You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
Supreme Court: Gitmo terrorists can challenge detention in civil courts
2008-06-12
The Supreme Court says foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

The justices, in a 5-4 ruling Thursday, 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.

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.
More from the AP:
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."
But it covers America and Americans, sir, not enemy combatants.
It was not immediately clear whether this ruling, unlike the first two, would lead to prompt hearings for the detainees, some who 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 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."
Correct, and it's going to discourage future administrations from taking and keeping dangerous enemy combatants. We'll keep them in places like Balad and Bagram, and we won't tell a soul -- will that make the Court happy?
Posted by:Sherry

#30  Deac what changed is five very very activist judges on the bench who believe the courts knwo whats best rahter than the considered joint effort of the representatives of the people (the COngress who passed the law), and the elected executive and all his staff who anaysed the law (The President).

Its judges like Stevens and Ginsberg who beleive that Judges can and should make law from the bench, without regard to the will of the people.

By them striking the law down, and returning it to disctrict court, these unelected judges have arrogated to themselves the right to conduct foreign policy and military affairs.

That's who.

These clowns in DC (Congress, Presidnet and worse, the Judges) are asking for an armed insurrection for We The People to regain what is ours.
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-06-12 23:37  

#29  I really don't see the difference between these Prisoners of War and the German, Italian, and Japanese Prisoners of War during WWII, with the exception that they do not fit the deffinition of uniformed combatants. The WWII prisoners were not granted Habeous Corpus. What has changed?
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2008-06-12 22:40  

#28  The simplest work-around, other than shooting them (which we don't want to do, as much as we want to do it) is to hold them in cooperation with another country.

Interestingly, in that NPR discussion another case the Supreme Court just decided was also raised. Apparently, a couple of American civilians were picked up in Iraq by U.S. troops for breaking local laws, then turned over to the Iraqi justice system. The Amis wanted to be tried by American courts under American law and subject to American rights. The SC justices decided (and not a 5-4 decision, either) that those abroad breaking local laws were beyond the reach of American courts, and left them to survive Iraqi justice as best they can, the poor dears.
Posted by: trailing wife   2008-06-12 22:40  

#27  In actuality, this means exactly as Steve WHite said: turn them over to locals for incarceration and interrogation. And their imprisonment camps and interrogation methods will be quite different from ours - some may not survive incarceration with appendages intact.

I sill beleive that handing them over on the spot to locals and letting the LOCALS execute them (just a few) as justified by the Geneva Convention, and publicising the hell out of it might be the very best thing we can do to get Congress to write a proper law that these black robed potentates ruling from the Bench will not be able to eliminate.

One thing the courts allegedly used in order to determine whether this was US territory and thus applicable for Habeus Corpus, was that the MILITARY does NOT pay OCONUS for sailors and troops stationed there - they get pay and allowances the same as state-side, so it is treated as a CONUS assignment.

Some pentagon cheap bastard that changed the designation from CONUS, in order to cut costs, unknowingly gave the liberals on the court the leverage they needed to screw the military.


Posted by: OldSpook   2008-06-12 22:25  

#26  That's different. Valerie is with the 'in-crowd'.
Posted by: Pappy   2008-06-12 21:43  

#25  INRE: "P.S. to the CIA: change the f'ing tail numbers before you move these guys, 'k?"

It's funny how the New York Times, et al., could get all worked up about Valerie Plame when they tend to burn entire operations on their own front page.
Posted by: eLarson   2008-06-12 21:14  

#24  What if the home country doesn't want him back, or wherever he was found doesn't want him there?

Don't worry - I'm sure the Supreme Court Justices who voted for this will take them in - no problem.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2008-06-12 18:11  

#23  The simplest work-around, other than shooting them (which we don't want to do, as much as we want to do it) is to hold them in cooperation with another country.

That means if we grab them in Afghanistan, we hold them in Bagram. Karzai is reasonable enough so we can do that. If we grab them in [cough] Pakiwakiland [cough] they go to Bagram. If we grab them in Iraq they go to a prison there.

