Posted on Jan 19, 2019
17-Year Gitmo Detainee With No Charges Petitions Supreme Court To Review Legal Case - The Ring of...
1.74K
13
9
3
3
0
MY COMMENT - Moath Hamza Ahmed al Alwi has a 13 page docket that details his status, history and associations. Trained al Qaeda operative, former body guard of Usamma bin Laden, and on, and on. The Left continue to parade these unlawful combatant Islamists who want to kill us as if they were innocent jay-walkers picked up on main street, USA! A "bounty" is a legal and legitimate method of obtaining bad guys. Let the justice system of the US military sort him out. And if we choose not to prosecute him in the morass that is caused by the 2009 Military Commissions Act, which gives unlawful combatants charged with war crimes virtually the SAME rights you or I would enjoy in a federal court of law, then legally they can be held without charge or trial "until the end of hostilities." It boggles the mind how these people can defend high ranking al Qaeda terrorists. It's as if to them 9/11 never even took place. Detainees held at the US military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have the right to petition for habeas corpus, but so far none have been granted due process rights, for good reason: none have EARNED due process rights. Under the Law of War one must be a LAWFUL COMBATANT to earn extra legal privileges. Not al-Alwi, not any of them. They can rot.
17-Year Gitmo Detainee With No Charges Petitions Supreme Court To Review Legal Case - The Ring of...
Posted from trofire.com
Guantanamo Bay
Al Qaeda
Supreme Court
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
2
2
0
Unlawful combatant. Not a US citizen. On a military installation overseas. Since they are unlawful combatants, they do NOT qualify for Geneva Convention's protections. The Supreme Court approved the use of military tribunals for unlawful combatants in the 1942 case of Ex Parte Quirin. Furthermore, another Supreme Court decision, the 1950 ruling in Johnson v. Eisentrager, holds that enemy aliens who have not entered the United States are not entitled to access to our courts. So, in short, those cockroaches in GITMO do not have rights under US Constitution (since they are enemy aliens who have not entered the US) and are subject to a military tribunal. Fry the cockroaches.
(2)
(0)
MAJ Montgomery Granger
Correct. The Supreme Court however, did rule that Gitmo was "defacto US territory." This is part of the rationale that detainees are allowed to petition for hebeas corpus. Weak reasoning if you ask me. They could have lawfully been shot dead on the battlefield.
(1)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
MAJ Montgomery Granger - True and I agree that it is a weak reasoning. To add to this, GITMO is not US territory because we are leasing it from Cuba. It is still technically Cuban property. Unlike Embassies were the property is considered US property, Military bases are not.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
0
0
0
Actually, some of your facts are incorrect. The government doesn't currently allege that al Alwi was one of bin Laden's bodyguards, only that he associated with some of them.
Second, he has the right, under U.S. law, to file a petition of habeas corpus, and the courts have to hear it. Thus far, both the District Court and the Court of Appeals have denied his petition. It is likely that SCOTUS won't grant certiorari to hear the case, and he won't be released.
Third, you swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies--yet you would violate that oath to prevent access to the courts, because you don't like them. The prisoners do not have to "earn" due process rights, according to the Supreme Court they are "entitled" to due process by virtue of being in United States custody. It doesn't matter if they are a lawful combatant or not, they, like everyone else, have to be provided with due process.
It boggles the mind that a commissioned officer would advocate violating the very Constitution that he swore an oath to uphold, merely because we are in an armed conflict.
Second, he has the right, under U.S. law, to file a petition of habeas corpus, and the courts have to hear it. Thus far, both the District Court and the Court of Appeals have denied his petition. It is likely that SCOTUS won't grant certiorari to hear the case, and he won't be released.
Third, you swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies--yet you would violate that oath to prevent access to the courts, because you don't like them. The prisoners do not have to "earn" due process rights, according to the Supreme Court they are "entitled" to due process by virtue of being in United States custody. It doesn't matter if they are a lawful combatant or not, they, like everyone else, have to be provided with due process.
It boggles the mind that a commissioned officer would advocate violating the very Constitution that he swore an oath to uphold, merely because we are in an armed conflict.
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
And now we have Tommy Clifford trying (unsuccessfully) to interpret law to deny due process to people in our custody. First, Ex party Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) is easily distinguished from the current cases, because in Quirin, the individuals were spies. Second, they were in the United States proper. Second, Quirin doesn't support the denial of access to the courts or to deny legal counsel--because the Quirin defendants had both.
Next, subsequent to the Quirin decision, the United States signed and ratified the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which provided different standards than Quirin did. Finally, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), and Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), the Supreme Court made it crystal clear that detainees had the right to due process.
You know Tommy, if you're going to cite law, you may want to determine what it actually means versus what you just would like it to mean.
Next, subsequent to the Quirin decision, the United States signed and ratified the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which provided different standards than Quirin did. Finally, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), and Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), the Supreme Court made it crystal clear that detainees had the right to due process.
