Author Topic: Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees  (Read 15434 times)

Desertdog

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,360
Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees
« on: June 12, 2008, 01:29:45 PM »
Close Guantanamo, move captured enamies to a new prison in Iraq.

Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees
In rebuke to administration, suspects may appeal in U.S. civilian courts
 Video
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25117953/
 
  Supreme Court: Terror suspects have rights
June 12: Enemy or not, the Supreme Court has ruled that foreign terrorism suspects can challenge their detentions. NBC's Pete Williams reports.

 The war on terror
Learn about attacks, arrests and other major incidents in global terrorism since 1993. Click "Launch" to view.

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.

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 six 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.

In Rome, President Bush said, "We'll abide by the court's decision. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it."

He said the administration would review the decision to see if new legislation was warranted.

Ruling could halt first war-crime trial
A lawyer for Osama bin Laden's former driver said Thursday he would try to stop the first scheduled war-crimes trial at Guantanamo Bay in light of the Supreme Court's ruling.

Other lawyers are expected to join in a blizzard of filings to the war-crimes tribunal and to U.S. federal courts after the ruling Thursday that detainees at Guantanamo Bay are entitled to habeas corpus, the right to challenge their detention in civilian court.


  Click for related content
Do you agree with majority ruling on Guantanamo?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25118905/

Bin Laden's former driver, Salim Hamdan, has been held at Guantanamo Bay since May 2002, and is one of only 19 of the roughly 270 men still held who has been charged with a crime. His military trial was scheduled to be the first.

The Supreme Court ruling complicates the Bush administration's repeated attempts to put suspected terrorists before war-crimes tribunals at the U.S. Navy base in southeast Cuba.

"The entire legal framework under which Mr. Hamdan was to be tried has been turned on its head," Hamdan's lawyer, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Brian Mizer, told The Associated Press.

Mizer said the defense lawyers can now argue that their clients have the right to confront their accusers and not incriminate themselves, both of which have been denied under the Military Commissions Act.

Mizer said he will file a motion next week also arguing that Hamdan was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. The military judge postponed the Yemeni's June 2 trial pending the Supreme Court ruling, and it is unclear what he will do now.

Guantanamo opened after 9/11
The administration opened the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to hold enemy combatants.

The 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.

Vigorous dissents
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.

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.

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 onetime 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.

President 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.

Tallpine

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 23,172
  • Grumpy Old Grandpa
Re: Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees
« Reply #1 on: June 12, 2008, 05:08:13 PM »
Oh no, now the terrorists have won!  shocked

 laugh



I just hope they are as adamant about citizens' 2A rights ...  rolleyes
Freedom is a heavy load, a great and strange burden for the spirit to undertake. It is not easy. It is not a gift given, but a choice made, and the choice may be a hard one. The road goes upward toward the light; but the laden traveller may never reach the end of it.  - Ursula Le Guin

Nitrogen

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,755
  • Who could it be?
    • @c0t0d0s2 / Twitter.
Re: Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees
« Reply #2 on: June 12, 2008, 05:10:00 PM »

I just hope they are as adamant about citizens' 2A rights ...  rolleyes

we can only hope.
יזכר לא עד פעם
Remember. Never Again.
What does it mean to be an American?  Have you forgotten? | http://youtu.be/0w03tJ3IkrM

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,836
Re: Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees
« Reply #3 on: June 12, 2008, 10:32:31 PM »
Basically all this ruling provides is that the government will have to prove to the Courts that it used some sort of process to reasonably assess the guilt of the detainees before imposing a punishment.

I think it's bizarre that some are calling this ruling a bonus for terrorism.  I believe that requiring the government to prove guilt, and providing defendants with the opportunity to claim that they are not in fact guilty, is a pretty bare-bones requirement of having a free society. 

There's no such thing as a free country where the government can imprison you based on an allegation, and then punish you without proving that allegation to anyone or answering to any independent reviewer.
"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees
« Reply #4 on: June 12, 2008, 10:46:38 PM »
Quote
I think it's bizarre that some are calling this ruling a bonus for terrorism

It's not. Remember, 50% of the population have below average IQ.
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

Nitrogen

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,755
  • Who could it be?
    • @c0t0d0s2 / Twitter.
Re: Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees
« Reply #5 on: June 13, 2008, 03:50:43 AM »
Basically all this ruling provides is that the government will have to prove to the Courts that it used some sort of process to reasonably assess the guilt of the detainees before imposing a punishment.

I think it's bizarre that some are calling this ruling a bonus for terrorism.  I believe that requiring the government to prove guilt, and providing defendants with the opportunity to claim that they are not in fact guilty, is a pretty bare-bones requirement of having a free society. 

There's no such thing as a free country where the government can imprison you based on an allegation, and then punish you without proving that allegation to anyone or answering to any independent reviewer.

