Posted on Jan 19, 2019
17-Year Gitmo Detainee With No Charges Petitions Supreme Court To Review Legal Case - The Ring of...
2.9K
13
5
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 6 y ago
Responses: 2
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
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google