SCOTUS Rules Gitmo Detainees Can Challenge Detention in US Civilian Courts
| Thu Jun. 12, 2008 7:33 AM PDT
The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Guantanamo detainees yet again. According to the AP, SCOTUS ruled today that "foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts."
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."
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.
We may finally see some progress on this issue. Twice before, the Supreme Court has ruled prisoners at Guantanamo held without charges can go to American civilian courts to ask that the federal government justify their detention. Both times, Congress has changed the law to keep them from doing so. But in both instances, Congress was controlled by Republicans and the White House was occupied by George Bush. With Democrats in control of Congress and two presidential candidates who favor the shuttering of Gitmo, we may finally begin down the path to justice sometime in 2009.
Background on the case is available here. For the recent Mother Jones cover package on detainees and torture, see here. For an inside look at Guantanao, check this out.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
Maybe. Hopefully.
It appears to me that there are so many legislators involved in the Bush administration's corruption that unless we vote them all out, WE THE PEOPLE are going to be stuck with the effects of their corruption forever.
I would say that we should vote out of the House all the Representatives that did not vote for the Impeachment of Bush in the Congressional Primary coming up in July, as well as all the Senators who are against impeachment.
Dear Robert Buckenmeyer,
I'm sorry to have to inform you, but holding Bush & Cheney accountable for their numerous and well documented mis-deeds is "OFF The Table".
For heaven's Sake..! If Beltway Bigwigs start holding each other Accountable, I Could Be NEXT!!!
www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200805/POL200805...
http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009908
Sincerely,
Nancy Pelosi
Submitted by P. Eischen (not verified) on Fri Jun. 13, 2008 5:21 PM PDT.
Mr. Buckenmeyer, I like your suggestion, really like it.
As follows:
Posted by: robert Buckenmeyer "Perhaps we may now arrest Bush and Cheney for standing in violation of the US Constitution and commit them to Guantanimo Bay prison for an indefinite period of time."
Posted by: robert Buckenmeyer on 06/13/08 at 12:28 PM Respond
Submitted by KYJurisDoctor (not verified) on Fri Jun. 13, 2008 9:34 PM PDT.
While I AGREE with today's majority opinion that "all enemy combatants detained during a war, at least insofar as they are confined in an area away from the battlefield, [but] over which the United States exercises 'absolute and indefinite' control, may seek a writ of habeas corpus in federal court," I also AGREE with Chief Justice Roberts (and his fellow dissenters) that the Writ can be suspended in time of war, such as the war on terror that we find ourselves involved in right now, and that suspension power belongs to Congress, such as Congress has exercised in this case, "as the Constitution surely allows Congress to [wield]."
I guess one can REASONABLY conclude that the Court's Majority knew where they wanted to end up, and proceeded to get there, however s-l-o-w-l-y they weaved their way through precedential minefield!
OsiSpeaks.com
Giving the detainees rights equal to those of US citizens will make the process we are using at Gitmo appear to be equitable and fair. USA already has had its reputation besmirched by various persons who were seized, imprisoned, and tortured either by our people or by other countries in "exstraordinary rendition" programs.
Improving our appearance of fairness in dealing with alleged terrorists improves USA image all over the world.
It also helps our military and intelligence guys who confront those whom we detain. A man who knonws that truly miserable conditions await him if he is captured will decide to fight to the last bullet and grenadeand not to bve taken alive. If he takes out one or more of our people in the process he will be very happy about this as he dies.
It is also a given that dead men cannot be interrogated.
W.
KYJurisDoctor:
In your control quote, I think you meant "absolute and definite" control, didn't you?
For what reason could there be for the U.S. Government to keep supposed enemy combatants "forever" without any kind of trial, 1st from Afghanistan and then Iraq???????
Bush's Afghan Incursion was over when he left Afghanistan and invaded Iraq for another incursion, and Afghan prisoners would have then been turned loose, if this was a war. Now, Bush's Iraq Incursion must be over because Bush is pushing for an incursion of Iran. Bush went back to Afghanistan for a 2nd incursion, but no person from Afghanistan or Iraq attacked the United States or even threatened to attack the United States.
The people who supposedly attacked the United States were Saudi Arabians.
Invasions aren't wars, only incursions. No real war between countries goes on forever, a war will be fought until one side puts the other side down, then there will be a treaty signed relative to what the war was about, but since this was only a U.S. incursion, no treaties have even been mentioned in Afghanistan. Incursions that the United States is involved in are NOT REAL WARS between countries, only insurgents fighting off a U.S. incursion, because in a real war all enemy combatants are turned loose when the war is over. Enemy combatants are only kept to find out what they know while the war is continuing in their country -- NO REAL WAR LASTS FOREVER.
The U.S. Government paid for these supposed enemy combatants to be turned in by their fellow countrymen as enemy combatants. Paying for a supposed enemy combatant doesn't make that person an enemy combatant. And, an insurgent isn't an enemy combatant any more than you would be if a thief chose to rob your house.
The Supreme Court has authority over any person on U.S. soil, and I am overwhelming glad that the Supreme Court decided these supposed enemy combatants have a right to a trial.
Bravo for the Supreme Court in finally making this decision. But history has proven that this presidential administration will only just change tactics. They will continue as they have and progressively get worse.
Detainees in Gitmo now have rights? They'll stop putting them in Gitmo.
Why not Pelosi as well as Saddam. Seems reasonable and just to me. Honestly, Nancy Pelosi, I don't blame you for the dirty deeds but why do you think any of you in govt. shouldn't be held responsible in the same way as Saddam. ?
Marian Conn
Dear Marian Conn,
You must keep in mind that my actions are always undertaken for the Greater Good.
Motives, after all, are much more important than Methods, and my Motives are invariably pure.
Saddam, on the other hand, was a person interested only in maintaining his own power and authority. He deserved his punishment as his motives were Impure, except, of course for those years when he was fighting our war against Iran for us.
Sincerely,
Nancy Pelosi
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
