http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?art ... 5420080612Supreme Court rules for Guantanamo prisoners
Thu Jun 12, 2008 7:55pm EDT
By James Vicini
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Guantanamo Bay prisoners can go before U.S. federal judges to challenge their years-long detention, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in a landmark decision that delivered another setback for President George W. Bush's war on terrorism.
By a 5-4 vote, the nation's highest court struck down the law Bush pushed through the Republican-led Congress in 2006 that took away the habeas corpus rights of the terrorism suspects to seek full judicial review of their detention.
"We'll abide by the court's decision. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it," Bush told a news conference in Rome, where he was on a weeklong European visit. "We'll study this opinion and we'll do so ... to determine whether or not additional legislation might be appropriate."
The Justice Department said trials underway at Guantanamo will continue despite the ruling expanding detainee rights.
"Military commission trials will ... continue to go forward," said Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr. He said the Supreme Court ruling involved the status of detainees held as enemy combatants during continuing hostilities, and not the trials themselves........................
That Darned Supreme Court!
-
jackspratt
- udonmap.com
- Posts: 17069
- Joined: July 2, 2006, 5:29 pm
That Darned Supreme Court!
-
rickfarang
- udonmap.com
- Posts: 2401
- Joined: January 1, 2006, 6:01 am
- Location: Udon Thani
Our Bill of Rights for enemy terrorist combatants!I am so happy for these martyrs ,I could just cry! 
-
jackspratt
- udonmap.com
- Posts: 17069
- Joined: July 2, 2006, 5:29 pm
"You will harvest what you sew"
Supreme Court Rules Guantanamo Detainees Have Constitutional Right To Challenge Detention
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.
The justices handed the Bush administration its third setback at the high court since 2004 over its treatment of prisoners who are being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The vote was 5-4, with the court's liberal justices 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 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 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.
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.
Obamas reaction:
Today's Supreme Court decision ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice, while also protecting our core values. The Court's decision is a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain. This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy. We cannot afford to lose any more valuable time in the fight against terrorism to a dangerously flawed legal approach. I voted against the Military Commissions Act because its sloppiness would inevitably lead to the Court, once again, rejecting the Administration's extreme legal position. The fact is, this Administration's position is not tough on terrorism, and it undermines the very values that we are fighting to defend. Bringing these detainees to justice is too important for us to rely on a flawed system that has failed to convict anyone of a terrorist act since the 9-11 attacks, and compromised our core values[/size].
Mc Cain reaction:
problem is "unlawful combatants"
The expression alone means that they are already convicted or guilty before being judged.
The very point of the whole habeas / due process exercise is that someone is not necessarily an "unlawful combatant" (whatever that means) just because the All-Powerful Executive declares him one. We don't KNOW if they're really "unlawful combatants" until there's been a determination by a neutral magistrate.
McCain’s Long History Of Opposing Habeas Corpus
Today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) criticized to the Supreme Court’s ruling granting Guantanamo Bay detainees the right to challenge their detention in civilian courts:
It obviously concerns me. These are unlawful combatants. They are not American citizens. We should pay attention to Justice Roberts. It is a decision the Supreme Court has made and now we need to move forward. As you know, I always favored the closing of Guantanamo Bay, and I still think we ought to do that.
McCain’s statement mirrored remarks by President Bush, who said, "I strongly agree with those who dissented."
problem is "unlawful combatants"
The expression alone means that they are already convicted or guilty before being judged.
The very point of the whole habeas / due process exercise is that someone is not necessarily an "unlawful combatant" (whatever that means) just because the All-Powerful Executive declares him one. We don't KNOW if they're really "unlawful combatants" until there's been a determination by a neutral magistrate.
last but not least:
Patrick Leahy from the Judiciary Committee:
It all comes to this:
The whole point of prisons at Guantanamo Bay was to create a space where the US federal government could operate without accountability, without justice. Legally, no government entity has that power. So far, Bush/Cheney and a majority of Congresspeople have pretended that they do. Same goes for four out of nine Supreme Court justices.