You know Tommy, if you're going to cite law, you may want to determine what it actually means versus what you just would like it to mean.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Montgomery Granger
Your view of the world is not the world! You seem frustrated that others do not out-of-hand accept your interpretation of the law. You need to stop challenging my integrity based on a difference of interpretation and opinion. You may insult my reasoning, point out potential errors, but please do not challenge my character. I don't know you personally, nor do you know me personally, so I am trying hard not to take your rude comments personally. Try to state your opinion maybe without the personal attacks and people might tend to take you more seriously. In any case, al Alwi was absolutely considered an UBL body guard from the beginning, as per his 13 page Guantanamo Docket (NYT). Your reasoning that unlawful combatant Islamists who want to kill us are entitled to petition for habeas corpus because they are in US custody is mistaken. The USC found that Gitmo was "defacto US territory," as part of the reasoning for allowing a petition. Merely being in US custody does NOT afford a foreign person the right to petition for habeas corpus. Yes, rights are EARNED through citizenship, through following the law, and combatants who do NOT follow the law EARN no extra legal PRIVILEGES. You can disagree, but you'd be hard set to actually prove your point. Any right must have a responsibility. Merely breathing and having a pulse does not entitle one to unlimited rights over responsibilities. Unlawful combatants, like those German saboteurs captured dry-foot on US soil in 1942, were denied habeas corpus BECAUSE they were invaders - German nationals intent on doing us harm, out of uniform. They were found guilty of breaking the Geneva Conventions and six of eight were executed in the electric chair, all this less than eight weeks after capture. Note that none of the German saboteurs (determined to be spies) hurt a fly nor did they destroy any property, they were found to have the means and intent to do so. Commissions are very efficient and effective in determining war crime guilt or innocence, yet because the Bush administration and the Obama administration attempted to bend over backwards to avoid lawfare attacks, meddled with the commissions in their 2006 and 2009 MCA's , respectively, so that now, unlawful combatants accused of war crimes enjoy virtually the SAME rights you or I would enjoy in a federal court of law. How messed up is that? We need to go back to the old, better way of dealing with unlawful combatants. Original military commissions would try them using the UCMJ, with the same standards a US military person would be tried by. That's my OPINION, Capt., and it doesn't mean I'm a traitor because I think or blieve differently than yourself. I have freedom of speech, just like you do, and so if your personal attacks persist, I will find it necessary to report your behavior to the management. Good day, Sir.
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
MAJ Montgomery Granger - You obviously are not understanding any view other than your own. First, as I explained, the Quirin decision isn't really applicable to this, as both the law and the facts are completely different. You don't get to try someone today for a violation of the Articles of War, you have to use the UCMJ. Quirin was decided during a time of war, which we are not in right now, and the law changed after World War II.
Second, in the United States, everyone has rights, whether they are citizens or not. This isn't even an area of law that is in dispute, it is well settled. The fact that you don't understand this key point of Constitutional law is concerning.
Third, I never called you a traitor and never would. You don't understand the law and you have serious problems with comprehending legal issues, but none of that makes you a traitor or treasonous. Not even close.
If you believe that you have an argument to take to the RallyPoint management, then by all means, do so. I have not personally attacked you, I have pointed out that your information is not correct from a legal standpoint, and that your comments as to a holy war or a crusade, along with comments about Muslims in general, indicate that you have a religious bias. Just because you don't like having your views questioned doesn't mean that I have to oblige you--I have an absolute right to point out the errors in what you write.
Finally, al Alwi has been denied release by the District Court, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. There's nothing wrong with that, nor have I claimed that al Alwi should be released. The only point that I have made, repeatedly, goes to the law that governs, and which both you and Clifford keep misstating. I've also told you that every time you misstate the law, I would post a comment on that misstatement and what the law actually says.
Second, in the United States, everyone has rights, whether they are citizens or not. This isn't even an area of law that is in dispute, it is well settled. The fact that you don't understand this key point of Constitutional law is concerning.
Third, I never called you a traitor and never would. You don't understand the law and you have serious problems with comprehending legal issues, but none of that makes you a traitor or treasonous. Not even close.
If you believe that you have an argument to take to the RallyPoint management, then by all means, do so. I have not personally attacked you, I have pointed out that your information is not correct from a legal standpoint, and that your comments as to a holy war or a crusade, along with comments about Muslims in general, indicate that you have a religious bias. Just because you don't like having your views questioned doesn't mean that I have to oblige you--I have an absolute right to point out the errors in what you write.
Finally, al Alwi has been denied release by the District Court, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. There's nothing wrong with that, nor have I claimed that al Alwi should be released. The only point that I have made, repeatedly, goes to the law that governs, and which both you and Clifford keep misstating. I've also told you that every time you misstate the law, I would post a comment on that misstatement and what the law actually says.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google