Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees

[JimmyConway]

Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees

In rebuke to administration, suspects may appeal in U.S. civilian courts

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.

Following the ruling, the lawyer for Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's former driver, said the ruling is likely to at least delay the Yemeni's war crimes trial.

Navy Lt. Cmdr. Brian Mizer told The Associated Press he will file a motion to dismiss the war crimes charges against Hamdan based on the court's finding.

The defense lawyer said he will argue that Hamdan was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. The Pentagon declined immediate comment.

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.

getCSS("3088874")

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.

[SUSkinsFan]

I agree with the court's decision but until a new President takes office nothing is going to change.

[Larry]

Bumping the thread, which I think is slightly more important than, say, jokes about John McCain's age.

(Not that I expect the discussion to be any more rational, or polite, than the previous 200 times.)

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Bumping the thread, which I think is slightly more important than, say, jokes about John McCain's age.

(Not that I expect the discussion to be any more rational, or polite, than the previous 200 times.)

Isn't McCain older than the Supreme Court?

[Larry]

Isn't McCain older than the Supreme Court?

I would bet less than half of them. There's some serious old folks on there.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I would bet less than half of them. There's some serious old folks on there.

I meant the building:

The Supreme Court building, located at 1, 1st St. N.E., Washington D.C., across the street from the U.S. Capitol, was designed by architect Cass Gilbert, and rises four stories (92 feet) above grade. The cornerstone was laid on October 13, 1932 and construction completed in 1935, having cost $9,740,000 — $94,000 under budget. "The building was designed on a scale in keeping with the importance and dignity of the Court and the Judiciary as a coequal, independent branch of the United States Government, and as a symbol of 'the national ideal of justice in the highest sphere of activity.'"[2]

I guess its close, but no cigar. Although, I wonder if he was born before the first cases were heard in it.

[Cskin]

Further evidence that Liberalism is a mental disorder and an enemy within our borders. Now, anyone captured by our military forces will declare themselves protections under our US Constitution... a framework written for US CITIZENS ONLY!!! :doh:

This decision is just further evidence of the disdain for Bush and the lengths the Left will go to undermine the United States military. Furthermore, it's probably rooted in the belief that the Iraq war is unjust and illegal, perpetrated by a POTUS who should be impeached, therefore the combatants captured in this conflict aren't really guilty but innocent victims snatched up by the big bad military.

Disgusting... Liberalism... the enemy within.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Further evidence that Liberalism is a mental disorder and an enemy within our borders. Now, anyone captured by our military forces will declare themselves protections under our US Constitution... a framework written for US CITIZENS ONLY!!! :doh:

This decision is just further evidence of the disdain for Bush and the lengths the Left will go to undermine the United States military. Furthermore, it's probably rooted in the belief that the Iraq war is unjust and illegal, perpetrated by a POTUS who should be impeached, therefore the combatants captured in this conflict aren't really guilty but innocent victims snatched up by the big bad military.

Disgusting... Liberalism... the enemy within.

Damn leftist Supreme Court filled with Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy.

[Larry]

Further evidence that Liberalism is a mental disorder and an enemy within our borders. Now, anyone captured by our military forces will declare themselves protections under our US Constitution... a framework written for US CITIZENS ONLY!!! :doh:

Uh, would your mental disorder prevent you from pointing out the part of the Constitution that says that? Cause my mental disorder seems to prevent me from seeing it.

This decision is just further evidence of the disdain for Bush and the lengths the Left will go to undermine the United States military. Furthermore, it's probably rooted in the belief that the Iraq war is unjust and illegal, perpetrated by a POTUS who should be impeached, therefore the combatants captured in this conflict aren't really guilty but innocent victims snatched up by the big bad military.

Disgusting... Liberalism... the enemy within.

Uh, allow me to point out that this Supreme Court is the same one that appointed W President in the first place. Well, except for the ones that were hand-picked by him for their political loyalty.

(And you might want to wipe that foam from your chin.)

[GibbsFactor]

Further evidence that Liberalism is a mental disorder and an enemy within our borders. Now, anyone captured by our military forces will declare themselves protections under our US Constitution... a framework written for US CITIZENS ONLY!!! :doh:

This decision is just further evidence of the disdain for Bush and the lengths the Left will go to undermine the United States military. Furthermore, it's probably rooted in the belief that the Iraq war is unjust and illegal, perpetrated by a POTUS who should be impeached, therefore the combatants captured in this conflict aren't really guilty but innocent victims snatched up by the big bad military.

Disgusting... Liberalism... the enemy within.

Let's round them up using the Alien and Sedition Act!

Damn evol ****s with different opinions from yours. I say we execute every last mother ****ing one of them. I mean really, who wants opposing opinions? That just isn't rational.

[Larry]

I'm (you'll never guess this) somewhat conflicted on this.

I think the prisoners are entitled to some kind of due process. Quickly.

But, I don't see why that due process needs to be anything more than a neutral, fair, court, that rules that "Yep, looks like an unauthorized combatant to me."

They're entitled to some kind of procedure that determines which set of rules apply to this individual prisoner. And then to whatever rules apply to prisoners in their category.

(For example, enemy combatants can be held until the war is over. Too bad. But they're subject to Geneva. Enemy spies can be executed without any further due process whatsoever. (But, IMO, still can't be tortured.))

Pick a set of rules, and follow them.

But those rules don't have to be the "US criminal defendant" rules.

(And if there's some reason why you don't like those rules, then have Congress change them.)

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I'm (you'll never guess this) somewhat conflicted on this.

