Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Can they not petition the court now to challenge their imprisonment? The head of Al Qaida stated "We will use America's laws against them" We have caught terrorists in Iraq who have commented about how you can "Talk to my lawer when we get to New York". The courts will be flooded with requests from Gitmo for challenges and the buden of proof will be on the Govt to keep the detainees from walking. Please, though tell me where I am wrong. I would sleep much better at night if I were.

Sure. First, you are wrong about the burden of proof. There is actually a presumption that the government is legally detaining the prisoners. Even the opinion from yesterday, of which most people in here are ill-informed, agrees with that. So, its a heavy burden on the prisoners to show that they are being illegally detained.

Second, they haven't been granted the right to a trial at all. They've been granted a right to habeas corpus. This means, that they have a right to go to a federal court and argue that they are being held illegally. It's not a trial of whether or not they are guilty. The question basically will be, does the government have probable cause to believe the detainees committed a crime. If so, they can control them. As W pointed out immediately, the opinion says nothing about the military trials. It does not say they cannot have them still. It only grants them the right to habeas corpus.

Can you sleep better now? There is a lot of fear-mongering being thrown around with this opinion, and I think its best to take a deep breath and realize what it says.

One more thing... the government can suspend their rights to habeas corpus still. This case wasn't about that because the government didn't even argue that they constitutionally suspended habeas corpus. So, if Bush decides he wants to suspend habeas corpus, all he has to do is abide by the Geneva convention... and a lot of republicans are asking why we can't just abide by Geneva and suspend their habeas corpus. The reason is, the executive branch hasn't tried that... if they do try that, they will succeed.

[81artmonk]

Very true... that's because for 232 years there never was a catagory of prisoner called "enemy combatant", Bush made it up on 2001 after 911. Prior to that all prisoners fell into the criminal catagor or prisoner of war; each group having rights by law and by international treaty.

So how does that change what we haven't done in 232 years?? Bush wasn't around 232 years ago and back than we didn't have the word "enemy combatant".

The court never found the president could kidnap folks off the streets of countries including the United States and hold them indefinitely without any trial or indepenent oversite.

To the best of my knowledge these are people captured from foriegn soil. Not american soil. The reason, they aren't being tried is, due to the fact that the democrats and others are holding up, how and when they will be tried. can't use this, can't use that. How can you try someone, when you aren't able to do so, becuase you're being told you can't do it like that??

Only if their confessions were tortured out of them. And if they were tortured out of them, how reliable are those confessions anyway. Fact is it likely will let terrorists free. It will let free all the folks we have no evidence to hold as judged by an indepenent party. Seems to me like a sufficiently low thresh hold to hold.

The part I love about all these anti torture people, is that these are terrorist. They say, "oh they are innocents who have nothing to do with terror" :bsflag: He said she said situation here.

I guess that's where we part ways. First, if you or anyone thinks that the US hasn't done this before in other wars, you're nieve. Second, if it saves lives or protects our nation, go for it. call me insensitive, call me immoral. I don't care. These people are out to kill me and my nation.

So The shak, who we know, without waterboarding, was involved in 9/11 along with others, should be let go becuase they were tortured(your term, not mine) and their confession isn't valid? Like I said, good for america, good times!!

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Only because you've been told that.

Just kidding.

Seriously, just look at this decision.

I think the decision re-inforced my definitions that liberals believe the Constitution is the highest law which must be protected, and conservatives believe that the Constitution applies when its convenient.

[ross3909]

Sure. First, you are wrong about the burden of proof. There is actually a presumption that the government is legally detaining the prisoners. Even the opinion from yesterday, of which most people in here are ill-informed, agrees with that. So, its a heavy burden on the prisoners to show that they are being illegally detained.

Second, they haven't been granted the right to a trial at all. They've been granted a right to habeas corpus. This means, that they have a right to go to a federal court and argue that they are being held illegally. It's not a trial of whether or not they are guilty. The question basically will be, does the government have probable cause to believe the detainees committed a crime. If so, they can control them. As W pointed out immediately, the opinion says nothing about the military trials. It does not say they cannot have them still. It only grants them the right to habeas corpus.

Can you sleep better now? There is a lot of fear-mongering being thrown around with this opinion, and I think its best to take a deep breath and realize what it says.

