Guatonomo detainees have right say supreme courts

[dragon]

Just broke recently, suprised theres not already a topic yet.

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer 14 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.
ADVERTISEMENT
clear
clear Email:
ZIP / Postal Code:
clear
clear

In its third rebuke of the Bush administration's treatment of prisoners, the court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The court's liberal justices were in the majority.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

Kennedy said federal judges could ultimately order some detainees to be released, but that such orders would depend on security concerns and other circumstances.

The White House had no immediate comment on the ruling. White House press secretary Dana Perino, traveling with President Bush in Rome, said the administration was reviewing the opinion.

It was not immediately clear whether this ruling, unlike the first two, would lead to prompt hearings for the detainees, some of whom have been held more than 6 years. Roughly 270 men remain at the island prison, classified as enemy combatants and held on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaida and the Taliban.

The ruling could resurrect many detainee lawsuits that federal judges put on hold pending the outcome of the high court case. The decision sent judges, law clerks and court administrators scrambling to read Kennedy's 70-page opinion and figure out how to proceed. Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth said he would call a special meeting of federal judges to address how to handle the cases.

The administration opened the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to hold enemy combatants, people suspected of ties to al-Qaida or the Taliban.

The Guantanamo prison has been harshly criticized at home and abroad for the detentions themselves and the aggressive interrogations that were conducted there.

The court said not only that the detainees have rights under the Constitution, but that the system the administration has put in place to classify them as enemy combatants and review those decisions is inadequate.

The administration had argued first that the detainees have no rights. But it also contended that the classification and review process was a sufficient substitute for the civilian court hearings that the detainees seek.

In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts criticized his colleagues for striking down what he called "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants."

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also dissented.

Scalia said the nation is "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens joined Kennedy to form the majority.

Souter wrote a separate opinion in which he emphasized the length of the detentions.

"A second fact insufficiently appreciated by the dissents is the length of the disputed imprisonments, some of the prisoners represented here today having been locked up for six years," Souter said. "Hence the hollow ring when the dissenters suggest that the court is somehow precipitating the judiciary into reviewing claims that the military ... could handle within some reasonable period of time."

The court has ruled twice previously that people held at Guantanamo without charges can go into civilian courts to ask that the government justify their continued detention. Each time, the administration and Congress, then controlled by Republicans, changed the law to try to close the courthouse doors to the detainees.

The court specifically struck down a provision of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that denies Guantanamo detainees the right to file petition of habeas corpus.

Habeas corpus is a centuries-old legal principle, enshrined in the Constitution, that allows courts to determine whether a prisoner is being held illegally.

The head of the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents dozens of prisoners at Guantanamo, welcomed the ruling.

"The Supreme Court has finally brought an end to one of our nation's most egregious injustices," said CCR Executive Director Vincent Warren. "By granting the writ of habeas corpus, the Supreme Court recognizes a rule of law established hundreds of years ago and essential to American jurisprudence since our nation's founding."

In addition to those held without charges, the U.S. has said it plans to try as many as 80 of the detainees in war crimes tribunals, which have not been held since World War II.

A military judge has postponed the first scheduled trial pending the outcome of this case. The trial of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's one-time driver, had been scheduled to start June 2.

Five alleged plotters of the Sept. 11 attacks appeared in a Guantanamo courtroom last week for a hearing before their war crimes trial, which prosecutors hope will start Sept. 15.

Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman, said he had no immediate information whether a hearing at Guantanamo for a Canadian charged with killing a U.S. Special Forces soldier in Afghanistan would go forward next week as planned. Omar Khadr is one of 19 detainees so far facing the first U.S. war-crimes trials since the World War II era.

Bush has said he wants to close the facility once countries can be found to take the prisoners who are there.

Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama also support shutting down the prison

in your face Bush

[Edi]

No surprise that Scalia and the two Bush asskissers were of the opinion that the constitution should be thrown in the trash bin. Par for the course for them.