Holy HELL I actually AGREE with you about something.
This is AWESOME.
יזכר לא עד פעם
Remember. Never Again.
What does it mean to be an American?  Have you forgotten? | http://youtu.be/0w03tJ3IkrM

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,788
Re: Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees
« Reply #6 on: June 13, 2008, 04:16:16 AM »
I had heard this ruling basically said military tribunals and enemy combatant designations aren't enough any more.  The concern I heard was that it might mean the military just does a quick interrogation and turns them over to allied countries. 

I haven't read up on this yet.  Pardon me if I don't take SS's word for it.  Smiley
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

grampster

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,453
Re: Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees
« Reply #7 on: June 13, 2008, 04:22:54 AM »
Well, since the "detainees" now are afforded the same rights as American citizens,   and since they haven't been arraigned within a reasonable time frame, they should be immediately released as they have not received the speedy trial the constitution requires.

I suggest they be released in the hometowns of the five supreme court justices.
"Never wrestle with a pig.  You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."  G.B. Shaw

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,788
Re: Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees
« Reply #8 on: June 13, 2008, 05:08:10 AM »
Quote
Both the Chief Justice and Justice Antonin Scalia issued dissenting opinions, and all four dissenters joined in both dissents. In his dissent, Justice Scalia writes, The game of bait-and-switch that todays opinion plays upon the Nations Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed. Justice Scalias 25-page dissenting opinion concludes, The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent.

Quote
Heres the conclusion of Chief Justice John Roberts dissent, pp. 27-28.

    So who has won? Not the detainees. The Courts analysis leaves them with only the prospect of further litigation to determine the content of their new habeas right, followed by further litigation to resolve their particular cases,followed by further litigation before the D. C. Circuit where they could have started had they invoked the DTA
    procedure. Not Congress, whose attempt to determine through democratic meanshow best to balance the security of the American people with the detainees liberty
    interests, see Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U. S. 557, 636 (2006) (BREYER, J., concurring), has been unceremoniously brushed aside. Not the Great Writ, whose majesty is
    hardly enhanced by its extension to a jurisdictionally quirky outpost, with no tangible benefit to anyone. Not the rule of law, unless by that is meant the rule of lawyers,
    who will now arguably have a greater role than military and intelligence officials in shaping policy for alien enemy combatants. And certainly not the American people, who today lose a bit more control over the conduct of this Nations foreign policy to unelected, politically unaccountable judges.

    I respectfully dissent.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/12/supreme-court-opens-up-gitmo-lawsuit-floodgates/
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees
« Reply #9 on: June 13, 2008, 05:15:11 AM »
Scalia also thinks Wickard is awesome, now.
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

The Annoyed Man

  • New Member
  • Posts: 1
Re: Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees
« Reply #10 on: June 13, 2008, 05:33:29 AM »
SCOTUS didn't 'back the detainees'.  It backed the U.S. Constitution which prohibits the suspension of habeas corpus execpt "when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."  It's about time somebody stood up to the Bush Regime.

Desertdog

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,360
Re: Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees
« Reply #11 on: June 13, 2008, 05:45:46 AM »
Quote
Basically all this ruling provides is that the government will have to prove to the Courts that it used some sort of process to reasonably assess the guilt of the detainees before imposing a punishment.
Don't forget, which the Supremes may have fotgotten, these are not American citizens, except 2, and they were all captured in a war zone, including the 2 American citizens, and they have never been on American soil.
Quote
I suggest they be released in the hometowns of the five supreme court justices.
Not just their home towns, in their neighborhoods.

anygunanywhere

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 142
Re: Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees
« Reply #12 on: June 13, 2008, 06:17:27 AM »
It certainly is nice to see that SCOTUS is protecting the rights of the war criminal, murdering terrorist bastards detainees. Now the war criminal, muredering terrorist bastards freedom fighters will respect the lives of the ones they kidnap. No more sawing off heads while the infidel gurgles while screaming.

Anygunanywhere

BridgeRunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,845
Re: Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees
« Reply #13 on: June 13, 2008, 06:38:23 AM »
It certainly is nice to see that SCOTUS is protecting the rights of the war criminal, murdering terrorist bastards detainees.

Yes, protecting their right to a trial that will determine that they are war criminals and murdering terrorist bastards. 

Nitrogen

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,755
  • Who could it be?
    • @c0t0d0s2 / Twitter.
Re: Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees
« Reply #14 on: June 13, 2008, 06:44:10 AM »
GIVING TEORRORISTS A FAIR TRIAL SHOWS HOW MUCH YOU HATE AMERICA!

Somehow, I can't wrap my mind around this.
יזכר לא עד פעם
Remember. Never Again.
What does it mean to be an American?  Have you forgotten? | http://youtu.be/0w03tJ3IkrM

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,836
Re: Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees
« Reply #15 on: June 13, 2008, 11:57:38 AM »
MechAg,

I note the irony of a smilie saying you won't take my word for it, followed by a quote from Michelle Malkin's blog....the same Michelle Malkin who tried to convince us that Rachel Ray of the food network is a terrorist.

Roberts dissent is bizarre-when you are imprisoned and tortured and not allowed to speak to anyone about it, further litigation to determine whether or not the procedures used to convict you were reasonable is a huge benefit.  Now the executive branch can't simply brand people guilty and give them no real trial to ratify guilt; it will have to actually undertake some means of proving guilt, based on the fact that now the procedures used may be subject to review.