One more thing... the government can suspend their rights to habeas corpus still. This case wasn't about that because the government didn't even argue that they constitutionally suspended habeas corpus. So, if Bush decides he wants to suspend habeas corpus, all he has to do is abide by the Geneva convention... and a lot of republicans are asking why we can't just abide by Geneva and suspend their habeas corpus. The reason is, the executive branch hasn't tried that... if they do try that, they will succeed.

The question is not about guilt in these trials it is about whether or not the US has a right to hold the remaining detainees. That is the whole debate, it is my concern that if that is brought into a court and argued by the evidence provided, there is very little, if any, besides testimony. If you are right about suspension of habeas corpus then that is what I hope we do.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

The question is not about guilt in these trials it is about whether or not the US has a right to hold the remaining detainees. That is the whole debate, it is my concern that if that is brought into a court and argued by the evidence provided, there is very little, if any, besides testimony. If you are right about suspension of habeas corpus then that is what I hope we do.

Yes, you made several comments that these people would be granted a right to a trial and the jury would **** up (some, not you, said like OJ) and they'd be free to go. That's not true. Once again THERE WILL BE NO TRIAL granted to anyone from this decision.

There is a presumption that they are being detained legally. The government doesn't even have to open its mouth after hearing the evidence that the detainee puts on, and they can still win.

This is simply not what you think it is. But, it will become a talking point to claim that "liberals" are soft on the war, even when it was a conservative court. Scalia's dissent has absolutely no constitutional basis for it, which is not totally surprising b/c when the constitution is bad for his arguments he ignores it.

[Larry]

First Amendment – . . .

Congratulations, I'm assuming you quoted all of the accurately.

You have now successfully listed many of the things which the people of the US have chosen to forbid their government from doing.

Now, show me the one that says "This entire document is completely null, void, and meaningless in cases of:

• Any person who isn't a citizen.
  
• Any location outside the geographic boundaries of the US.
  
• In time of war.
  
• If the President invents a phrase that doesn't appear in this document.
  
• If the President uses the phrase "new kind of war" in a speech
  
• If the President writes a memo to himself, granting himself new powers not mentioned here.
  
• If the President classifies the fact that he's doing something.
  
• If the President declares that the Constitution doesn't apply to you.
  
• If the President declares that the law doesn't apply to him.
  

If any of these conditions (or others we haven't thought of yet) exist, then the government of the US shall have unlimited power, with no restrictions whatsoever."

See, what the Constitution says is: The only thing the government is permitted to do, are the powers specifically granted here.

It doesn't say "US Citizens have Freedom of Religion". It says "The US Government has no authority to regulate religion".

The Constitution doesn't grant rights. To citizens or anybody else. It denies the government authority to take away those rights.

The Constitution doesn't apply to Ossama bin Laden. It doesn't apply to me. It applies to George Bush. (Whether he wants it to or not.)

[Larry]

. . .

Now, this is actually the most important point: the statute passed by Congress was NOT an attempt to suspend habeas corpus as permitted under the Constitution. It was, actually, an attempt to LIMIT THE FEDERAL COURTS' JURISDICTION. But, the SC correctly stated that habeas corpus is a right of a person, and not a question of jurisdiction. Because the Constitution gives people the right to habeas corpus, it cannot be limited by questions of jurisdiction. It CAN be altered as the Constitution permits.

. . .

It should be noted that the U.S. did not argue that they acted pursuant to the habeas corpus suspension clause. Instead, they only argued that the non-citizen detainees in Guatanomo did not have rights to habeas in the first place. So, that should answer your question Larry. It doesn't say Congress doesn't have the authority to suspend habeas. The SC says it can't do it by means of limiting jurisdiction of the courts, and/or by not following the Constitution's process for limiting habeas.

Yeah, I've seen this thing, where Congress passes a law claiming that "no court has the authority to examine . . . ".

I'd love to see a ruling, in writing, establishing precident, declaring that "Yes, the Constitution grants Congress the power to determine the jurisdiction of courts. However, that authority was clearly intended to grant the authority to determine which court had jurisdiction. Not to, by the simple passage of legislation, to exclude the entire Judicial branch any jurisdiction whatsoever. That would require a Consititutional Amendment. (Since it would then be a matter of determining Seperation of Powers).

"Therefore, Congress does not have the authority to declare people, places, or laws as being beyond the jurisdiction of the Judicial Branch. Only to determine which court has jurisdiction."

