SCOTUS gives Constitutional rights to Git'mo detainees

SCOTUS gives Constitutional rights to Git'mo detainees

Postby Eyas on 06/12/08, 11:51 pm

We're doomed.

From Drudge:


Court says detainees have rights, bucking Bush
By MARK SHERMAN

June 12,
WASHINGTON (AP) - In a stinging rebuke to President Bush's anti-terror policies, a deeply divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign detainees held for years at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have the right to appeal to U.S. civilian courts to challenge their indefinite imprisonment without charges.

Bush said he strongly disagreed with the decision - the third time the court has repudiated him on the detainees - and suggested he might seek yet another law to keep terror suspects locked up at the prison camp, even as his presidency winds down.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the 5-4 high court majority, acknowledged the terrorism threat the U.S. faces - the administration's justification for the detentions - but he declared, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

In a blistering dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Bush has argued the detentions are needed to protect the nation in a time of unprecedented threats from al-Qaida and other foreign terrorist groups. The president, in Rome, said Thursday, "It was a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented." He said he would consider whether to seek new laws in light of the ruling "so we can safely say to the American people, 'We're doing everything we can to protect you.'"

Kennedy said federal judges could ultimately order some detainees to be released, but he also said such orders would depend on security concerns and other circumstances. The ruling itself won't result in any immediate releases.

The decision also cast doubt on the future of the military war crimes trials that 19 detainees, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other alleged Sept. 11 plotters, are facing so far. The Pentagon has said it plans to try as many as 80 men held at Guantanamo.

Lawyers for detainees differed over whether the ruling, unlike the first two, would lead to prompt hearings for those who have not been charged. Roughly 270 men remain at the prison at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. Most are classed as enemy combatants and held on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaida and the Taliban.
Some detainee lawyers said hearings could take place within a few months. But James Cohen, a Fordham University law professor who has two clients at Guantanamo, predicted Bush would continue seeking ways to resist the ruling. "Nothing is going to happen between June 12 and Jan. 20," when the next president takes office, Cohen said.

Roughly 200 detainees have lawsuits on hold in federal court in Washington. Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth said he would call a special meeting of federal judges to address how to handle the cases.
Detainees already facing trial are in a different category.

Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr said Thursday's decision should not affect war crimes trials. "Military commission trials will therefore continue to go forward," Carr said.

The lawyer for Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's one-time driver, said he will seek dismissal of the charges against Hamdan based on the new ruling. A military judge had already delayed the trial's start to await the high court ruling.

It was unclear whether a hearing at Guantanamo for Canadian Omar Khadr, charged with killing a U.S. Special Forces soldier in Afghanistan, would go forward next week as planned.

Charles Swift, the former Navy lawyer who used to represent Hamdan, said he believes the court removed any legal basis for keeping the Guantanamo facility open and that the military tribunals are "doomed."

Guantanamo generally and the tribunals were conceived on the idea that "constitutional protections wouldn't apply," Swift said. "The court said the Constitution applies. They're in big trouble."

Human rights groups and many Democratic members of Congress celebrated the ruling as affirming the nation's commitment to the rule of law. Several Republican lawmakers called it a decision that put foreign terrorists' rights above the safety of the American people.

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

At its heart, the 70-page ruling says that the detainees have the same rights as anyone else in custody in the United States to contest their detention before a judge. Kennedy also said the system the administration has put in place to classify detainees as enemy combatants and review those decisions is not an adequate substitute for the right to go before a civilian judge.

The administration had argued first that the detainees have no rights. But it also contended that the classification and review process was sufficient.

Chief Justice John Roberts, in his own dissent to Thursday's ruling, criticized the majority 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 and Clarence Thomas also dissented.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens - the court's more liberal members - 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."

Scalia, citing a report by Senate Republicans, said at least 30 prisoners have returned to the battlefield following their release from Guantanamo.

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 petitions 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."

