Supreme Court 5-4

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,471
139
63
Bowling Green Ky
Court says detainees have rights, bucking Bush


Jun 12, 6:22 PM (ET)

By MARK SHERMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) - In a stinging rebuke to President Bush's anti-terror policies, a deeply divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign detainees held for years at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have the right to appeal to U.S. civilian courts to challenge their indefinite imprisonment without charges.

Bush said he strongly disagreed with the decision - the third time the court has repudiated him on the detainees - and suggested he might seek yet another law to keep terror suspects locked up at the prison camp, even as his presidency winds down.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the 5-4 high court majority, acknowledged the terrorism threat the U.S. faces - the administration's justification for the detentions - but he declared, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

In a blistering dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Bush has argued the detentions are needed to protect the nation in a time of unprecedented threats from al-Qaida and other foreign terrorist groups. The president, in Rome, said Thursday, "It was a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented." He said he would consider whether to seek new laws in light of the ruling "so we can safely say to the American people, 'We're doing everything we can to protect you.'"

Kennedy said federal judges could ultimately order some detainees to be released, but he also said such orders would depend on security concerns and other circumstances. The ruling itself won't result in any immediate releases.

The decision also cast doubt on the future of the military war crimes trials that 19 detainees, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other alleged Sept. 11 plotters, are facing so far. The Pentagon has said it plans to try as many as 80 men held at Guantanamo.

Lawyers for detainees differed over whether the ruling, unlike the first two, would lead to prompt hearings for those who have not been charged. Roughly 270 men remain at the prison at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. Most are classed as enemy combatants and held on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaida and the Taliban.

Some detainee lawyers said hearings could take place within a few months. But James Cohen, a Fordham University law professor who has two clients at Guantanamo, predicted Bush would continue seeking ways to resist the ruling. "Nothing is going to happen between June 12 and Jan. 20," when the next president takes office, Cohen said.

Roughly 200 detainees have lawsuits on hold in federal court in Washington. Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth said he would call a special meeting of federal judges to address how to handle the cases.

Detainees already facing trial are in a different category.

Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr said Thursday's decision should not affect war crimes trials. "Military commission trials will therefore continue to go forward," Carr said.

The lawyer for Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's one-time driver, said he will seek dismissal of the charges against Hamdan based on the new ruling. A military judge had already delayed the trial's start to await the high court ruling.

It was unclear whether a hearing at Guantanamo for Canadian Omar Khadr, charged with killing a U.S. Special Forces soldier in Afghanistan, would go forward next week as planned.

Charles Swift, the former Navy lawyer who used to represent Hamdan, said he believes the court removed any legal basis for keeping the Guantanamo facility open and that the military tribunals are "doomed."

Guantanamo generally and the tribunals were conceived on the idea that "constitutional protections wouldn't apply," Swift said. "The court said the Constitution applies. They're in big trouble."

Human rights groups and many Democratic members of Congress celebrated the ruling as affirming the nation's commitment to the rule of law. Several Republican lawmakers called it a decision that put foreign terrorists' rights above the safety of the American people.

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 prison has been harshly criticized at home and abroad for the detentions themselves and the aggressive interrogations that were conducted there.

At its heart, the 70-page ruling says that the detainees have the same rights as anyone else in custody in the United States to contest their detention before a judge. Kennedy also said the system the administration has put in place to classify detainees as enemy combatants and review those decisions is not an adequate substitute for the right to go before a civilian judge.

The administration had argued first that the detainees have no rights. But it also contended that the classification and review process was sufficient.

Chief Justice John Roberts, in his own dissent to Thursday's ruling, criticized the majority 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 and Clarence Thomas also dissented.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens - the court's more liberal members - 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."

Scalia, citing a report by Senate Republicans, said at least 30 prisoners have returned to the battlefield following their release from Guantanamo.

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 petitions 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."