If the government were convinced that it actually tried to do a good job of proving guilt in the Guantanamo cases, this ruling would be completely uncontroversial.  It's only a problem for a government that doesn't believe its procedures for assessing guilt are remotely adequate.

Desertdog,

Quote
Don't forget, which the Supremes may have fotgotten, these are not American citizens, except 2, and they were all captured in a war zone, including the 2 American citizens, and they have never been on American soil.

All true, and all irrelevant to the question at hand, which is: Can the U.S. government dole out punishment without any sort of trial whatsoever, and is it subject to independent review when it decides to impose punishments?

Of course the fact that two of the detainees are Americans is relevant-it proves that the government will apply these same procedures to U.S. citizens as well as non-citizens, and hence that the rights of Americans are directly at issue.
"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

gunsmith

  • I forgot to get vaccinated!
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,183
  • I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Re: Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees
« Reply #16 on: June 13, 2008, 12:10:19 PM »
Quote
I just hope they are as adamant about citizens' 2A rights

I am beginning to have doubts now, I hope they release a decision soon, its eating me.
Politicians and bureaucrats are considered productive if they swarm the populace like a plague of locust, devouring all substance in their path and leaving a swath of destruction like a firestorm. The technical term is "bipartisanship".
Rocket Man: "The need for booster shots for the immunized has always been based on the science.  Political science, not medical science."

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,788
Re: Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees
« Reply #17 on: June 13, 2008, 12:44:35 PM »
SS, I have seen many of your posts here and Yes, I would take the opinion of a lot of other people over yours without anything else to go on (including Malkin).  Do I need to quote and misquote a bunch of things you have said in the past? 
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,836
Re: Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees
« Reply #18 on: June 13, 2008, 12:52:35 PM »
SS, I have seen many of your posts here and Yes, I would take the opinion of a lot of other people over yours without anything else to go on (including Malkin).  Do I need to quote and misquote a bunch of things you have said in the past? 

I would certainly like inaccuracies by PM-I will go back and correct them, or at least note mistakes for the future.

The best practice is to quote from the sources of information themselves, not from blogs like Malkin's reviewing it or from my posts, of course.

"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

The Annoyed Man

  • New Member
  • Posts: 1
Re: Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees
« Reply #19 on: June 13, 2008, 12:54:19 PM »
Either we are a nation of law, or we are not.  To apply different standards of criminal justice based on citizenship or nationality is indefensible, both from a legal and moral point of view.

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,788
Re: Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees
« Reply #20 on: June 13, 2008, 01:08:13 PM »
SS, I have seen many of your posts here and Yes, I would take the opinion of a lot of other people over yours without anything else to go on (including Malkin).  Do I need to quote and misquote a bunch of things you have said in the past? 

I would certainly like inaccuracies by PM-I will go back and correct them, or at least note mistakes for the future.

The best practice is to quote from the sources of information themselves, not from blogs like Malkin's reviewing it or from my posts, of course.


SS, I quoted her site for the quotes from Scalia and Roberts since no one else had done so.  I posted the link so people would know that it was from an editorial blog, not from me.  If you want to post larger segments of the judicial opinions and put your own opinion to it, go right ahead. 

I wasn't referring to inaccuracies.  I disagree with you a LOT.  Why would you assume I would take your opinion or analysis as gospel?  That was all I was referring to.  We can argue over what is inaccurate, but there is no point to it.  Just do a search for posts by you.  Cheesy
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

stevelyn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,130
Re: Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees
« Reply #21 on: June 13, 2008, 03:20:42 PM »
Quote
I think it's bizarre that some are calling this ruling a bonus for terrorism

It's not. Remember, 50% of the population have below average IQ.

And it looks as if a few of those 50% are running the country including the occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Be careful that the toes you step on now aren't connected to the ass you have to kiss later.

Eat Moose. Wear Wolf.

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees
« Reply #22 on: June 13, 2008, 04:10:14 PM »
We are ruled by scumbag lawyers and their post-American black-robed tyrant associates, nowadays.

I expect any new unlawful combatants will remain in-country and/or transferred over to allies.

Guantanamo is history.  Long live rat-infested prisons in allied countries!
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

Desertdog

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,360
Re: Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees
« Reply #23 on: June 13, 2008, 05:00:10 PM »
Quote
Long live rat-infested prisons in allied countries!
Ditto

The Annoyed Man

  • New Member
  • Posts: 1
Re: Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees
« Reply #24 on: June 13, 2008, 05:03:39 PM »
As I see it, this decision does not so much grant rights (rights are not granted anywhere in the constitution, they are recognized) as reaffirm limitations We The People placed upon our government.  Few, if any, (too lazy to do the search) of those limitations mention geographical limits.

BTW, The Cato Institute publishes a Pocket Constitution that includes some other founding documents.  Every once in a while I load up on them and either give them, or drop them as logic bombs, on those who deserve them.