Court says detainees have rights, bucking Bush

[BrAinPaiNt]

LINK (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080612/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guantanamo)

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
30 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - 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

[ConcordCowboy]

Bush and Cheney got to be pissed about this.

I'm a little surprised by this ruling.

[Bach]

Liberals are idiots. Might as well release them all and hand them the keys to the country.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Liberals are idiots. Might as well release them all and hand them the keys to the country.

It was the supreme court dude. It was a 5-4 vote.

This is not the first time the SCOTUS found bush's findings wrong.

To me there is one simple solution to this.

Let these guys go to trial, find them guilty and be done with it.

I doubt you would find but maybe 2% (if that many) who would win a trial.

Give them their trial and be done with it.

[Bach]

It was the supreme court dude. It was a 5-4 vote.

This is not the first time the SCOTUS found bush's findings wrong.

To me there is one simple solution to this.

Let these guys go to trial, find them guilty and be done with it.

I doubt you would find but maybe 2% (if that many) who would win a trial.

Give them their trial and be done with it.

I know its the SCOTUS. And I know there are several extemist liberals on that court.

And there's more to it than just taking them to trial. They would have the right to access classified information which would then be made public at trial.

This is a wartime situation that should be dealt with by the military, not by civilian US courts.

[big dog cowboy]

They should have had their military trail already and been found guilty.

Why this issue is ongoing makes no sense to me. All it does is increase the anger in those who already hate us.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I know its the SCOTUS. And I know there are several extemist liberals on that court.

And there's more to it than just taking them to trial. They would have the right to access classified information which would then be made public at trial.

This is a wartime situation that should be dealt with by the military, not by civilian US courts.

Good lord...again...ooh those dirty liberals on the court. Please.

Furthermore what such classified information would get out that would put us all at such great risk...that is nothing but a cop out.

Just like bush refusing to admit they waterboard because he says he does not want the enemy to know the techniques we use doing it...flat out BS because it has been done by other countries for YEARS and I am pretty sure that the enemy knows exactly what is done.

Give them their stinking trials, find them guilty and be done with it.

good grief.

[peplaw06]

Anyone have a link to this opinion, or has it been published yet?

[Heisenberg]

To me, it comes down to being the bigger man. You do what's right no matter how much you hate it. What's right is to follow the Constitution. It's just proof that we're better than our hatred.

[burmafrd]

So noble words. As was pointed out, more then 30 of those that were released have been found on the battlefield again. So how many US soldiers or civilians need to die to justify letting these guys go? As was noted in the dissent, this will almost certainly cause the death of more soldiers if these guys are let go.

The liberals want these pieces of trash treated like US citizens.

Imagine a Johnny COchran wannabe in federal court. The libs seem not to care.

[peplaw06]

To me, it comes down to being the bigger man. You do what's right no matter how much you hate it. What's right is to follow the Constitution. It's just proof that we're better than our hatred.

I agree. If I were in another country and arrested on some criminal charges, I would expect to be treated according to the laws of that country.

Now what I expect might be far off from reality, because no telling what you're gonna get in another country. But if they refused to treat me according to their laws, then whose laws are they supposed to go by?

Kind of suprising for me, because I usually align myself with the Roberts/Scalia/Thomas/Alito camp.

[burmafrd]

These POS are not US citizens. Only US citizens or those here by legal immigration or as guests deserve the protection of our Constituition.

These guys were rounded up as part of the terror investigations. Now I do not have a problem with them having a hearing before a federal judge in a closed court to see if there is sufficient evidence= as long as the court is closed and every care is taken to see to it that sensitive intelligence and above all else WITNESSES are protected. BUT that is not what the ACLU and the LIbs want. ANd that is not what is being pushed by the libs. They want open federal courts with all the Johnny Cochran fun AND GAMES allowed.
And I am afraid that this is what is coming.

[peplaw06]

These POS are not US citizens. Only US citizens or those here by legal immigration or as guests deserve the protection of our Constituition.So if an illegal immigrant commits a crime here and is held here, you don't think he should be afforded the rights set up in our criminal justice system? What laws should he be governed by? How would the justice system resolve those charges?

These guys were rounded up as part of the terror investigations. Now I do not have a problem with them having a hearing before a federal judge in a closed court to see if there is sufficient evidence= as long as the court is closed and every care is taken to see to it that sensitive intelligence and above all else WITNESSES are protected. BUT that is not what the ACLU and the LIbs want. ANd that is not what is being pushed by the libs. They want open federal courts with all the Johnny Cochran fun AND GAMES allowed.
And I am afraid that this is what is coming.By "fun and games," do you mean they deserve defense attorneys?

Of course they do.

And you really need to go do some research on Johnny Cochran. He was a very admirable man.