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.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
dogs...i`m just as disappointed as i`m sure you are...i was thinking about this this morning as i watched the news...


i had a feeling this was gonna happen eventually...given the fact that it`s looking very likely that we`ll have a democrat president and congress in november....and probably even more liberal supreme court appointments...

they call this a conservative supreme court?...unh unh....:nooo:

this is a prime example of moonbat judicial activism...they`re making it up as they go along...the supreme court said,the last time this came up,that the congress and the president should come to an agreement on how to handle this issue.....they did,military tribunals.......and the supreme court reneged....

going against all precedent...this is brand new,made up stuff...

one good thing..these aclu types will be able to shop around for sympathetic judges,so,most of these trials will probably take place in seattle or san francisco... that`s where they belong...they`ll have to let them loose in the streets up there,`cause,most of these monster`s countries won`t take them back...

the bad thing.... is that many of these jihadis will be let loose and kill more of our soldiers....and maybe civilians... ....like the 30 that they`ve already killed or recaptured....

i don`t even know how this will work...giving them "habeas corpus"?...does that mean that they`ll have to drag the soldier that captured the terrorist off the battlefield so this miserable p.o.s. can face his accuser?....

"sorry for your arrest, mr. terrorist, but the military didn't read and make sure you understand your miranda warnings in pashtun, ....you get to go free."


it`s gonna get much,much worse before america comes to it`s senses...
 

The Judge

Pura Vida!
Forum Member
Aug 5, 2004
4,909
29
0
SJO
Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign detainees held for years at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have the right to appeal to U.S. civilian courts to challenge their indefinite imprisonment without charges.
I usually land on the other side of this issue but please tell me what is so wrong with this ruling? Why should any government have the right to INDEFINITELY keep an individual in prison without giving them a chance to challenge the reason behing their imprisonment? If these are such bad guys, why have they not been charged?
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
I usually land on the other side of this issue but please tell me what is so wrong with this ruling? Why should any government have the right to INDEFINITELY keep an individual in prison without giving them a chance to challenge the reason behing their imprisonment? If these are such bad guys, why have they not been charged?

they have hearings and appeal rights...congress and the presidennt agreed on military tribunals and there are appeal protections built in....

why do people who are captured while trying to kill american troops on the battlefield deserve a civil trial? ...they aren`t recognizing any geneva conventions.....

matter of fact,the majority of these people were purposefully violating the geneva convention mandate of "uniformed military".....

did the japanese get civil trials?...the germans?..they actually wore uniforms(except for the ones they caught infiltrating...and btw,most of them were executed)...


based on this alone, many of the gitmo detainees could have been summarily executed by order of the ranking american commander on scene at time of capture....

this isn`t constitutional...the supremes are setting precedent...making it up...

think about it..how amazing is it that military tribunals are good enough for our servicemen but not for those who murder and main innocent civilians by design.....

little by little....inch by inch....this brings the clock down from 7 to 6 on the countdown until our next big homeland terrorist attack.....

thank you,supremes..
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
whatever... we`re waaaayyyy overdue for another wake-up call...

i just hope that they point the planes in the direction of some aclu offices this time...

/that was harsh...

/i know...
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
The Judge, These guys are prisoners of war. You either release them. Have prisoner exchange. Or Shoot them. But in a undeclared war they may just go poof!. Problem being we sat on them to long. In general they don't charge them un-less you have specfic thing you say they did. Just killing your men is about war so they won't do that. if you can tie them into planing of 9/11 or some thing like that. You could charge them and have mlitary trial. Bush seems to keep moving the mark and thats problem along with dagging it out so long. The court giving them a chance for appeal. I guess shows our country has compassion and laws to follow. As for this court over all. It's sucked now for about 8/9 years.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
wheres my friend the counselor?......probably on an early morning bender after receiving this great news...

who`da thunk that terrorism would turn out to be just another welfare program for lawyers?.....lol

most likely their homeland doesn`t want these monsters...maybe they won't be leaving the u.s...

so,they`ll probably end up suing the government for wrongful imprisonment and civil rights violations.......

another brilliant manuever from the bar and their liberal enablers...

well done,edward...:thumb:





May they be blessed with ill health and infested with parasites for the rest of their days.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Suing the Gov?? Maybe if we would get our butts in gear. We would never had this problem in WW II/Korea or Nam. You deal with them you don't sit on them. We have so many people in this adminastration with chit for brains.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,471
139
63
Bowling Green Ky
Bottom line is you had 5 justices(unimous among liberals)--trump 4 justices ,congress and the president.

Now you can argue how you want to "interpret" the constitution all day long-liberally or conservatively

The only obvious undisputable results is same once again

Has conservative base and defenders of our country (miltary):nooo:

-and our liberal entities and the terrorists :00hour

--any disagreement????????????
 

