with their legal challenge seeking their release.

"Bagram detainees who are not Afghan citizens, who were not captured in Afghanistan and who have been held for an unreasonable amount of time -- here over six years -- without adequate process" have the legal right to sue in U.S. court, the judge ruled in a 53-page opinion

Can I sue france for the French fries being too soggy?
Carl
April 2nd, 2009, 01:19 PM
If Bush had not detained people forever with no rights we would not be in the mess we are in.
fallout2600
April 2nd, 2009, 01:23 PM
If Bush had not detained people forever with no rights we would not be in the mess we are in.

Bush detained war criminals, other countries would have killed them. Obama is continuing Bush's wars, you can't point the finger at Bush on this one!
Bob Haller
April 2nd, 2009, 02:37 PM
just wait till all the gitmo detainees sue.

probably cost a million per detainee to npay them all off. whats unlawful detention with torture valued at these days:)
fallout2600
April 2nd, 2009, 02:58 PM
Were the Japanese allowed to sue us after WWII? Why now? That judge is insane.
Bob Haller
April 2nd, 2009, 04:20 PM
Were the Japanese allowed to sue us after WWII? Why now? That judge is insane.

that was a far different era.........
fallout2600
April 2nd, 2009, 04:28 PM
Yes it was, but why let war criminals sue the USA?
cybok0
April 3rd, 2009, 10:02 AM
Agreed. This will probably end up going to the Supreme Court.
fallout2600
April 3rd, 2009, 10:45 AM
OBL is probably lovin' this BS
Carl
April 3rd, 2009, 05:54 PM
OBL is probablyu scared someone is really going to come after him now.
fallout2600
April 3rd, 2009, 07:16 PM
No, he's glad we're wasting more money chasing him.
msmith198025
April 3rd, 2009, 08:59 PM
OBL is probablyu scared someone is really going to come after him now.

What possibly makes you think that now?
Bob Haller
April 3rd, 2009, 09:49 PM
Yes it was, but why let war criminals sue the USA?

didnt you see the detainees werent charged with a crime. so they arent criminals
fallout2600
April 4th, 2009, 08:34 PM
didnt you see the detainees werent charged with a crime. so they arent criminals

When the war is over, then we should worry about the legal right of enemy combatants. It all about perspective anyway, Obama just wants the world to think he's closing Gitmo when he plans on filling it up if he invades Pakistan. Its a double-standard. What president would close down a enemy combatant prison in the middle of a war? Obama has already said he plans on destroying Al Qaeda. Its a continuation of Bush war-policy, so with Bush comes the reality of Gitmo.
Bob Haller
April 5th, 2009, 07:56 AM
Gitmo was never about keeping them secure, it was all about being off US soil, looking for a hole in the law. the US locks up securely a greater poercentage of its population than any other country, supermax in flortence colorado is very secure. heck it lacks windows, and each one man cell is soundproof. even the sewer lines are designed to prevent communication

gitm once cosed should be bulldozed and perhaps turn the base back mover to cuba.

a new broom sweeps clean:)
fallout2600
April 5th, 2009, 09:13 AM
a new broom sweeps clean:)

We'll have to see what happens, but I predict Gitmo isn't going anywhere.

I really don't understand your point, you would be happy if Gitmo was on US soil?
Bob Haller
April 5th, 2009, 01:05 PM
We'll have to see what happens, but I predict Gitmo isn't going anywhere.

I really don't understand your point, you would be happy if Gitmo was on US soil?

Gitmo was a attempt to not give the detainees any rights POW or otherwise by keeping them off US soil.

security wise many US prisons would be fine.

but gitmo wasnt about security it was about denying the prisoners all rights
fallout2600
April 6th, 2009, 09:13 AM
Gitmo was a attempt to not give the detainees any rights POW or otherwise by keeping them off US soil.

security wise many US prisons would be fine.

but gitmo wasnt about security it was about denying the prisoners all rights

Sounds like a conspiracy theory promoted by moveon.org and fellow Bush haters. ALL news agencies that have toured it report that its run better than any US prison. When we do release these guys, most of them end up back on the battlefield. I just don't understand the paranoid notion that Bush was a torturer.
Bob Haller
April 6th, 2009, 11:14 PM
Sounds like a conspiracy theory promoted by moveon.org and fellow Bush haters. ALL news agencies that have toured it report that its run better than any US prison. When we do release these guys, most of them end up back on the battlefield. I just don't understand the paranoid notion that Bush was a torturer.


bush cheney approved the torture, some in Gitmo nd some in black prisons worldwide.

Are you denying this? Its a known fact
fallout2600
April 7th, 2009, 06:07 AM
bush cheney approved the torture, some in Gitmo nd some in black prisons worldwide.

Are you denying this? Its a known fact

Denying it, no. Believing you, no. We don't know the details, its all speculation by the left to destroy Bush, I've never seen any proof of torture minus Abu Ghabrid.
Carl
April 7th, 2009, 07:46 AM
Bsuh and Cheney believed in torture, the rest of the civilized world and Oabam don't. Thankfully it is ended.
msmith198025
April 7th, 2009, 09:07 AM
Bsuh and Cheney believed in torture, the rest of the civilized world and Oabam don't. Thankfully it is ended.

Just saying it does not make it so Carl
Carl
April 8th, 2009, 07:48 AM
No, but Obama made it so:)
Bob Haller
April 8th, 2009, 05:09 PM
nationgeo has a interesting show inside Gitmo it admits torture and the politics of what occured. sad but fascinating show
stevenl
April 8th, 2009, 05:28 PM
Denying it, no. Believing you, no. We don't know the details, its all speculation by the left to destroy Bush, I've never seen any proof of torture minus Abu Ghabrid.

Bush has done enough to destroy himself and his party. The left does not have to do anything to help. The last 2 elections prove that.
dogbert
April 8th, 2009, 07:12 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaCrisis/idUSN02247373

A federal judge handed a defeat to the Obama administration with a ruling on Thursday that some of the detainees held at the U.S. military base in Afghanistan can sue in U.S. court to seek their release.

The Obama administration in February said in the case that it would follow the Bush administration's position that detainees held at the base in Bagram have no right to sue in federal court.

But U.S. District Judge John Bates rejected that argument and ruled three of the four detainees who brought the lawsuit can proceed with their legal challenge seeking their release.

"Bagram detainees who are not Afghan citizens, who were not captured in Afghanistan and who have been held for an unreasonable amount of time -- here over six years -- without adequate process" have the legal right to sue in U.S. court, the judge ruled in a 53-page opinion

Can I sue france for the French fries being too soggy?

Arent they freedom fries now?