[burmafrd]

Why am I not surprised the lawyer defends cochran. You are so proud he got a murderer off.
I imagine if somehow Ben Laden got off you would be happy too.

[ChldsPlay]

These are not just people who came to the US and committed some crimes. If they were, this wouldn't be a big deal. These are enemy combatants.

This would be like in WW2 if we took every German we captured and gave them trials here in the U.S. with all the rules of a civilian court.

This is insanity at it's worst.

[peplaw06]

Why am I not surprised the lawyer defends cochran. You are so proud he got a murderer off.
I imagine if somehow Ben Laden got off you would be happy too.You don't know the first thing about him, your uneducated opinion on him means nothing.

I'm not proud he got a "murderer" off. He's admirable because of what he did his entire life.

And nice try at the inflammatory bin ladin remark. I imagine you'd be happy if every non-American in the world were eradicated.

See I can do it too.

[peplaw06]

These are not just people who came to the US and committed some crimes. If they were, this wouldn't be a big deal. These are enemy combatants.

This would be like in WW2 if we took every German we captured and gave them trials here in the U.S. with all the rules of a civilian court.

This is insanity at it's worst.
The Germans did have trials of some kind did they not? I don't recall hearing about them being held without charges indefinitely.

They weren't held in the US, so they didn't receive rights under the Constitution.

[hairic]

Anyone have a link to this opinion, or has it been published yet?

This? (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/06-1195.pdf)

I read about 30 pages, it's pretty boring. :p:

[SuspectCorner]

Denial of habeas corpus, evidence obtained by torture, the Bush-CIA Rendition Program, indefinite detention... seven-plus years under Bush (fully facilitated by an inept and impotent Congress) seem to have caused some people to become as contemptous of the rule of law as Dubya and his henchmen themselves.

Thank you Supreme Court... and Scalia - you suck.

[burmafrd]

One vote going the other way and its all different. So to you suspect and to you Pep whoopeeee.

I know a lot about Johnny Cochran.

Enough that the OJ case was far from the first he pulled tricks like that.

You Pep seem to think that what is legal and what is JUST means the same thing. Sad that you think so.

And Suspect guess what: this is war and if you think that we can win by following the rules you want then you are truly out to lunch.

In Total war= and that is what this is= there are only the winners and the dead. If you want to die fine with me.

[hairic]

I guess this means we don't have to worry about potential misuse of the administration's position on civilian detainment anymore:

Government lawyers told federal judges that the president can send the military into any U.S. neighborhood, capture a citizen and hold him in prison without charge, indefinitely.http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080524/ap_on_go_ot/enemy_combatant;_ylt=AgTEAvhNA3GUmX9U4FhHg6Ss0NUE

Also, Senator Graham is willing to amend habeas corpus out of the Constitution in light of this decision.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0608/GOP_blast_Gitmo_decision_Graham_says_he_is_willing _to_push_for_a_constitutional_amendment_if_necessa .html

[SuspectCorner]

One vote going the other way and its all different. So to you suspect and to you Pep whoopeeee.

I know a lot about Johnny Cochran.

Enough that the OJ case was far from the first he pulled tricks like that.

You Pep seem to think that what is legal and what is JUST means the same thing. Sad that you think so.

And Suspect guess what: this is war and if you think that we can win by following the rules you want then you are truly out to lunch.

In Total war= and that is what this is= there are only the winners and the dead. If you want to die fine with me.



You've watched waaaay too many episodes of "24" my friend. The Justices have ruled that detainees deserve a hearing - that is all. We either have evidence that warrants holding the detainee - or we do not. No detainee should be held for six years without some kind of formal hearing.

Let's try to recapture some of the core legal principles, hundreds of years in the making, that the personally ambitious (with the aid of the the oblivious and the timid) took only a few short years to undo. Principles that hugely contributed to set the US apart from the backward, thuggish, and rogue nations of the world.

Or let's listen to you.

[peplaw06]

I know a lot about Johnny Cochran.

Enough that the OJ case was far from the first he pulled tricks like that.OK burm. Why don't you tell me what "tricks" Cochran pulled in the OJ case, and what was unethical about it? This oughta be good.

You Pep seem to think that what is legal and what is JUST means the same thing. Sad that you think so.Where in the world did you pull that from? Just sounds like more baseless rhetoric making an attempt to be inflammatory. You can't honestly debate the issue, so you resort to childish remarks.

And Suspect guess what: this is war and if you think that we can win by following the rules you want then you are truly out to lunch.

In Total war= and that is what this is= there are only the winners and the dead. If you want to die fine with me.This has nothing to do with the war at this point. Some of these guys have been away from the war for 6 years.