I would think that it shouldn't be too tough to get a unanimous ruling, from nine SC Justices, that no, a simple majority vote of Congress doesn't trump the Supreme Court's authority. At least if I were a SC justice, I'd have zero tolerance for somebody telling me that I don't have the authority to interpret US law.

-----

And BTW: Larry's opinion as to how things should be?

These folks aren't necessarily entitled to habeas.

They're entitled to a classification hearing. If the classification hearing says "enemy combatant", then gee, the US military has the authority to hold you without further proceedings until the end of hostilities. (But has to follow Geneva). If the hearing says "enemy combatant captured out of uniform", then he can be held until the end of hostilities, or executed, with no further proceedings. (But if held, is still protected by Geneva.)

I don't see how, say, POWs get Habeas hearings. Unless all the habeas hearing does is say "prisoner has been found to be a POW. Next case."

Certainly there's no rule that POWs must be charged with a specific criminal charge, or be released.

-----

As to the SC ruling (and subsequent explanation):

Yeah, I do believe that suspending Habeas is a Very Serious Deal, and that Congress can only do it by explicitly saying so, clearly and un-ambiguously.

IMO, the administration's claim I've heard that Congress suspended Habeas when they authorized the President to take "all necessary actions", doesn't cut it. A suspension of Habeas has to be more specific than that.

But I would have ruled that Congress declaring Gitmo out of Habeas jurisdiction was a specific enough action to qualify as a suspension.

[Larry]

Funny that you mention that.

Remember how shocked a lot of liberals and the media were when the Iraqis given the opportunity to vote freely braved sniper fire, suicide bombers threats of death to vote and then proudly display the ink on their thumb/finger?

Nope.

What I remember was pride.

[JMS]

So how does that change what we haven't done in 232 years?? Bush wasn't around 232 years ago and back than we didn't have the word "enemy combatant".

Your irronious claim was that the supreme court has never granted legal rights to enemy combatants in 232 years. I was just pointing out that Bush created that catagory of prisoner in his first term in office in order to get around legal protections and minimum standards of care set up by law for both POW's and criminals.

So I'm saying you are wrong. 232 years of legal precident says you call prisoners POW's and apply international treaties, or you call them criminals and send them to court. We've never had the Bush tweners before.

To the best of my knowledge these are people captured from foriegn soil. Not american soil. The reason, they aren't being tried is, due to the fact that the democrats and others are holding up, how and when they will be tried. can't use this, can't use that. How can you try someone, when you aren't able to do so, becuase you're being told you can't do it like that??

As for the democrats obstructing Bush who really is trying to give these guys fair trials... Where have you been for the last 7 years. Bush has been kicking and screaming to keep these guys out of coart and even deny them any indepenent review or oversite....

As for these "terrorists" are foreign fighters captured on foreign soil.. Just

WRONG!!! Bush has taken people off the streets of the United States including United States citizens and tried to claim them as enemy combatants. Google up..

Yaser Hamdi ( US citizen captured in Afghanistan, after years of detention renounced his citizenship in exchange for being released.. ) That's right, when the coarts finally said you had to give this guy a trial, Bush struck a deal with him; renounce your citizenship and after years of abusive treatement we will release you scott free........ Sounds like a real dangerous guy.

Jose Padilla. ( US citizen, captured in America, held for 3.5 years as enemy combatant denied trial, Bush originally said he was accused of trying to set off dirty bombs in US cities.... when supreme court did grant Padilla a trial, that charge was dropped by the federal government, he was found guilty in federal court of criminal conspiracy.

The part I love about all these anti torture people, is that these are terrorist. They say, "oh they are innocents who have nothing to do with terror" :bsflag: He said she said situation here.

If they are terrorists, and I believe the reality of the situation is the vast majority of the people we detained were not terrorists. I say this because the vast majority of the people we have detained in the war on terrorism have been released. In Abu Grab we released 97% of the folks inprisoned there. Their offenses ranged from being on the wrong street at the wrong time, being out after curfew, being proximal to a bomb being detonated. In Git mo Bush and other independent sources have claimed that as many 90,000 people have passed through that prison. The prison only holds fewer than 700 people. That means that the folks held at Gitmo 92% of them were also released after a period of incarsoration.

Literally we are not holding mostly terrorists in Gitmo. Literally we are holding folks who were unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

But if they are terrorists, why would anybody object to an independent review of the evidence against them?

