U.S. Supreme Court: Big blow for Bush policy on detainees

cat's meow · #1 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 03:18 PM

Seems the Supreme Court does not even back Bush/Cheney on this...

Quote:

Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees
In rebuke to administration, suspects may appeal in U.S. civilian courts

updated 1 hour ago
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.

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.

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

pjwky · #2 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 04:48 PM

If our Courts do not work, for God's sake fix them: but do not throw away the Constitution that makes America the Nation that is the Greatest Nation on the Earth & the one everyone wants to come to.

Apprehend, kill, destroy terrorist however we can: but do not throw away the Consititution while doing this. ...pjwky

TakuanSoho · #3 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjwky

If our Courts do not work, for God's sake fix them: but do not throw away the Constitution that makes America the Nation that is the Greatest Nation on the Earth & the one everyone wants to come to.

Apprehend, kill, destroy terrorist however we can: but do not throw away the Consititution while doing this. ...pjwky

We didn't throw away the Constitution. As terrorists, they are not covered by the Constitution. US Citizens are, legal immigrants or visitors are, enemy combatants are, but these people are not. I disagree with the USSC on this issue as well.

The problem with giving them civil status, is that we will end up having to release terrorists rather than compromise our intelligence assets. This happened during the cold war when we let known nuclear spies leave the country because we didn't want to expose Verona.

cat's meow · #4 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

We didn't throw away the Constitution. As terrorists, they are not covered by the Constitution. US Citizens are, legal immigrants or visitors are, enemy combatants are, but these people are not. I disagree with the USSC on this issue as well.

The problem with giving them civil status, is that we will end up having to release terrorists rather than compromise our intelligence assets. This happened during the cold war when we let known nuclear spies leave the country because we didn't want to expose Verona.

I trust the Supreme Court more than you about the Constitution. Sorry pal, the swing vote (who is more on the 'constructionist' side, Kennedy) saw this as an assault on the Constitution.

smart makes a comeback · #5 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cat's meow

Seems the Supreme Court does not even back Bush/Cheney on this...

America stays America by a vote of 5-4

This alone, should tell everone who cares anything about what America stands for, that we need a democrat in the white house for no less then the next 16 years

By then, Scalia will die of hate, and by extension, Thomas will kill himself rather then go on without his puppet master.

ianastburyilove · #6 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 10:06 AM

The suck up to terrorists because they can. They have already destroyed women.

cedenot · #7 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cat's meow

I trust the Supreme Court more than you about the Constitution. Sorry pal, the swing vote (who is more on the 'constructionist' side, Kennedy) saw this as an assault on the Constitution.

YES! The tide has turned. Even Cat's Meow now believes the Supreme Court was upholding the constitution in the 2000 election decision.

wow · #8 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

We didn't throw away the Constitution. As terrorists, they are not covered by the Constitution. US Citizens are, legal immigrants or visitors are, enemy combatants are, but these people are not. I disagree with the USSC on this issue as well.

The problem with giving them civil status, is that we will end up having to release terrorists rather than compromise our intelligence assets. This happened during the cold war when we let known nuclear spies leave the country because we didn't want to expose Verona.

I heard an Iraqi war Vet comment "We will be serving justice on the battlefield, there will be a spike in the demand for body bags"

This is almost a word for word quote from the Mark Levin talk show.

Amazed · #9 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 10:14 AM

No, this a blow to National Sovereignty. We will now give Non-Citizens detained in a time of War access to Civilian Courts, and end up paying for not only their Court Costs, but their Legal Rep too. Sad day for America.

toxic · #10 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 10:38 AM

If you morons had listened to the Oral Arguments on CSPAN, perhaps you'd understand the decision:
- no war is declared,
- founders didn't intend for anyone to be held indifinitely without charges by Presidential/Executive Order,
- there were many precedents for providing Writ to prisoners (even at sea),
- this travesty of justice has gone on for 6 years,
- Gitmo is under sovergn control of the USA (so our laws apply),
- the Bush Admin has made no effort to have trials or charge detainees,
- the Bush Admin POW/Combatant status continues to change,
- the Bush Admin has acted to block the intent of the last 2 USSC decisions,
- for German citizen who was charged due to Chancallor Merkles insistance was found NOT GUILTY, as claimed terrorist associate was neither a terrorist and had not died in a sucicide bombing, but was alive and living in Dresden Germany,

The last item proves that the Bush Government has no fucking evidence, nor has it even investigated the charges, but just claims it is all CLASSIFIED INFO.

FUCK BUSH - IMPEACH BUSH - EXECUTE BUSH FOR WAR CRIMES- AND SAVE AMERICA