If you have evidence against them, let's see it. The delay just makes it seem like the government is hiding the ball. Go to Court, prove what you got, and lets be on with it. Surely they've got some evidence on them right? If they did, then why not just have a hearing/trial, hold them guilty and stop all this nonsense?

[iceberg]

Anyone have a link to this opinion, or has it been published yet?

that's what i'm waiting on.

[Maikeru-sama]

Always fun to see knowledgable folks like peplaw take guys like burmafrd to school.

:lmao2:

[iceberg]

Always fun to see knowledgable folks like peplaw take guys like burmafrd to school.

:lmao2:

experience vs emotion. it can get comical.

[DFWJC]

These are not just people who came to the US and committed some crimes. If they were, this wouldn't be a big deal. These are enemy combatants.

This would be like in WW2 if we took every German we captured and gave them trials here in the U.S. with all the rules of a civilian court.

This is insanity at it's worst.

And that sums up the opposing argument....without making this political once again.

[Doomsday101]

The Germans did have trials of some kind did they not? I don't recall hearing about them being held without charges indefinitely.

They weren't held in the US, so they didn't receive rights under the Constitution.

In fairness Gitmo is not the US either which is why the detention center is at Gitmo. While the Germans were not held in the US they were held in a US and allied controlled land in Nuremburg

[DFWJC]

Bush and Cheney got to be pissed about this.
.

Maybe Cheney, but not Bush.

[peplaw06]

In fairness Gitmo is not the US either which is why the detention center is at Gitmo. While the Germans were not held in the US they were held in a US and allied controlled land in NuremburgI thought Gitmo was considered under US rule and authority... My apologies if I was mistaken.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I thought Gitmo was considered under US rule and authority... My apologies if I was mistaken.

I think it is, but maybe I am wrong.

[Doomsday101]

I thought Gitmo was considered under US rule and authority... My apologies if I was mistaken.

Germany after WWII was under US occupation.

I don't have an issue with an oversite of Gitmo but I do not think prisoners captured on the battle fields do not belong in US courts I think that should fall under a military tribunal

A military tribunal is a kind of military court designed to try members of enemy forces during wartime, operating outside the scope of conventional criminal and civil matters. The judges are military officers and fulfill the role of jurors. It is distinct from the court martial.

A military tribunal is an inquisitorial system based on charges brought by a military authority, prosecuted by a military authority, judged by military officers, and sentenced by military officers against a member of an adversarial force.

[peplaw06]

Germany after WWII was under US occupation.

I don't have an issue with an oversite of Gitmo but I do not think prisoners captured on the battle fields do not belong in US courts I think that should fall under a military tribunal

A military tribunal is a kind of military court designed to try members of enemy forces during wartime, operating outside the scope of conventional criminal and civil matters. The judges are military officers and fulfill the role of jurors. It is distinct from the court martial.

A military tribunal is an inquisitorial system based on charges brought by a military authority, prosecuted by a military authority, judged by military officers, and sentenced by military officers against a member of an adversarial force.That's all well and good... but are these prisoners held indefinitely while awaiting military tribunals?

I assume habeas corpus is still a right under US military tribunal proceedings. Of course, all I know about military tribunals was learned from "A Few Good Men." :D

[BrAinPaiNt]

That's all well and good... but are these prisoners held indefinitely while awaiting military tribunals?

I assume habeas corpus is still a right under US military tribunal proceedings. Of course, all I know about military tribunals was learned from "A Few Good Men." :D

I am sure if you are curious you could look up UCMJ (uniform code of military justice).

[zrinkill]

This is America ..... Ever human being should be treated humanely.

Even if they do not deserve it.

If we do not mistreat serial killers .... we should not mistreat these animals either.

Its real simple ..... if there is no evidence that these men are terrorist .... they should be freed.

If they are enemy combatants .... let the Iraq or Afgan governments deal with their crimes.

[silverbear]

I know its the SCOTUS. And I know there are several extemist liberals on that court.

It's a crying shame that you right wing reactionaries can't just run the country the way you want, isn't it?? Damn those founding fathers, for writing that Constitution...


This is a wartime situation that should be dealt with by the military, not by civilian US courts.

The Supreme Court of the United States says you're wrong... again, it sucks that you guys can't just make up the rules as you go along... I really feel bad for y'all...

[silverbear]

So noble words. As was pointed out, more then 30 of those that were released have been found on the battlefield again. So how many US soldiers or civilians need to die to justify letting these guys go? As was noted in the dissent, this will almost certainly cause the death of more soldiers if these guys are let go.

The liberals want these pieces of trash treated like US citizens.

And you apparently favor kangaroo courts, preferably in secret... which makes us no better than those same terrorists we're battling, doesn't it??

