New Supreme Court Ruling: Gitmo Detainees Have Constitutional Rights

[2322]

This is a huge loss for the Bush White House and further undermines the legitimacy of the so-called Patriot Act. This is one of the reasons why appointing a very conservative court doesn't always work for neocons. Our constitution is not based upon the principles of fascism so alarmingly embraced by the neocons and conservative court members will stick to the letter of the law whether the neocons like it or not.

Hoisted by their own petard:

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 in Washington 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 decision also cast doubt on the future of the military war crimes trials that 19 detainees are facing so far. The Pentagon has said it plans to try as many as 80 men held at Guantanamo.- AP

 

[Industrialsize]

Score one for Democracy.........what has been going on at Gitmo is a National Shame

 

[lucky8]

Only 80 men? Shouldn't they be trying all 270? Bush is so lucky Cheney is his back-up...

 

[dong20]

Score one for Democracy.........what has been going on at Gitmo is a National Shame

I'm not sure it's score one for democracy, (unless you meant democracy on the bench?), but I agree with the sentiment, it's a long overdue ruling, though (sadly) a marginal one.

I noticed the 'possibility' of ordering release for some, though I wonder if this ruling will actually change very much for most prisoners, in the immediate future anyway. One in the eye for the Bush whitehouse, though.

 

[HazelGod]

Bush is so lucky Cheney is his back-up...

Don't kid yourself for a moment into believing luck played any role in it.

While it's true this ruling is something of a defeat for the positions long held by GWB and his conspirators, I prefer to think of it as a win for our nation and its citizens.

I agree with the sentiment, it's a long overdue ruling, though (sadly) a marginal one.

True, but any public, official, and final castigation of this administration is more than welcome.

 

[midlifebear]

Just caught news of this on the BBC. They had a great sound bite of Judge Scalia ranting that 'Mericuh would rue the day this decision was made. And how many of us rue the day(s) that Scalia and the "astute" Thomas were appointed to the club of nine?

 

[DC_DEEP]

This is a huge loss for the Bush White House and further undermines the legitimacy of the so-called Patriot Act. This is one of the reasons why appointing a very conservative court doesn't always work for neocons. Our constitution is not based upon the principles of fascism so alarmingly embraced by the neocons and conservative court members will stick to the letter of the law whether the neocons like it or not.

Hoisted by their own petard:

Actually, jason, it was the neocon appointees who wrote the dissenting opinion. They were just (barely) outnumbered by moderate judges who choose law over alarm. I believe the 4 dissenting justices were Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito - the ones you can usually count on to vote along party lines, rather than along Constitutional lines.

Just caught news of this on the BBC. They had a great sound bite of Judge Scalia ranting that 'Mericuh would rue the day this decision was made. And how many of us rue the day(s) that Scalia and the "astute" Thomas were appointed to the club of nine?

It is frightening that the scalia scumbag consistently asserts that everyone, regardless of citizenship, is accountable to US law, but not even US citizens are afforded constitutional protections. He should be impeached; he should have been impeached years ago. His political ties and allegiances to cheney prove that he is unworthy of the bench.

 

[WifeOfBath]

Thank fucking God. It's about time-- though I don't know if it's enough.

 

[tripod]

The right wing is shocked and would like to have Kennedy's head on a platter.

 

[Bbucko]

My biggest question: What took so long?

 

[deleted15807]

Actually, jason, it was the neocon appointees who wrote the dissenting opinion. They were just (barely) outnumbered by moderate judges who choose law over alarm. I believe the 4 dissenting justices were Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito - the ones you can usually count on to vote along party lines, rather than along Constitutional lines.

It is frightening that the scalia scumbag consistently asserts that everyone, regardless of citizenship, is accountable to US law, but not even US citizens are afforded constitutional protections. He should be impeached; he should have been impeached years ago. His political ties and allegiances to cheney prove that he is unworthy of the bench.

Another 5-4 ruling with Kennedy being the deciding vote. Let this be a warning that so much more than just the presidency is at stake come November. If McCain is elected he will most certainly stack the court with neos and the nation will be catapulted BACKWARDS in time. You will see no more 5-4 rulings. Scumbag Scalia and his kind will rule the court for another 20-25 years.

 

[lucky8]

Don't kid yourself for a moment into believing luck played any role in it.

Lol, yea, I guess I should have just flat out said "assassination insurance"

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

I very much approve of this ruling. If the U.S. legal system works, we shouldn't have to set up kangaroo courts to convict.

The fact that there have been nearly 1,000 people detained (only Gitmo, not domestic or international detainees) over the years and we are only bringing 80 or less to trial shows there is something very wrong with the system in place. At best, that will literally be a <10% conviction rate of accused. *shakes head*

Now what happens when some of the people who were innocent return home, or wherever someone will take them, having years robbed from their lives, tortured, and suffering from the after affects of this ordeal?

 

[2322]

The Republicans are furious! Senator Graham (thank you South Carolina for yet again sending a fascist to the Senate) wants to amend the constitution to eliminate habeus corpus:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) vowed Thursday to do everything in his power to overturn the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision on Guantanamo Bay detainees, saying that, &#8220;if necessary,&#8221; he would push for a constitutional amendment to modify the decision.

A former military prosecutor, Graham blasted the decision as &#8220;irresponsible and outrageous,&#8221; echoing the sentiments of many congressional Republicans and President Bush.