[Alyrium Denryle]

No surprise that Scalia and the two Bush asskissers were of the opinion that the constitution should be thrown in the trash bin. Par for the course for them.

Dont forget Thomas, Scalia's personal boot polisher, who has not actually asked a legal question in something like three to four years

[SirNitram]

Yes, Virginia, there is Habaeus Corpus.

Right Wing Morons shrieking in 3, 2, 1...

[Dark Hellion]

But, if we give humans rights then the terrorists win. True Freedom is the freedom to do what we want because we are the strongest. Might makes right, and 6 nuclear carriers can't be wrong, right guys... right.

[Knife]

I supported, six years ago, putting POW or unlawful combatants in Cuba. However, I never dreamed that six years later, they'd still be there and not charged or even put through a military tribunal.

It's fucking ridiculous, so go go SCOTUS.

It's some what amusing that a lot of the WOT was sold with a wink and nod to the good old nazi fight'n days of WWII. But if you want to use that analogy, WOT has gone on longer, accomplished less, and POW's and war criminals were processed through military tribunals quicker.

[SirNitram]

Knife: I'd not have minded too much if there was a hint of, you know, proper trials or tribunals. Not this 'No, you can't hear evidence. No, you can't see your client. And Pentagon? Shred those hand-made notes, they show torture.' crap.

Scalia's dissent is pathetic on the terms of internet-troll-conservative. He spends most of the thing not expounding on the legal issues which drove him to explicitly judge against the Constitution of the United States, but fear-mongering flagrantly.

Lowlights:

“America is at war with radical Islamists. … Our Armed Forces are now in the field against the enemy, in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Because rights for people is NOT SUPPORTING OUR TROOPS.

“The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.”

The Constitution will kill us all.

“The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.”

YOU LIBERALS ARE GONNA BE SORRY WHEN YOU ALL DIE IN A FIRE!

[Patrick Degan]

On NPR, I'd heard that part of Scalia's argument was that the majority were reaching for the flimsiest translation of the law and history to justify their ruling. Amusing coming from a mouthpiece for the side who's main principle of law and history is to simply make shit up.

[Jaepheth]

Well, that's good news in that the right decision was reached.

But 5-4 is still sad. It shouldn't have been that close.

[SirNitram]

Bush has agreed to abide by it, but said, in his traditional sulk, 'I don't have to like it.' He also said he's going to consider additional legislation on this topic.

I'm hoping he tries to declare military bases non-US. Because that will set off a string of bizarrity, including McCain's disqualification until it's sorted out. And I have no sympathy or mercy for Bush or McCain.

Edit: Found a Link for Bush's commentary.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Bush has agreed to abide by it, but said, in his traditional sulk, 'I don't have to like it.' He also said he's going to consider additional legislation on this topic.

I'm hoping he tries to declare military bases non-US. Because that will set off a string of bizarrity, including McCain's disqualification until it's sorted out. And I have no sympathy or mercy for Bush or McCain.

Edit: Found a Link for Bush's commentary.

A) congress will never pass anything
B) there is no possible legislation he could try to pass that would work, the way the court ruled. The only thing he can try to do is amend the constitution to get rid of Habeus Corpus entirely

[Vympel]

Scalia said the nation is "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

What abject nonsense. This was in his dissent? Are the standards for writing judgements in America so low that a judge in the Supreme Court can put this drivel to paper and not hang his head in shame?

Leaving aside just how idiotic this sort of thing would look on a printed page for a court judgement - any court judgement (and I've read hundreds) - how does acknowledging that terrorism suspects have rights = "cause more Americans to be killed"?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Scalia said the nation is "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

What abject nonsense. This was in his dissent? Are the standards for writing judgements in America so low that a judge in the Supreme Court can put this drivel to paper and not hang his head in shame?