What a great American you are... if they're guilty of crimes against America, let's prove it in a court of law, and let's follow our own rules while we're doing it... whassamatta, burm, you afraid that maybe some them might be INNOCENT, and we'll end up looking stupid for holding them all this time??

[silverbear]

The liberals want these pieces of trash treated like US citizens.

Hell, I'd even want YOU treated like a US citizen... :D

[silverbear]

These POS are not US citizens. Only US citizens or those here by legal immigration or as guests deserve the protection of our Constituition.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"...

Not all Americans, burm, all men... it goes on to say that all men, not all Americans, have certain, inalienable rights...

Now I do not have a problem with them having a hearing before a federal judge in a closed court to see if there is sufficient evidence= as long as the court is closed and every care is taken to see to it that sensitive intelligence and above all else WITNESSES are protected. BUT that is not what the ACLU and the LIbs want. ANd that is not what is being pushed by the libs. They want open federal courts with all the Johnny Cochran fun AND GAMES allowed.

And it seems the Supreme Court thinks that's what they're entitled to...

And I am afraid that this is what is coming.

Why are you afraid of the open practice of freedom??

[silverbear]

These are not just people who came to the US and committed some crimes. If they were, this wouldn't be a big deal. These are enemy combatants.

I see-- NOW, they're "enemy combatants", but when we were discussing them in the context of the Geneva Conventions and torture, the right told us that they weren't covered by those conventions because they're not "enemy combatants"...

Once again, they can't have it both ways... more to the point, the Supreme Court of the United States says they can't have it both ways...

[silverbear]

One vote going the other way and its all different.

Which means the majority still rules, and your side does not represent the majority... not any more... not on Iraq, not on the economy, not on any major issue, really...

And if you're a true American, you have to RESPECT that, because it IS the will of the majority...

And Suspect guess what: this is war and if you think that we can win by following the rules you want then you are truly out to lunch.

So, you're saying that we can't beat Islamic fundamentalist terror without breaking the rules??

You really have no respect for our military, or for our moral strength, do you??

In Total war= and that is what this is= there are only the winners and the dead. If you want to die fine with me.

We beat Hitler without acting like a bunch of Nazis, why do we now have to act like a bunch of terrorists to beat al-Qaida??

Even if we win doing things your way, we lose... we lose our national honor (what little we have remaining of that right now), we lose our way of life... screw that...

[Jordan55]

A Very Sad State of Affairs

The Court’s majority opinion includes a section in which Kennedy attempts to fundamentally reinterpret Eisentrager. The problem for the majority is that Eisentrager conclusively establishes the opposite of what the majority opinion held. In Justice Scalia’s words:

Eisentrager thus held — held beyond any doubt — that the Constitution does not ensure habeas for aliens held by the United States in areas over which our Government is not sovereign…. [The majority opinion] is a sheer rewriting of the case.… By blatantly distorting Eisentrager, the Court avoids the difficulty of explaining why it should be overruled.

More broadly, and relevant to the Kennedy opinion, English common law has never held that the writ of habeas corpus extended beyond the sovereign territory of the Crown.

Among the practical effects of this ruling is that, according to Scalia

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. That consequence would be tolerable if necessary to preserve a time-honored legal principle vital to our constitutional Republic. But it is this Court’s blatant abandonment of such a principle that produces the decision today… It sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner.

What Boumediene v. Bush is really all about, as Justice Roberts wrote, is control of federal policy regarding enemy combatants. That is another way of saying this case was about power — and Thursday’s decision was a power grab.

And so it has come to this: The United States Supreme Court now routinely invents constitutional rights to support whatever social, political, and legal goals it deems desirable. It is so much easier to legislate from the bench than it is through the branches of government that were created by our Founders to do just that.

But if one is going to invent Constitutional rights out of thin air, it’s worth asking: What moral universe do Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsburg, Stephens, and Souter inhabit when they are willing to manufacture constitutional rights for unlawful enemy combatants who want to slit the throats and watch innocent Americans bleed and die.

What the Court decided Thursday was an intellectual, jurisprudential, and moral disgrace.

It's hard to win a fight when your hands are tied behind your back, Bear, except for a few isolated incidents just when the hell have we acted like a bunch of terrorists, nobody has had their head cut off or their genitalia stuffed in their mouth, explosives rigged to the deceased, Can you, remember any U.S. prisoner of Al-Qaeda, that's come back alive.
The consequences of releasing prisoners from Guantanamo, despite gaining their freedom by signing pledges to renounce violence, at least seven former prisoners of the United States at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have returned to terrorism, at times with deadly consequences, I'm sure the numbers are greater now since this was back in 2004.
Well since they were captured in Afghanistan, innocently tending their flocks
send them back and let the Afghanis, deal with them, hopefully they will do a better job of guarding them, unlike the most recent prison breakout. The rules of engagement have just been changed.