Earlier in the day, the court ruled 5-4 that suspected terrorists held by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay have the right to challenge their detention in federal court.

When talking to reporters Thursday afternoon, Graham cautioned that it he was still digesting the decision but said he was &#8220;looking at every way I can to modify this position,&#8221; including fighting to change the statute.

&#8220;The American people are going to wake up tomorrow and be shocked to hear that a member of Al Qaeda has the same constitutional rights as an American citizen,&#8221; said Graham.

&#8220;[Even] the Nazis never had that right.&#8221;

Speaking to reporters in Italy, President Bush also said he disagreed with the court&#8217;s ruling, but said he would respect it.

&#8220;We'll abide by the Court's decision,&#8221; said Bush. &#8220;That doesn't mean I have to agree with it. It's a deeply divided Court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented, and their dissent was based upon their serious concerns about U.S. national security.&#8221;

Bush said he would study the opinion and &#8220;determine whether or not additional legislation might be appropriate&#8221; in order to protect the American people.

Other prominent Republicans weighed in as well, with nearly all criticizing the decision.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) accused the court of "moving the goal posts on what the constitution requires" by changing the existing law regarding the rights of detainees.

"It is up to us now to try and come back and address the court's concerns," said Cornyn, who said the decision should prompt Congress to review the Military Commission Act and possibly the Detainee Treatment Act.

That might be a tall order for Senate Republicans, as Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said earlier in the day he sees no need to revisit the two laws in light of the court's decision.

Other Republicans focused on what the decision might mean for troops on the battlefield.

&#8220;This decision will come at a cost,&#8221; said Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee.

&#8220;The Supreme Court just moved us closer to the day when U.S. Marine rifle teams will have to have lawyers read Miranda rights to terrorists captured on the battlefield.&#8221;- The Crypt

 

[DC_DEEP]

Another 5-4 ruling with Kennedy being the deciding vote. Let this be a warning that so much more than just the presidency is at stake come November. If McCain is elected he will most certainly stack the court with neos and the nation will be catapulted BACKWARDS in time. You will see no more 5-4 rulings. Scumbag Scalia and his kind will rule the court for another 20-25 years.

I'm glad someone besides me actually sees what the real power of the presidency is... not within the office itself, but within presidential appointees. And those are many. And some are for life.

I very much approve of this ruling. If the U.S. legal system works, we shouldn't have to set up kangaroo courts to convict.

The fact that there have been nearly 1,000 people detained (only Gitmo, not domestic or international detainees) over the years and we are only bringing 80 or less to trial shows there is something very wrong with the system in place. At best, that will literally be a <10% conviction rate of accused. *shakes head*

Now what happens when some of the people who were innocent return home, or wherever someone will take them, having years robbed from their lives, tortured, and suffering from the after affects of this ordeal?

You think there will be any tooth in the ruling? You think the court will say "charge 'em and try 'em, or release 'em!"???

There will be no consequences for the gross disregard for, and violation of, the law by this administration.

And no consequences means no deterrent, right? They will keep on with the status quo, until someone actually is held accountable and damages are awarded.

 

[hrdsmooth1]

For those interested, the full text of the opinion can be found at http://supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1195.pdf and the Scalia dissent begins at page 110 of the 134 page opinion. Scalia comes off as hysterical (not the funny kind). He has cited, among others, the Washington Post as authority for some of his "description of the disastrous consequences" of the majority decision. So much for legal cites. He is obviously displeased that the Bush White House has taken a third punch to the gut on its reading of the Constitution. Perhaps he should "just get over it."

 

[2322]

Another 5-4 ruling with Kennedy being the deciding vote. Let this be a warning that so much more than just the presidency is at stake come November. If McCain is elected he will most certainly stack the court with neos and the nation will be catapulted BACKWARDS in time. You will see no more 5-4 rulings. Scumbag Scalia and his kind will rule the court for another 20-25 years.

I'm shocked they ruled against it because that's not a truly conservative interpretation. My mistake. Scalia is a tool and Thomas is no better. I'm sure I'll come to hate Alito as much in good time. Let's hope Stephens can make it until January. I am so sorry O'Connor left the court when she did. She made a great moderate.

 

[2322]

For those interested, the full text of the opinion can be found at http://supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1195.pdf and the Scalia dissent begins at page 110 of the 134 page opinion. Scalia comes off as hysterical (not the funny kind). He has cited, among others, the Washington Post as authority for some of his "description of the disastrous consequences" of the majority decision. So much for legal cites. He is obviously displeased that the Bush White House has taken a third punch to the gut on its reading of the Constitution. Perhaps he should "just get over it."

Gee... let's hope it doesn't give him a coronary :mischievous:.

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

You think there will be any tooth in the ruling? You think the court will say "charge 'em and try 'em, or release 'em!"???

There will be no consequences for the gross disregard for, and violation of, the law by this administration.

And no consequences means no deterrent, right? They will keep on with the status quo, until someone actually is held accountable and damages are awarded.

No, for this administration it is definitely a paper tiger. There just isn't a respect for the law, or rather, the executive office is believed to set laws and standards - very Hobbesian. However, I do see the benefit in this ruling. While not a righting of the ship in terms of checks and balances, and a stance taken far too late, I welcome the ruling and the apparent return of some good sense.

 

[Notaguru2]

The hits keep coming don't they? Is it November yet?