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.
Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed.  -Abraham Lincoln


Every generation needs a new revolution. -Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Eyas
 
Posts: 1142
Joined: 09/06/07, 1:45 am

Re: SCOTUS gives Constitutional rights to Git'mo detainees

Postby watcher on 06/13/08, 12:40 am

Maybe I don’t understand something here. Since when does the Supreme Court over rule Military Tribunal Law? I thought that during any armed conflict [War on Terror] any enemy of the country placed that person directly under Military Law. It is my understanding that these detainees are not military members of any country. They are members of terrorist groups and though they our obviously from some country that have not claimed that the act of terror was in the name of a country. How do they even fall under protection of our constitution?
This is the first step in rendering our Military null and void.  The only way to avoid having a detainee released in the future would to be to treat the battleground like a crime scene and collect evidence and take I witness accounts.
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light
George Washington in Letter to Charles M. Thruston August 10, 1794

No man's life, liberty or fortune is safe while our legislature is in session.
Benjamin Franklin
watcher
 
Posts: 237
Joined: 06/08/08, 2:37 pm

Re: SCOTUS gives Constitutional rights to Git'mo detainees

Postby Eyas on 06/13/08, 2:16 am

watcher wrote:Maybe I don’t understand something here. Since when does the Supreme Court over rule Military Tribunal Law?


Didn't you hear? We're an Oligarchy.  Have been for quite some time now.  "The Nine", Oligarchs for life, rule all.  They see all.  They know all.  They control the horizontal. They control the vertical.



There's really only one solution to the problem that "The Nine" have set before us:  STOP TAKING PRISONERS.

After 9/11, I felt that we should turn the entire Middle East, from Cairo to Islamabad into a bubbling cauldron of molten green glass.  Thankfully (or not) cooler heads prevailed.  I'm beginning to wish they hadn't.
Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed.  -Abraham Lincoln


Every generation needs a new revolution. -Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Eyas
 
Posts: 1142
Joined: 09/06/07, 1:45 am

Re: SCOTUS gives Constitutional rights to Git'mo detainees

Postby Eyas on 06/14/08, 10:59 am

watcher wrote:Maybe I don’t understand something here. Since when does the Supreme Court over rule Military Tribunal Law? I thought that during any armed conflict [War on Terror] any enemy of the country placed that person directly under Military Law. It is my understanding that these detainees are not military members of any country. They are members of terrorist groups and though they our obviously from some country that have not claimed that the act of terror was in the name of a country. How do they even fall under protection of our constitution?
This is the first step in rendering our Military null and void.  The only way to avoid having a detainee released in the future would to be to treat the battleground like a crime scene and collect evidence and take I witness accounts.



I think it's worse than that. Last time around, they suggested/requested/demanded that Congres and the Prez work together to draft a law covering how these detainees were to be dealt with.  Congress and the President did so, and now the Supreme Court - without even looking at the new law - declared it Unconstitutional.

This means that TWO BRANCHES of our supposedly three equal branches of government working together can be utterly disregarded by the THIRD branch (the branch that was specifically designed to have NO say in such matters).  The Supreme Court has just declared themselves THE SUPERIOR BRANCH of Government -- WITH NO CHECKS to their power.

Our entire form of government is undone by this ruling, because neither the President nor Congress have the balls to put them in their place.

This is a direct (and inevitable) consequence of Marbury v. Madison.  Judicial Review not only allows for Judicial Activism, it makes the Supreme Court the final arbiter of Law (and therefore Government) in this country.  There are NO effective checks against the power of the Supreme Court.  Marbury essentially said as much, it just took the Supremes 200 years to get up the nerve to assume the control they were given by that decision.

The Constitution was flawed from its inception because it did not flesh out the limited powers of the Supreme Court, nor did it identify any effective check on their power.
Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed.  -Abraham Lincoln


Every generation needs a new revolution. -Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Eyas
 
Posts: 1142
Joined: 09/06/07, 1:45 am

Re: SCOTUS gives Constitutional rights to Git'mo detainees

Postby paleocon on 06/16/08, 12:00 pm

Does the recent Gitmo case mean that the heirs of Hitler, Himmler, Goering, Goebbels, and Hoess can now file suit for unlawful detainment against the US government and seek damages?