Leaving aside just how idiotic this sort of thing would look on a printed page for a court judgement - any court judgement (and I've read hundreds) - how does acknowledging that terrorism suspects have rights = "cause more Americans to be killed"?

It is Scalia... He is the laughing stock of our courts. He claims to be a strict constructionist of our constitution. What he instead does is interpet it as narrowly as possible on issues of individual rights (so as to limit them) and interpret the constitution as broadly as possible when it comes to the power of government and business.

He is basically a fascist.

[The Spartan]

According to the Pentagon, roughly 75% of the people held in Gitmo were likely innocent and were either in the wrong place at the wrong time, had a similar name or just had an enemy (or greedy asshole) who wanted to get some reward money.

Now, there are about 270 men still there and if we assume that the Pentagon's estimate was largely accurate and that all the people released fell into that category (I know that's not completely true but bear with me) that means that roughly 145 of those remaining would fall into the Pentagon's estimate of not really dangerous.

Now the above is an overly simplistic analysis but I'm using it to illustrate a point. Namely, that there are likely a not insignificant number of detainees in Guantanamo whose guilt is questionable.

In short, they deserve to have their cases heard in a fair manner. How do we make sure that their cases are fairly heard? Fairly hear every goddamn one. It's really simple, either they're "enemy combatants", which as far as I'm concerned means there POWs, and thus have rights under the Geneva Conventions or they're charged with criminal acts under US law in some fashion or another and thus have rights under the Constitution like any other criminal suspect.

They're innocent? GREAT! Send them home, give them some cash or buy them some land, whatever and keep a quiet eye on them. (Hell, I would be pretty pissed after 6 years of unfair captivity) Guilty? Fine. Execute them or lock them in a hole in a Supermax for a few centuries.

[Winston Blake]

how does acknowledging that terrorism suspects have rights = "cause more Americans to be killed"?

It shows weakness, and thus emboldens the enemy. Do you want to embolden the enemy, pal?

[Ender]

ABC link, worth it for excerpts from the ruling.

Chief Justice John Roberts also vehemently disagreed with the majority opinion. "So who has won?" he wrote. "Not the detainees. The court's analysis leaves them with only the prospect of further litigation." Roberts went on to write, "and certainly not the American people, who today lose a bit more control over the conduct of this nation's foreign policy to unelected, politically unaccountable judges."

As opposed to the fact that had it gone the other way, American people would have lost a bit more control over the conduct of this nation's foreign policy to unelected, politically unaccountable judges.


How can he even play the activist judge card without thinking "yeah, I'm a moron"?

[Kitsune]

I am comparatively conservative for this board and it sounds to me like the court did the right thing. On the military board I am on, someone is treating it as if the world is going to end.

[Elfdart]

I am comparatively conservative for this board and it sounds to me like the court did the right thing. On the military board I am on, someone is treating it as if the world is going to end.

Sadists tend to be that way. The typical Republitard who supports torture and lynchings is very much like Major Tetley in The Ox Bow Incident, and this dialog (where the Major is denounced by his son as a sadist after the old man has had three men lynched after making them beg for mercy) pretty well describes people like Scalia and other torture enthusiasts:

You loved it. That's why you kept them waiting so long. I saw your face, it was the face of a depraved murderous beast. There are only two things that have ever meant anything to you, power and cruelty. You can't feel pity. You can't even feel guilt. In your heart, you knew those men were innocent, yet you were cold - crazy to see them hanged.

Scalia is cold -crazy to have people tortured and lynched.

[Darth Wong]

When can we expect an apology from the people on this forum who said that we "liberals" were "over-reacting" and "hysterical" when we predicted that Bush's Supreme Court appointees would be slaves of the right?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Oh, those fabled "strict constructionists" who believe in "limited government" believe the federal government has an unlimited right to flout the law of war and the writ of habeas corpus when it feels like it, and the right to assign wartime power to the executive branch of the government without requiring it to acquire an actual declaration of war with defined objectives. Total hypocrisy. I'd love to see where these grants of power are, since assuming a right to privacy is so horrible and "legislating from the bench."

