Supreme Court: Terrorist Suspects Have Rights

[Theophylact]

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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."

Kennedy said federal judges could ultimately order some detainees to be released, but that such orders would depend on security concerns and other circumstances.

The White House had no immediate comment on the ruling. White House press secretary Dana Perino, traveling with President Bush in Rome, said the administration was reviewing the opinion.

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.

The ruling could resurrect many detainee lawsuits that federal judges put on hold pending the outcome of the high court case. The decision sent judges, law clerks and court administrators scrambling to read Kennedy's 70-page opinion and figure out how to proceed. Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth said he would call a special meeting of federal judges to address how to handle the cases.

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 Guantanamo 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.

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.

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."

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 petition 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."

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 one-time 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.

Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman, said he had no immediate information whether a hearing at Guantanamo for a Canadian charged with killing a U.S. Special Forces soldier in Afghanistan would go forward next week as planned. Omar Khadr is one of 19 detainees so far facing the first U.S. war-crimes trials since the World War II era.
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.

As usual, Scalia takes the position that you have rights only as long as you don't need them.

(Meanwhile, the British House of Commons narrowly passed a law suspending habeas corpus, causing the Conservative shadow Home Secretary to resign from Parliament in disgust. At least we have a Constitution.)

[cyphen]

What's next? We must seek court approval before firing at enemy combatants on the battlefield?

The Supreme Court has exceeded its jurisdiction, even according to its own precedent. A previous ruling, as i understand it, holds that US courts have no jurisdiction on prisoners held overseas, including by the military.

How can a group of judges claim any constitutionality in extending constitutional protections to - not only non-Americans - but foreign enemies captured on the battlefield? I want to see where in the constitution they can point to that yields constitutional protections to non-citizens who are attacking the US. This is ridiculous.

[Undeadlord]

The problem here cyphen is that some of these prisoners were not captured on the battlefield attacking the US. They were taken from homes, businesses, etc based on information that the military had that they were dangerous to the USA.

So I am in my house, the military busts in and takes me based on some info they have. Now I sit in a military prison based on info that may or may not be factual. I was not a combatant in the normal sense of the word. The "war" we are fighting against terrorists is changing and we need to be able to adapt with it. Don't you think it validates alot of the horrible things said about the US when we treat our, possibly innocent, prisoners like this?

Don't make silly slippery slope statements, like the one about consulting the courts about firing on combatants. Thats not what this is about. If everyone in Guantanamo was arrested on a battlefield firing weapons at our troops, then this wouldn't be necessary, but they weren't. We need to step up to the plate here, give these people their due process and punish or release them as needed.


Undeadlord

[Chuckiechan]

Great. The left wind judges have created a new category of citizenship for our enemies: Honary Americans!

[Undeadlord]

Maybe the judges are just asking Americans to do a couple things. One, stand up and show other countries that we are in fact not the horrible country the Bush Administration has made the world think and two that we can in fact stil maintain our civility and Constitution in the face of these terrorist attacks.

Crazy huh?

Undeadlord

[pickel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undeadlord

The problem here cyphen is that some of these prisoners were not captured on the battlefield attacking the US. They were taken from homes, businesses, etc based on information that the military had that they were dangerous to the USA.

So I am in my house, the military busts in and takes me based on some info they have. Now I sit in a military prison based on info that may or may not be factual. I was not a combatant in the normal sense of the word. The "war" we are fighting against terrorists is changing and we need to be able to adapt with it. Don't you think it validates alot of the horrible things said about the US when we treat our, possibly innocent, prisoners like this?

Don't make silly slippery slope statements, like the one about consulting the courts about firing on combatants. Thats not what this is about. If everyone in Guantanamo was arrested on a battlefield firing weapons at our troops, then this wouldn't be necessary, but they weren't. We need to step up to the plate here, give these people their due process and punish or release them as needed.


Undeadlord

According to our Constitution, we are supposed to have the right to a "Speedy Trial ", Right ???
Why didn't they try these guys, railroad them, put them back in their cells and forget about ???
Now, we have The Supreme Court ruling and are stuck with it. In the words of Lou Dobbs

"IDIOTS !!"

This Administration never ceases to amaze me.

[MTAtech]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyphen

The Supreme Court has exceeded its jurisdiction, even according to its own precedent. A previous ruling, as i understand it, holds that US courts have no jurisdiction on prisoners held overseas, including by the military.

You are confusing precident with what you wanted to be precident. This was the SCOTUS ruling in 2004:

Quote:

The Supreme Court ruled today [June 28, 2004] in two cases regarding anti-terrorism legislation and the rights of prisoners and "enemy combatants." The court decided that suspected terrorists must be allowed access to the American justice system to contest their detention. Washington Post

[cyphen]

right... because our justice system is so often correct! People rarely get off on small details... never see THAT on the news. What this ruling did was extend constitutional protections to foreign enemies that don't even fight under a state regulated military.

Additionally, i'm referring to an older ruling, MTA... i don't recall what it is... i'll see if i can get more info on it... but it was in place prior to the War on Terror.

Also, this ruling stripped the military of one of its functions.

Undead - have any examples of people we've snatched out of homes and thrown in Gitmo? Do you have any doubt that all of these people are guilty? Would you like to see them be released so they can go kill again? Or go assist those who kill us? Because now any federal judge can do just that. I'm certain the ACLU will take any of their cases pro-bono, too.

[mad1]

On the radio this morning the 5 judges who voted for this are getting the title of , "Jihad 5".

[MTAtech]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyphen

Additionally, i'm referring to an older ruling, MTA... i don't recall what it is... i'll see if i can get more info on it... but it was in place prior to the War on Terror.

When you recall, you can post it. In the meantime, the first case on this issue was Rasul v. Bush, in November 2004, where the SCOTUS held that courts have jurisdiction over habeus corpus status for prisoners held in territories that are functionally part of the U.S.

Next, in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case, the SCOTUS ruled that courts have jurisdiction over these cases and further ruled that the a bill passed to strip the courts of jurisdiction was improper.

This is the third rebuff of the Administration's attack on the rule of law and is consistent with history. As far as courts having correct decisions, I have more faith in impartial civilian courts than I do in military tribunals where evidence can be excluded and the judges are subject to the chain of command.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyphen

Also, this ruling stripped the military of one of its functions.