And the USSC won't touch that one, because one of the premises of the ruling today is that we control Gitmo completely. We sure don't control Bagram or Balad in that way, so as long as our allies will cooperate, we have a solution.

Easiest thing to do right now is empty Gitmo. We're never going to get to try the monsters, so ship 'em to Balad and Bagram and Diego Garcia and Ice Station Zebra. Out of 'site', out of mind, and good luck to the legal-eagles if they can figure out where we stashed the mooks.

P.S. to the CIA: change the f'ing tail numbers before you move these guys, 'k?
Posted by: Steve White   2008-06-12 17:04  

#22  as I hear it, it's a bad precedent, but don't slash your wrists. Habeus Corpus challenges the gov'ts right to hold you. These mooks will not be released will-nilly (except for a few wacky Donk-appointed judge's rulings).

Better to not take live prisoners. I guarantee the field execution (lawful by the GC) will focus the remaining field detainees to cooperating, mooting the need to imprison and feed these parasites. Bleed them of info and shoot em on site
Posted by: Frank G   2008-06-12 16:22  

#21  Interesting discussion on NPR on this subject a few hours ago: suppose a Guantanamo Bay case goes to a U.S. federal court, and the court rules that based on the evidence the individual really is as bad as the Army contends... or for that matter, what if the court rules he is innocent enough? Habeus corpus has been satisfied, a judgement rendered. If bad, how long would he then be imprisoned, and where? If innocent enough would the person be returned to where he was picked up? To his home country? What if the home country doesn't want him back, or wherever he was found doesn't want him there? After all, there already are a number of men in Guantanamo that the Army would like to release, but whose home countries refuse to take them back, as does the rest of the world. Apparently the Supreme Court ruling does not address these interesting little issues.

Oh, and given that the entire American court system, state and federal, is already badly overloaded, how long would it be before these several hundred cases could be shoehorned into the schedule?
Posted by: trailing wife    2008-06-12 15:37  

#20  next:

the ACLU, the UN, the World Court, the Southern poverty Law Center, and the Supremes will Outlaw WAR and Outlaw the Defense Department and Abolish the Services.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I wish I could find the thread from about 2 or 3 months ago when it was anounced that the Supremes were going to rule on this.
Posted by: RD   2008-06-12 14:49  

#19  Absolute truth is defined as a 5-4 decision in the Supreme Court.
Posted by: Gluter Turkeyneck3942   2008-06-12 14:24  

#18  He was talking about capitalists, but Lenin was right. We will sell somebody the rope.
Posted by: tu3031   2008-06-12 13:18  

#17  It's already started! According to Macsmind.com

Lawyer for Osama bin LadenÂ’s ex-driver to seek dismissal of charges at Guantanamo!
Posted by: Sherry   2008-06-12 12:55  

#16  The obvious solution has already been detailed above, per the Geneva Convention: immediate execution. Gunshot to the back of the head should be sufficient.
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-06-12 12:37  

#15  For an alternative view, Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy testified to the US Senate last year. He notes that the right of habeas corpus (which is what the jokers at Gitmo claim they have) must be extended to all territories controlled by the US, and cites how this has evolved. He also predicted today's verdict based on his reads of the various justices.

I'm not a lawyer, but Mr. Kerr does write clearly, so if you want the other side, this is where to start. Key points --

-- Gitmo is under our complete control
-- habeas corpus must be offered to all people in our territories
-- can only be suspended by Congress, and such suspension must be specific
-- the Detainee Treatment Act (what Congress passed to get around all this) doesn't specifically deny habeas corpus and doesn't offer a proper substitute, so it's unconstitutional

Practically speaking, the issue is remanded back to the District Court in DC, so there will be additional months, if not years, of legal wrangling. By January 2009 we'll have elected a president that wants to close Gitmo, so the whole issue could be moot.

But the USSC makes clear that if we fully control a territory, habeas corpus is and must be allowed. The solution for a future president is obvious: house your prisoners elsewhere.

Or don't take any. There's an unintended consequence that should chill all of us.
Posted by: Steve White   2008-06-12 12:34  

#14  or a burqa.
Posted by: JohnQC   2008-06-12 12:34  

#13  Clearly, we are now required to deploy seasoned lawyers to front-line units.