Patrick Leahy from the Judiciary Committee:
There is nothing more fundamental than the right of habeas corpus. In three separate decisions, the Supreme Court in recent years has rejected this administration’s erosion of fundamental rights. These protections set the United States apart from those who wish to harm us. This decision echoes earlier court opinions that have solidified our constitutional system of checks and balances. The administration has rolled back essential rights that have long guided our nation’s conscience.
Today’s Supreme Court decision in Boumediene v. Bush is a stinging rebuke of the Bush administration’s flawed detention policies, and a vindication for those who have also argued from the beginning that it was unwise as well as unconstitutional.
A majority of the Court has ruled that provisions in the 2006 Military Commissions Act designed to strip away all habeas rights for detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay detention center are unconstitutional. The Court has ruled that the Constitutional right to habeas corpus extends to territories, including Guantanamo Bay, where the United States exercises de facto control. The Court further held that the administration’s detention procedures were constitutionally inadequate, and that those detainees who have been determined to be "unlawful enemy combatants" are entitled to seek habeas relief in Federal court.
The Court’s 5-4 decision sustains the long-held and bipartisan beliefs that I and others have always maintained: Congress made a grave error when, for the first time in its history, it voted to strip habeas corpus rights, instead leaving in place hopelessly flawed procedures to determine whether detainees can be held indefinitely with no meaningful court review merely by the Executive’s decree.
It all comes to this:
The whole point of prisons at Guantanamo Bay was to create a space where the US federal government could operate without accountability, without justice. Legally, no government entity has that power. So far, Bush/Cheney and a majority of Congresspeople have pretended that they do. Same goes for four out of nine Supreme Court justices.
I would venture to say that ''unlawful combatants ''are persons taking military action against our miltary while not in the uniform of an opposing nation.I believe many of these unlawful combatants were put in from of a firing squad in past wars!
I am for wringing out all the information possible from them,then executing them!
I am for wringing out all the information possible from them,then executing them!
-
jackspratt
- udonmap.com
- Posts: 17069
- Joined: July 2, 2006, 5:29 pm
In the absence of a response am I to assume the US doesn't have these rights, or just that you do not support them?jackspratt wrote:Stan some of the bedrocks of the Australian legal system include the presumption of innocence, and the right to a fair trial.
Does the US legal system include these basic human rights?
I would venture to say that ''unlawful combatants ''are persons taking military action against our miltary while not in the uniform of an opposing nation.I believe many of these unlawful combatants were put in from of a firing squad in past wars!
I am for wringing out all the information possible from them,then executing them!
The full history of the Supreme Court decisions...
Will Bush ignore the Supreme Court decision AGAIN ????
Will Bush ignore the Supreme Court decision AGAIN ????
Andy Worthington
The Supreme Court's Guantanamo Ruling: What Does It Mean?
Those who cherish the United States' historical adherence to the rule of law -- myself included -- were delighted to hear that the US Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, in the case of Boumediene v. Bush (PDF), that the prisoners at Guantánamo "have the constitutional right to habeas corpus," enabling them to challenge the basis of their detention, under the terms of the 800-year old "Great Writ" of habeas corpus, which prohibits the suspension of prisoners' rights to challenge the basis of their detention except in "cases of rebellion or invasion."
That this decision was required at all was remarkable, as it was almost four years ago, on 29 June 2004, that the Supreme Court ruled, in the case of Rasul v. Bush, that Guantánamo -- chosen as a base for the prison because it was presumed to be beyond the reach of the US courts -- was "in every practical respect a United States territory," and that the prisoners therefore had habeas corpus rights, enabling the prisoners to challenge the basis of their detention.
The difference between then and now is that, in Rasul v.Bush, the Supreme Court ruled only that the prisoners had statutory habeas rights, and that, following the ruling, the executive responded in two ways that completely undermined the Supreme Court's verdict.
The first of these -- as lawyers began applying to visit prisoners to establish habeas cases -- was the establishment of Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs) at Guantánamo, which were set up, ostensibly, to review the prisoners' designation as "enemy combatants," who could be held without charge or trial. In reality, they were a lamentable replacement for a valid judicial challenge. Although the prisoners were allowed to present their own version of the events that led up to their capture, they were not allowed legal representation, and were subjected to secret evidence that they were unable to see or challenge.
