U.S. Supreme Court: terrorist POW detainees given rights in court of law.

[jayhawk]

WASHINGTON - 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.
ADVERTISEMENT

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.

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.

Discuss.

My opinion? This is another ugly head of good intentions gone bad. What is going to happen now, is that instead of terror suspects being held in a very publicly known facility, they will put in a very unknown area and be held for however long the military sees fit. I mean, if they don't exist....

A bit of an extreme example: what if for every terrorist POW the US military captured, they were read the Miranda rights? How about in other countries? Are terror suspects given the same rights as a citizen of the capturing military's country?

Personally, I see this as a type of revenge against the current administration.

[Blind_Io]

First of all, I'm not sure that Miranda applies to military tribunals for POWs, secondly, none of the alleged terrorists are actually members of an opposing army, lead by a government in a declaration of war against us. This is a clash of cultures, not armies.

That being said, and in stark contrast to my typical "shoot first and ask no questions" attitude, I think that they must be allowed to plead their cases, maybe not in a civilian court, but somewhere public. A certain amount of transparency is necessary, just as a certain amount of secrecy is needed. The US has a terrible image right now in the international community, even our allies are against many of our policies, how do you think our enemies feel? Our actions add fuel to the fires of hatred and extremism, but if we don't take a hard line we are seen as weak and vulnerable to attack.

There is no right answer, but I think that we must show that a fair trial system works, at least better than stone-the-infidel-with-righteous-indignation-and-big-fucking-rocks and then call it a day. If we want to survive this cultural war, we have to do it by taking the high road and showing to the world that we can rise above.

This rare moment of idealism brought to you by the letter "S" - as in "Savor this moment, because it won't happen again any time soon."

[Cobol74]

^ I may be wrong but they are not POWs, otherwise the Geneva Convention would apply and it does not, I do not believe these people would get a visit from a protecting power for instance.

Right from Wiki:

(the US Government) "It has refused to apply the Geneva Conventions to prisoners of war from Afghanistan, and has misused the designation of 'illegal combatant' to apply to criminal suspects on U.S. soil."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantan...detention_camp

[Blind_Io]

Well, we say that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply because of the insurgent nature of the fighters (meaning not regular armed forces).

I'm not sure that argument will hold up, however.

[Firecat]

I don't think they should have the same rights as U.S. citizens/residents. But I do believe they should have a fair trial. Of course, it wouldn't be in front of a jury of their peers. So i'm not sure how it should work.

One thing is clear, not everyone being held at Gitmo are terrorists/criminals. So it's vital that something is done. Whether it's charging them and putting them on trial, or releasing them. There shouldn't be any middle ground (i.e. detaining them indefinitely).

The Geneva Conventions do still apply. The country is at war and you are being held = prisoner of war. It's actually that simple. And i'm sure if any officials bothered to read the conventions, they would come to the same conclusion. That is, of course, until their actual status is defined.

[chaos386]

You can't "fight for freedom" by detaining people indefinitely without bringing them to trial. What's happening in Guantanamo Bay is an embarrassment to the United States.

[Hidden_Hunter]

You could end up with what we had here, some fuckhead that was training with Al-Queda that was a Australian citizen and the media had a circle jerk over him saying he was just confused etc insisting he couldn't possibly be a terrorist even after he admitted training and supplying aid to terrorist organizations. The media were more concerned about his "rights" than our troops cleaning up his terrorist pals

[Blind_Io]

In that situation, the person is a citizen of the country who committed a crime, therefore they have the rights of a citizen of that nation.

[phuckingduck]

Consider the wider impact that this will have in the effort to reinstate habeas corpas. Additionally I think that holding these prisoners invokes some arguments about the stretch of posse comitatus, as the crimes *we believe* these men wanted to commit aren't *technically* crimes against the uniform but are crimes against the general population on American soil.

^Yes, I know, tons of hypothetical

I'm still unsure of my opinion on this decision. On the one hand, I understand the administrations argument. But on the other I think these men have been held too long to not be charged. Why do we continue to hold them? They can't possibly still have relevant intel can they? Most of the Gitmo prisoners have been there for at least a couple few years right? I think that for a free society we must have some transparency. Don't get me wrong, I'm all up for sending spooks to put bullets in some peoples heads but if we're going to detain them we should atleast have the decency to try them as the criminals that they are.

[Firecat]

Now the White House is playing scare tactics...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080704/...guantanamo_bay

The White House said Thursday that dangerous detainees at Guantanamo Bay could end up walking Main Street U.S.A. as a result of last month's Supreme Court ruling about detainees' legal rights.

"I'm sure that none of us want Khalid Sheikh Mohammed walking around our neighborhoods," White House press secretary Dana Perino

[Viper007Bond]

Everyone should have basic human rights, even those terrorists scumbags. If we don't give them the same rights that we have, then we are no better than them.

[Jeepin]

now,just to stir the pot a bit, how would you feel if we gave them all the rights citizens have and they got off on a technicality? or because some ACLU law student decides they were treated unfairly? not flaming, just honest questions. Now I do not support the war but I do support the soldiers that are getting killed, and the others that keep doing their job whether they agree or not.

[Viper007Bond]

Originally Posted by Jeepin

now,just to stir the pot a bit, how would you feel if we gave them all the rights citizens have and they got off on a technicality? or because some ACLU law student decides they were treated unfairly? not flaming, just honest questions. Now I do not support the war but I do support the soldiers that are getting killed, and the others that keep doing their job whether they agree or not.

Laws are there for a reason. While I'd not be happy, rules and regulations in court are there for a reason. I'd probably be more mad at the idiot prosecutor for not doing their job than mad at the court or whatever.

[TomCat]

Originally Posted by Viper007Bond

Laws are there for a reason. While I'd not be happy, rules and regulations in court are there for a reason. I'd probably be more mad at the idiot prosecutor for not doing their job than mad at the court or whatever.

Well, as long as the courts take a firm stand. But we do live in a country where you can spill coffee on yourself and successfully sue for millions.

[chaos386]

Originally Posted by Viper007Bond

Laws are there for a reason. While I'd not be happy, rules and regulations in court are there for a reason. I'd probably be more mad at the idiot prosecutor for not doing their job than mad at the court or whatever.

I'm gonna have to agree with Viper here. Also, what sort of message does it send about a country's legal system (especially one which they are trying to export) when it has to be circumvented in order to be effective?

EDIT:

Originally Posted by TomCat

Well, as long as the courts take a firm stand. But we do live in a country where you can spill coffee on yourself and successfully sue for millions.

http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

[Viper007Bond]

Originally Posted by TomCat

Well, as long as the courts take a firm stand. But we do live in a country where you can spill coffee on yourself and successfully sue for millions.

Oh don't get me started on retards not knowing coffee is hot.