I guess that's where we part ways. First, if you or anyone thinks that the US hasn't done this before in other wars, you're nieve.

Do enlighten me. When have the United States ever detained 90,000 folks, transport them to an out of country detention camp, claim they have no legal rights, subject them to torture, kill more than 100 of them, all without any indepenent oversight? Please do tell.

Maybe Jackson in the trail of tears... Wonderful precident for a modern foreign policy.

Second, if it saves lives or protects our nation, go for it. call me insensitive, call me immoral. I don't care. These people are out to kill me and my nation.

The armed forces and the President of the United States don't swear an oath to protect the United States. Oddly enough that wasn't the chief concern of the founding fathers who wrote the oath of office. They swear an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States. You can't protect the nation by abandoning the rule of law is the leason to be learned from every oath of office civilian polititians or military personel commit too.

So The shak, who we know, without waterboarding, was involved in 9/11 along with others, should be let go becuase they were tortured(your term, not mine) and their confession isn't valid? Like I said, good for america, good times!!

Dude, this is the administration who offered a carpet merchant with no ties to any terrorism group a million dollars to sell a missle to terrorists. No matter that the guy didn't have a missil. No matter that the guy didn't know anybody who had a missile. No matter that the guy in question never agreed to the sale, just by being pressent when two government informers discussed the deal this administration charged him with terrorism and he faced the death sentence.

This is the administration who charged an Army Chaplin with aiding the enemy and charged him with high treason punishable by death. When the Chaplin refused to a plea bargan which would reduce his death sentence to months in jail and demanded a trial after more than a year of incarsoration; this administration changed the charges to recieving pornography on a government computer. No matter that the pornography was part of an email which was not solicited by the Moslem Chaplin, No matter that the chaplin never viewed the unopenned email.... The pornography charge was thrown out of military coart.

This is the administration who approached homeless men in Miami, and offered these guys thousands of dollars if they would agree to work for Al Quada. These 17 men didn't have 20$ between then. Some were mentally impared and didn't even know what Al Quada was. None of them had a record of violent crimes, None of them was a terror suspect. No weapons were found on them when they were arrested. They were never even accused of planning an attack; But because they accepted the money from a team of government agents who targeted them; they were charged with terrorism..

I say if you have evidence folks are terrorists then by all means try them. If you don't let them go. This crap about we have no evidence, but we still know their terrorists is bunk.

[Larry]

Dude even you aren't that ignorant. We all know that its 5 to 4 liberals to conservatives.

I seem to remember the SC voting 5 to 4 to appoint Bush as President. And that was before Bush replaced a few of them.

But I certainly understand the "reasoning" of "anybody who gets in the way of a Republican Dictatorship must be a liberal". After all, the definition of "liberal" is "anybody who doesn't agree with the GOP 100% of the time."

[Thiebear]

It just goes to show that if you gonna start a war, make sure you pick the actual enemy (Hello OSAMA BIN LADEN).

You reap what you sew.

Do we get chickens coming home to rooooost also? :laugh:

[JMS]

I seem to remember the SC voting 5 to 4 to appoint Bush as President. And that was before Bush replaced a few of them.

But I certainly understand the "reasoning" of "anybody who gets in the way of a Republican Dictatorship must be a liberal". After all, the definition of "liberal" is "anybody who doesn't agree with the GOP 100% of the time."

Of the Nine supreme court justices only two were appointed by democrats, Ginsburg and Breyer.

Seven members of the supreme court were appointed by Republicans and consider themselves conservative.... Demonstrates how dramatic the Republican party has changed recently.

Alito, ..........Bush Jr. ®

Roberts, ..........Bush Jr. ®

Thomas ..........Bush Sr.®

Souter ..........Bush Sr. ®

Kennedy ..........Reagan ®

Scalia ..........Reagan ®

Stevens ..........Ford ®

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Just look at our history of selflessly helping other nations.

I recommend you read the correspondance between Roosevelt and Churchill regarding the Lend/Lease Act before you talk about America's selflessness.

I then recommend you read about the rise and fall of the Shah of Iran, the rise and fall of Saddam Hussein, the rise and fall of Manuel Noriega, the rise and fall of Pinochet, and dozens of more countries.

Look, we are generous and fairly unselfish with foreign disaster aid. And American citizens are always charitable.