I think the prisoners are entitled to some kind of due process. Quickly.

But, I don't see why that due process needs to be anything more than a neutral, fair, court, that rules that "Yep, looks like an unauthorized combatant to me."

They're entitled to some kind of procedure that determines which set of rules apply to this individual prisoner. And then to whatever rules apply to prisoners in their category.

(For example, enemy combatants can be held until the war is over. Too bad. But they're subject to Geneva. Enemy spies can be executed without any further due process whatsoever. (But, IMO, still can't be tortured.))

Pick a set of rules, and follow them.

But those rules don't have to be the "US criminal defendant" rules.

(And if there's some reason why you don't like those rules, then have Congress change them.)

Dont know the answer to this, but does the us not adopting Geneva have something to do with it?

[AzSkinsFan63]

Terrorists are people too!

[PleaseBlitz]

3 questions:

If they have to be tried in front of a jury of their peers, does that mean we have to put other detainees on the jury?

If they are found guilty, can we still sentence them to be waterboarded?

Can we make them swear on a Bible?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

3 questions:

If they have to be tried in front of a jury of their peers, does that mean we have to put other detainees on the jury?

If they are found guilty, can we still sentence them to be waterboarded?

Can we make them swear on a Bible?

hahaha... those are all pretty funny. I'm assuming they were intended to be.

but just in case:

no (just like ex-cons up for trial on a new charge don't get ex cons in their jury pool)

no (i think everyone agrees that waterboarding is illegal in the us)

no (can't make anyone swear on a bible).

[DGreenistheBest]

Disgusting... Liberalism... the enemy within.

You know...to liberals, conservatives are the enemy within.

[Burgold]

Good for the Supreme Court. This is the right decision. I am glad that they still have some Constitutional backbone.

[JimmyConway]

Good for the Supreme Court. This is the right decision. I am glad that they still have some Constitutional backbone.

Barely.

[Mongo2365]

I'm sorry but these pieces of worthless humans do not deserve the same rights that American criminals do. First, they're not Americans. Why would our constitution pertain to them? If you don't want to be housed at Gitmo, hey, don't be a terrorist.

[Larry]

I'm sorry but these pieces of worthless humans do not deserve the same rights that American criminals do. First, they're not Americans. Why would our constitution pertain to them? If you don't want to be housed at Gitmo, hey, don't be a terrorist.

Ah, yet another "Why bother to check and see if they're terrorists, when you can just announce that they are?" proponent.

[JMS]

Dont know the answer to this, but does the us not adopting Geneva have something to do with it?

Yep, If these folks were POW's then they wouldn't be afforded courts. If they were terrorists, ie Criminals; then they would be afforded a court trial. But President Bush has claimed eroniously that these folks are neither. Not criminals or prisoners of wars; but some invented their catagory where he alone is the arbitrator of their faite....

Oh and he tried to have the precident of the 50 year old Geneva Convention changed to enable this third catagory of detainees.

Good for the courts in deciding this. What the hell took them 7 years.

[Burgold]

I'm sorry but these pieces of worthless humans do not deserve the same rights that American criminals do. First, they're not Americans. Why would our constitution pertain to them? If you don't want to be housed at Gitmo, hey, don't be a terrorist.

You are assuming that the government does everything 100% right and that all people at Gitmo are terrorists... that they have a perfect hit rate. Why do conservatives (educated hunch) the government is infallible and the best thing to do is to trust the government under all situations and conditions? What is wrong with oversight?

Liberals are for a smaller government with checks and balances. It seems that Conservatives want a looming big brother government that does as it pleases and they believe every pronouncement made.

[JMS]

I'm sorry but these pieces of worthless humans do not deserve the same rights that American criminals do. First, they're not Americans. Why would our constitution pertain to them?

As painful as it is for me to correct someone who's call name starts with Mongo, I will endever. Bush has held Americans in Gitmo too.

Secondly our constitition pertains to our government. It grants our government authority, and expressly states that authority not granted to the government remains with the state or with the people. Snatching folks out of their beds and detaining them for almost a decade without any independent oversight or review of why, including children; doesn't seem to be a power the founding fathers granted the government.

If you don't want to be housed at Gitmo, hey, don't be a terrorist.

In this country you are innocent until proven guilty. By that legal fact all of the people in Gitmo are innocent men. If Bush actually had evidence on these folks being terrorists why not show it in coart and have them convicted. If he did that he could do what the hell he liked to after that, including executing them...

Perhaps Bush knows he has no evidence. Our leagal system is premised on the value that it would rather release 1000 men than find a single innocent man guilty. Perhaps Bush has decided that he would rather pursecute 1000 innocent men rather than release a single guilty man. Something Stalin and Bush had in common..

At least the statistics from Abu Grab where we release 98% of the folks once held there bares this out.

When all is said in done Americans will learn that we have captured and detained 100,000+ people in the years after 911. The vast vast majority innocent, and subsequently released after interogations. It's a crime on a global scale, which all Americans will be judged for....

[SUSkinsFan]

No one on this board has said that we want these individuals to just go free. All we want is for the government to prove in a fair trial they are guilty of something and if they are found guilty, by all means throw them in prison and no one here will complain.

[Hubbs]

Liberals are for a smaller government with checks and balances. It seems that Conservatives want a looming big brother government that does as it pleases and they believe every pronouncement made.

Ironic, considering that the historical traits of those two sides is the exact opposite.

Then again, Republicans aren't Republicans and Democrats aren't Democrats these days.