WhatsHisNuts

Woke
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2006
27,959
1,238
113
50
Earth
www.ffrf.org
I know the Constitution is Bush's (and therfore your) enemy, but the only thing that should surprise you is that it was a close vote and not unanimous.
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
I know the Constitution is Bush's (and therfore your) enemy, but the only thing that should surprise you is that it was a close vote and not unanimous.

each candidate took opposing views on this decision so it will an issue during the election....
 

IntenseOperator

DeweyOxburger
Forum Member
Sep 16, 2003
17,897
63
0
Chicago
I don't think other countries (China, Saudi's, or even Mehico) have these hang ups with held combatants during war time or not.
 

IntenseOperator

DeweyOxburger
Forum Member
Sep 16, 2003
17,897
63
0
Chicago
why do people who are captured while trying to kill american troops on the battlefield deserve a civil trial? ...they aren`t recognizing any geneva conventions.....

matter of fact,the majority of these people were purposefully violating the geneva convention mandate of "uniformed military".....

did the japanese get civil trials?...the germans?..they actually wore uniforms(except for the ones they caught infiltrating...and btw,most of them were executed)...


based on this alone, many of the gitmo detainees could have been summarily executed by order of the ranking american commander on scene at time of capture....


Definitely

In the future, they (Feds and military) will handle this in a different manner. Holding them on a ship out at sea, in other countries (I think they are doing this already), or maybe some tiny island, if not killing them on the spot.
 

WhatsHisNuts

Woke
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2006
27,959
1,238
113
50
Earth
www.ffrf.org
I don't think other countries (China, Saudi's, or even Mehico) have these hang ups with held combatants during war time or not.

Prisoners of War and people you think might be your enemy are different cases. If they have evidence, it shouldn't be a problem detaining someone. Bush has circumvented the Constitution by detaining people without evidence.

By the way, just so we're clear on my views on this stuff: I think we should be able to jail anyone that has done harm or has plotted to do harm against this country and I also believe we should be able to profile at the airports.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
Prisoners of War and people you think might be your enemy are different cases.* If they have evidence, it shouldn't be a problem detaining someone.* Bush has circumvented the Constitution by detaining people without evidence.* By the way, just so we're clear on my views on this stuff:* I think we should be able to jail anyone that has done harm or has plotted to do harm against this country and I also believe we should be able to profile at the airports.
Very good explanation. I think that sums up my opinion and I would guess most of America. The problem is that Bush and his followers are trying to say it's either black or white. When everyone knows that it isn't.
 

IntenseOperator

DeweyOxburger
Forum Member
Sep 16, 2003
17,897
63
0
Chicago
Very good explanation. I think that sums up my opinion and I would guess most of America. The problem is that Bush and his followers are trying to say it's either black or white. When everyone knows that it isn't.

It's got nothing to do with Bush or any "Bush followers.

Your blind as hell if you don't ever think EVERY fuking president this country has had, ESPECIALLY in time of war, not taken liberties with the rules. They all have. All that must be taken in context of the then conditions, whether it was WWII, the Cold War, or puke ass terrorists they don't play by the rules and not under ANY FLAG.

Keep banging your same drum post after post after post with the same small picture view.
 

WhatsHisNuts

Woke
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2006
27,959
1,238
113
50
Earth
www.ffrf.org
It's got nothing to do with Bush or any "Bush followers.

Your blind as hell if you don't ever think EVERY fuking president this country has had, ESPECIALLY in time of war, not taken liberties with the rules. They all have. All that must be taken in context of the then conditions, whether it was WWII, the Cold War, or puke ass terrorists they don't play by the rules and not under ANY FLAG.

Keep banging your same drum post after post after post with the same small picture view.

This guy just does whatever the eff he wants and it needs to stop. You can defend his actions all you want and say every other president has done the same thing, but I'm telling you it's wrong. I don't like living under a fascist regime, but if it's cool with you, so be it.
 

IntenseOperator

DeweyOxburger
Forum Member
Sep 16, 2003
17,897
63
0
Chicago
again

reading is a skill

I not defending ANYBODY. Please don't think I ever want to take away your favorite whipping boy. Knock your effing socks off. But just don't kid yourselves or anybody else as to many actions taken by our (or ANY) government.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top