But anyone who would cite the selflessness of our foreign policy has not been paying attention for the past 150 years or so.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I don't think there is a long list of liberals who wants all the detainees at Gitmo released and sent to, like, Chicago tomorrow.

The problem is - as Larry said - they are in a legal no man's land according to the Bush Administration. "Enemy combatents" under the administrations definition are neither fish nor fowl. They aren't POWs which means that they have no rights under any foreign treaties. They aren't criminals which would give them rights under the Constitution. They are some new creation that has no rights at all.

I am saying this as someone who is anti-death penalty: Just give them a fair hearing and if they are "terrorists," execute them. I could live with that. It's better than whatever the hell we are doing now.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I don't think there is a long list of liberals who wants all the detainees at Gitmo released and sent to' date=' like, Chicago tomorrow.

The problem is - as Larry said - they are in a legal no man's land according to the Bush Administration. "Enemy combatents" under the administrations definition are neither fish nor fowl. They aren't POWs which means that they have no rights under any foreign treaties. They aren't criminals which would give them rights under the Constitution. They are some new creation that has no rights at all.

I am saying this as someone who is anti-death penalty: Just give them a fair hearing and if they are "terrorists," execute them. I could live with that. It's better than whatever the hell we are doing now.[/quote']

This was basically the crux of the opinion. The Supreme Court found a separation of powers problem because the executive branch was basically arguing that there are places under U.S. control where no rule of law exists.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

McCain just flip-flopped on this calling it the "worst" decision in the history of the SC. I mean, its not even close, but its still a radical departure from his previous comments that the detainees were being denied their rights under the constitution.

[Sarge]

The people you described aren't liberals. They're extremists and can be found on both sides of the spectrum.

No, they're liberals.

They just don't like it when you spell out their philosophy in black ad white and call them what they are

[Sarge]

I think the decision re-inforced my definitions that liberals believe the Constitution is the highest law which must be protected, and conservatives believe that the Constitution applies when its convenient.

Conservatives believe the Constitution applies to AMERICANS, not the entire planet

[Larry]

Conservatives believe the Constitution applies to AMERICANS, not the entire planet

You mean, the US has no authority whatsoever to even be in Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba, or anywhere else?

'Cause, y'know, the only authority the US Government has, is from the Constitution.

You must be one a them Ron Paul conservatives.

[Sarge]

Look. A terrorist front group agrees with the Supreme Court and some people here

Might wanna look take a look and see what side some of you are on

http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/american_muslim_group_welcomes_supreme_court_gitmo_ruling/0016294

CAIR WELCOMES SUPREME COURT GITMO RULING

Muslim group calls decision ‘victory for objective justice,’ calls for prison to be closed

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 6/12/08) - A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group today welcomed a Supreme Court ruling that gives detainees at the military prison in Guantanamo Bay the right to challenge their detentions in U.S. civilian courts.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called the decision a “victory for objective justice,” noting that the court’s decision maintains the integrity of the Constitution in overturning hastily-passed congressional legislation that provided inadequate legal recourse to detainees. Of the 5-4 decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy said, “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.”

[Larry]

Look, Sarge dodging the Constitution again!

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Conservatives believe the Constitution applies to AMERICANS, not the entire planet

Sarge, if the Constitution doesn't apply to Gitmo, then how does Bush have executive authority to even detainee people in Gitmo?

[NavyDave]

Of the Nine supreme court justices only two were appointed by democrats, Ginsburg and Breyer.

Seven members of the supreme court were appointed by Republicans and consider themselves conservative.... Demonstrates how dramatic the Republican party has changed recently.

Alito, ..........Bush Jr. ® Yes

Roberts, ..........Bush Jr. ® Yes and thank the Grassroot conservatives

Thomas ..........Bush Sr.® Yes

Souter ..........Bush Sr. ® was moderate now a lib Sr's adviser lied to him

Kennedy ..........Reagan ®

Scalia ..........Reagan ® Yes

Stevens ..........Ford ®

Ford was a liberal himself

[GoSkins561]

Sarge, if the Constitution doesn't apply to Gitmo, then how does Bush have executive authority to even detainee people in Gitmo?

Because they are enemy combatants. (period)

You should be happy The United States is kind enough to not line them up and shoot them or drag them through the streets and hang them from bridges.

[Sarge]

Sarge, if the Constitution doesn't apply to Gitmo, then how does Bush have executive authority to even detainee people in Gitmo?

Because he's the Commander in Chief