Last June, Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham, a veteran of US intelligence, who worked on the CSRTs, delivered a damning verdict on their legitimacy, condemning them as the administrative equivalent of show trials, reliant upon generalized and often "generic" evidence, and designed to rubber-stamp the prisoners' prior designation as "enemy combatants." Filed as an affidavit in Al Odah v. United States, one of the cases consolidated with Boumediene, Lt. Col. Abraham's testimony was regarded, by legal experts, as the trigger that spurred the Supreme Court, which had rejected an appeal on behalf of the prisoners in April 2007, to reverse its decision and to agree to hear the cases. The reversal was so rare that it had last taken place 60 years before.
The executive's second response to Rasul was to remove the prisoners' statutory rights, persuading the third strand of the American power base -- the politicians in Congress -- to pass two hideously flawed pieces of legislation: the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, and the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
The Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), which originated as an anti-torture bill conceived by Senator John McCain, was hijacked by the executive, who managed to get an amendment passed that removed the prisoners' habeas rights, although the legislation was so shoddy that it was not entirely clear whether the prisoners had been stripped of their rights entirely, or whether pending cases would still be considered. What was clear, however, was that the DTA limited any review of the prisoners' cases to the DC Circuit Court (rather than the Supreme Court), preventing any independent fact-finding to challenge the substance of the administration's allegations, and mandating the judges to rule only on whether or not the CSRTs had followed their own rules, and whether or not those rules were valid.
In the fall of 2006, following a second momentous decision in the Supreme Court, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, in which the justices ruled that the proposed trials by Military Commission for those held at Guantánamo (which also relied on the use of secret evidence) were illegal under domestic and international law, the executive persuaded Congress to pass the Military Commissions Act (MCA), which reinstated the Military Commissions and also removed any lingering doubts about the prisoners' habeas rights, stating, explicitly, "No court, justice or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination." In a further attempt to stifle dissent, the MCA defined an "enemy combatant" as someone who has either engaged in or supported hostilities against the US, or "has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the secretary of defense."
The wheels of justice revolve so slowly that it has taken over a year and a half since the passing of the MCA for the Supreme Court to stamp its authority on the conceits of both the executive and Congress, and cynics can argue that all of this could have been avoided if the Supreme Court had insisted on the prisoners' Constitutional habeas rights in June 2004. Nevertheless, Thursday's ruling -- however belatedly -- comprehensively demolishes the habeas-stripping provisions of both the DTA and the MCA.
In no uncertain terms, Justice Anthony Kennedy, delivering the Court's majority opinion, ruled that the "procedures for review of the detainees' status" in the DTA "are not an adequate and effective substitute for habeas corpus," and that therefore the habeas-stripping component of the MCA "operates as an unconstitutional suspension of the writ." These judgments, which should soundly embarrass the nations' politicians, could hardly be more clear, and although it is uncertain how the administration will respond in its dying days, it seems unlikely that the executive will be able to prevent a slew of habeas cases, which have, effectively, been held in a kind of legal gridlock for years, from progressing to court.
The only other obvious recourse, which will also help the prisoners to escape from the intolerable legal limbo in which they have been held for up to six and a half years, is that the administration will suddenly develop a previously undreamt-of diplomatic dexterity, and will make arrangements for the release of a large number of the 273 remaining prisoners without having to endure the acute embarrassment of justifying, in a proper courtroom, the hearsay, the innuendo, the generic information masquerading as evidence, and the fruits of torture, coercion and bribery that it has used to imprison these men for so many years.
Since 9/11, sadly, justice in the US has moved so slowly that on occasion it has appeared to be dead, but Thursday's verdict is a resounding triumph for the importance of the law as a check on unfettered executive power and the caprice of politicians. As Justice Kennedy stated in his opinion, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times." He added, "To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this court, say 'what the law is,'" a quote from an 1803 ruling, in which the Supreme Court explained its right to review acts of Congress, which, of course, reinforces the supremacy of the separation of powers that lies at the heart of the United States Constitution.
-
jackspratt
- udonmap.com
- Posts: 17069
- Joined: July 2, 2006, 5:29 pm