I volunteer the Supreme Court majority.

I'm sure Ruth Bader Ginsburg would look fetching in digital cammo.
Posted by: Mitch H.   2008-06-12 12:14  

#12  Judge Wapner just rolled over in his grave

When smart people make bad decisions usually they suffer the consequences... in this case all Americans do.

The law suits for compensation for illegal arrest should start rolling in by Noon tomorrow; submitted by hungover liberal lawyers from the ACLU - Arab Civil Liberty Union
Posted by: airandee   2008-06-12 12:03  

#11  Incredible. Five more people on the list.
Posted by: Hellfish   2008-06-12 11:55  

#10  There's a hoary old legal chestnut about how "The Constitution is not a suicide pact". Five of our justices have forgotten that.

I'll have to read the majority opinion. Perhaps they're on to something I've missed. But right now, it seems that they're extending the protection of the Constitution to a group of people who --

-- are not US citizens or residents
-- do not live in the US
-- are open enemies of the US
-- were captured in battle
-- reject our Constitution
-- reject everything we stand for
-- want us dead.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact. We're going to have to remind our fellow citizens of that, because the USSC has forgotten.
Posted by: Steve White   2008-06-12 11:45  

#9  I read where a 17-year-old in Texas phoned his rival high school on a school bus and threatened to open fire on students has been sentenced to eight years in state prison. I don't disagree with the sentence of this 17-year old but many of these guys in Gitmo have done far worse.
Posted by: JohnQC   2008-06-12 11:33  

#8  Miranda 'rights' next for the battlefield, a lawyer in every squad...it's in the Constitution somewhere. Will using the insanity defense get a seething fatwah, or is Sharia law in the Constitution too?
Posted by: Muggsy Gling   2008-06-12 11:20  

#7  I gotta say it's a hell of a deal. Go a jihading, get the opportunity to shoot a few clips at infidels, maybe rape and behead a few locals first, surrender, spend a few years regaining health and gain 15 kilos at Hotel Gitmo, throw some shit and piss at the American guards, go home, get paid a pension and get the pick of the best looking chicks. Where do I sign up?
Posted by: ed   2008-06-12 11:18  

#6  From Mark Levin at The Corner:

It has been the objective of the left-wing bar to fight aspects of this war in our courtrooms, where it knew it would have a decent chance at victory.

So complete is the Court's disregard for the Constitution and even its own precedent now that anything is possible. And what was once considered inconceivable is now compelled by the Constitution, or so five justices have ruled.

I fear for my country. I really do. And AP, among others, reports this story as a defeat for "the Bush administration." Really? I see it as a defeat for the nation.
Posted by: Sherry   2008-06-12 11:16  

#5  We could just release these enemy combatants to Cuban soil.
Posted by: JohnQC   2008-06-12 11:10  

#4  Big Mistake! I don't recall that Japanese or Nazi combatants had U.S. Constitutional protections. Were they not tried under military tribunal? War crimes aren't generally the province of our civil and criminal courts. These guys and CAIR will have our court system tied up for years. If we captured Bin Laden (given that he was alive), would he be tried under our court system?
Posted by: JohnQC   2008-06-12 11:06  

#3  In my dreams....

From: The President of the United States

To: All US military forces foreign and domestic

Re: Treatment of Unlawful combatants.

In full accordance with the Geneva Conventions you are hereby ordered to execute, by humane means, all unlawful combatants in the field - either foreign or domestic.

This includes all enemies who are not in uniform or have a clearly visible badge who declaring them to be legal combatants, or any forces firing from a church, mosque, hospital, or school.

Please explain to them that we are sorry for the inconvience but our Supreme Court leaves us no other choice. I'm sure they'll understand.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2008-06-12 10:55  

#2  No more prisoners. Just shoot them on sight.
Posted by: Steve   2008-06-12 10:50  

#1  These decisions are going to rank with Dred Scott and Plessy as the worst decisions the Supremes ever rendered. Constitutional rights for foreign terrorists? For unlawful combatants? FDR is turning over in his grave.
Posted by: doc   2008-06-12 10:28  

00:00