[Alyrium Denryle]

Oh, those fabled "strict constructionists" who believe in "limited government" believe the federal government has an unlimited right to flout the law of war and the writ of habeas corpus when it feels like it, and the right to assign wartime power to the executive branch of the government without requiring it to acquire an actual declaration of war with defined objectives. Total hypocrisy. I'd love to see where these grants of power are, since assuming a right to privacy is so horrible and "legislating from the bench."

There is no basis for it whatsoever. The constitution goes to great lengths to specify when it is referring to the rights of a citizen, or the rights of everyone. WHen it comes to the judicial and criminal rights, it is referring to the rights of everyone who falls under US jurisdiction.

The Geneva Convention has specific rules governing the treatment of prisoners of war, even "illegal combatants" In fact, under article 5 of the third convention, if any doubt exists as to whether an individual is in fact an illegal combatant under the convention then they are to be treated as legal combatants until such a time as they are determined to be illegal combatants by a competent tribunal. This means a regularly constituted court that affords " all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

And guess what, under the Conventions...

# Article 13): "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated."
# (Article 13): "...Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity."
# (Article 17): "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

Hey! Guess what we do not get to do!

And for those that want to dismiss this as "International law" and Judicial activism" I need only point to the constitution. The Geneva Conventions are signed and ratified. They are part of US law and carry a weight by nature of being a treaty obligation, that is greater than our domestic federal law, second only to the constitution.

We are even supposed to PAY the individuals we have detained any wages that they would normally get from their own armed forces.

Additionally, even if they are illegal combatants, they must be civillians, and thus protected under the 4th geneva convention.

There is no intermediate status, and this viewpoint has been upheld in courts. And not just ours. No one is outside the law.

That is the route we must go if we do not recognize them as being subject to our criminal jurisdiction.

If we want to subject them to an actual criminal trial... you know... US crimes, not international crimes for which there are separate courts, they get to be protected by out constitution. No ifs ands or buts. Keeping them in a state of legal limbo is unconstitutional twice. The first time because it violates due process, the second because it violates our treaty obligations.

Damn the bush administration. Damn them for making us not only the laughing stock of the civilized world, but also its tyrants.

[Vympel]

G Greenwald

The mighty warriors of the deranged right:-

Hence, while British conservatives largely oppose a policy merely to allow the Government to detain terrorist suspects for 42 days with no charges, our "conservatives" react with fury over the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of the President's claimed authority to hold such suspects in Guantanamo for 6 years -- really indefinitely -- without providing them any meaningful process at all. In fact, the Bush administration asserted the right to detain even U.S. citizens, arrested on U.S. soil, indefinitely, with no charges or any contact with the outside world, for years, and they proceeded to do so, with virtually no opposition of any kind from our self-proclaimed right-wing defenders of individual liberty or limited government.

While British conservatives rally to defeat the Government's attempt to increase its detention powers, the U.S Right is plagued by -- defined by -- a truly warped, deeply authoritarian and profoundly un-American mentality. That mentality is exemplified by this characteristically deranged reaction to yesterday's Supreme Court ruling by National Review's in-house legal expert, former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy:

A Courtroom, er, Battlefield We Can Win On [Andy McCarthy]

An old government friend emails with a practical response to the Supreme Court:

Let's free all Gitmo detainees...on a vast, deserted, open and contested Afghan battlefield. C-130 gunship circling overhead for security. Give them all a two minute running head start.

To our country's pseudo-tough-guy "conservatives," the very idea of merely requiring the Government to prove the guilt of the people it wants to imprison for life or execute is so intolerable, so offensive, that they want instead to release them all -- including detainees who are indisputably innocent -- onto a battlefield so that they can be slaughtered by our planes with no trial at all. Moments earlier, McCarthy declared the Supreme Court ruling to mean that "the American people had lost to radical Islam, 5 to 4" -- in the authoritarian eyes of the American Right, the American people "lose" when our Government is required to prove the guilt of people before it can imprison them for life or kill them.