I mean we failed to treat any of them “humanely” by their standard and Himmler and Goering died under suspicious circumstances while in our custody! And who can prove some soldier didn’t flush a copy of “Mein Kampf” down a toilet long ago?

Will the US now be forced to fill the coffers of Nazis as well as Islamofascists who will sue under this new ruling?

The only people these 5 SCOTUS idiots actually want to protect us from are Dobson and Graham.
He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire.
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery."
(http://www.myspace.com/paleocon)
User avatar
paleocon
 
Posts: 1973
Joined: 12/01/07, 6:02 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: SCOTUS gives Constitutional rights to Git'mo detainees

Postby bedbug on 06/17/08, 10:33 pm

Sadly, this latest action is par for the American Left. For decades, they have displayed an institutional disdain for victims' rights. Perhaps a candlelight vigil on the steps on the SC would be in order. Demonstrators could read the names of those murdered on 9/11.
Be careful what you wish for, .......
User avatar
bedbug
 
Posts: 301
Joined: 04/24/08, 3:58 pm
Location: Missouri

Re: SCOTUS gives Constitutional rights to Git'mo detainees

Postby paleocon on 06/17/08, 11:44 pm

But, wait!  We Americans are all victims of an increasingly arbitrary oligarchy that is obviously determined to ignore the constitution and impose its will on the nation.  Therefore, since we are victims of a left-wing plot to usurp the power and authority of the other governing organs of the nation they should be protecting us against an obviously growing left-wing oligarchy bent on imposing its will on the nation....  

Oh, wait, I am starting to see the problem here.  Never mind....
He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire.
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery."
(http://www.myspace.com/paleocon)
User avatar
paleocon
 
Posts: 1973
Joined: 12/01/07, 6:02 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: SCOTUS gives Constitutional rights to Git'mo detainees

Postby paleocon on 06/24/08, 10:02 am




It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire.
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery."
(http://www.myspace.com/paleocon)
User avatar
paleocon
 
Posts: 1973
Joined: 12/01/07, 6:02 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: SCOTUS gives Constitutional rights to Git'mo detainees

Postby Igmond50 on 07/07/08, 7:07 pm

The constitution recognizes the rights of man. It does not bestow them. Any inclination to the latter obfuscates the former. Denying this for any man risks it for all others.


Misdirection is a form of deception in which the attention of an audience is focused on one thing in order to distract its attention from another - Wikipedia
Igmond50
 
Posts: 123
Joined: 07/07/08, 6:45 pm
Location: Detroit Michigan

Re: SCOTUS gives Constitutional rights to Git'mo detainees

Postby paleocon on 07/07/08, 7:53 pm

Igmond50 wrote:The constitution recognizes the rights of man. It does not bestow them. Any inclination to the latter obfuscates the former. Denying this for any man risks it for all others.


Well, the constitution recognizes the rights of citizens of this republic.  The rights are as the declaration states "unalienable."  

The problem is not that the rights were denied citizens but that the court extended these rights to non-citizens outside of the jurisdiction of the courts and outside the territory of this nation.  Furthermore, it extended these "rights" to a class of people, unlawful combatants, that international law recognizes as having very few rights during a time of war. By that logic, "Justice" Kennedy can now turn around and attempt to apply the laws of Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and the People's Republic of China to American citizens here in the continental US.  

"Justice" Kennedy is playing dice with the constitution and "We the people" are placed in great harm by his cavalier attitude.
He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire.
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery."
(http://www.myspace.com/paleocon)
User avatar
paleocon
 
Posts: 1973
Joined: 12/01/07, 6:02 pm
Location: Virginia

Next

Return to Breaking News