[SirNitram]

When can we expect an apology from the people on this forum who said that we "liberals" were "over-reacting" and "hysterical" when we predicted that Bush's Supreme Court appointees would be slaves of the right?

The same time they admit the Filthy Leftists were right about Iraq.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Toe, toe, toe your line...

Why am I not surprised?

McCain: Guantanamo Ruling One of the ‘Worst Decisions’ in History

John McCain said Friday that the Supreme Court ruling on Guantanamo Bay detainees is “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”

The presumptive GOP nominee said the decision, a 5-4 ruling Thursday that determined Guantanamo detainees have the right to seek release in civilian courts, would lead to a wave of frivolous challenges.

“We are now going to have the courts flooded with so-called … habeas corpus suits against the government, whether it be about the diet, whether it be about the reading material. And we are going to be bollixed up in a way that is terribly unfortunate because we need to go ahead and adjudicate these cases,” he said at a town hall meeting in New Jersey.

McCain said he has worked hard to ensure the U.S. military does not torture prisoners but that the detainees at Guantanamo are still “enemy combatants.”

“These are people who are not citizens. They do not and never have been given the rights that citizens in this country have,” he said. “Now, my friends, there are some bad people down there. There are some bad people.”

Barack Obama released a statement Thursday saying the Supreme Court decision “ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice while also protecting our core values.”

“The Court’s decision is a rejection of the Bush administration’s attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain,” he said. “This is an important step toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus.”

[Alyrium Denryle]

The presumptive GOP nominee said the decision, a 5-4 ruling Thursday that determined Guantanamo detainees have the right to seek release in civilian courts, would lead to a wave of frivolous challenges.

So... the right to ask "why am I in prison?" and demand that they either be "charged and tried, or released" is frivolous? Saying "Hey, I am not actually guilty of what you are charging me of, let me go" is frivolous? I am sorry, but Habeus Corpus is the cornerstone of freedom and justice in the western world, and has been since a group of nobles held John the 1st at spearpoint and forced him to sign the Magna Carta in 1215. Without it, all our other rights are worth less than the paper they are printed on, as all the administration has to do is decide we are "enemy combatants" and then lock us up without trial.

“We are now going to have the courts flooded with so-called … habeas corpus suits against the government, whether it be about the diet, whether it be about the reading material. And we are going to be bollixed up in a way that is terribly unfortunate because we need to go ahead and adjudicate these cases,” he said at a town hall meeting in New Jersey.

But you have not been adjudicating these cases. They have been locked away without trial for 6 years, without access to counsel or the ability to see evidence against them. The only adjudication that has been done has looked suspiciously like a Kangaroo.

McCain said he has worked hard to ensure the U.S. military does not torture prisoners but that the detainees at Guantanamo are still “enemy combatants.”

Enemy Combatant sounds like Prisoner of War to me, protected by the third geneva convention. To determine whether they are illegal combatants, there must, under the third and fourth conventions, be a TRIAL which affords to them the protections accepted as indispensable by civilized peoples, meant to mean the right to a fair trial with legal counsel, the right to confront witnesses and challenge evidence, and yes, the protection of the Great Writ. And even if they are found to be illegal combatants they are to be treated as civillians

“These are people who are not citizens. They do not and never have been given the rights that citizens in this country have,” he said. “Now, my friends, there are some bad people down there. There are some bad people.”

ANd some of them might be innocent. And if we claim them in our jurisdiction to accuse them of crimes, they ARE afforded under our constitution all the rights in our judicial system, or they are protected by the geneva conventions and must be tried for crimes in an international court. There is no third option.

As for torture... McCain voted to allow torture, specifically