Supremes rule on Gitmo
 

Link: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080612163731.sn58q011&show_article= 1

Presented without comment for now.


The US Supreme Court Thursday ruled Guantanamo prisoners have the right to challenge their detention at the US military base in civilian courts, dealing a stiff rebuke to the Bush administration.

"The laws and constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times," the court said in its historic ruling, for the third time in four years striking down the government's case for trying "war on terror" suspects in military tribunals.

"Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law," the court added, ruling that prisoners in the remote US jail in southern Cuba "have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus."

By a vote of five to four, the court found that even if the base was officially on Cuban territory, it was in fact operating as if it were on American soil.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the administration was "reviewing the opinion" but declined immediate comment.

Thursday's ruling should now give the prisoners and their legal teams the right under the constitution to demand to know on what basis they are being held.

So far the administration of President George W. Bush has refused to unveil the body of evidence to justify the prisoners' continued detention, arguing it would be against the interests of national security.

Detainees have long protested that they had been mistreated, and have questioned the very legality of the Guantanamo military tribunals, which the administration has said will try the cases of 80 prisoners instead of civilian courts.

The Supreme Court took up the issue of Guantanamo inmates in 2004 and again in 2006, ruling both times that detainees had a statutory -- legal but not constitutional -- right to contest their indefinite detention before an independent judge, a legal process known as habeas corpus.

But, urged by the Bush administration, Congress in 2006 passed new legislation that forbade them from seeking justice in a federal court until they are judged by a special military tribunal.

It was not immediately clear how Thursday's ruling would affect those 270 detainees still held in the jail.

Australian David Hicks is the only "war on terror" detainee to have so far been sentenced at Guantanamo after pleading guilty in a deal with US authorities which allowed him to serve out the remaining nine months of his sentence at home.

The most important trial of five alleged suspects in the September 11, 2001 attacks is not due to get fully underway until the summer, after they were read the charges against them at a hearing last week.

The first detainee who could be affected is Yemeni Salim Hamdan, accused of being the driver and personal bodyguard of the leader of the Al-Qaeda terror network, Osama bin Laden.

An initial appeal by Hamdan led to the 2006 Supreme Court decision, and his lawyers have already filed an appeal to a Washington court which was awaiting the Supreme Court decision before taking up the case.

Since the camp was opened in January 2002 to deal with the suspects rounded up in the US "war on terror" it has under gone major changes.

Two-thirds of the 800 prisoners who have passed through its barbed-wire gates have been freed, mostly without charge, after several years in captivity.

But the remaining prisoners are often held in solitary confinement, allowed little contact with their families and the outside world, and have no certainty about their fate.

Four detainees have committed suicide, and hunger strikes are frequent, leading to the force feeding of prisoners by their military guards.

The initial open air cages, which triggered a storm of international criticism, have long been emptied and today have returned to grass and the native iguanas.

And most of the prisoners, even those which the US authorities have said could be freed, are now housed in modern cells modelled on those in US high-security jails.

Both candidates to succeed Bush in the November elections, Republican John McCain and his Democratic rival Barack Obama have said they will close the prison.

The White House has also repeatedly said it would shut Guantanamo down, but has failed so far to come with an alternative, or to find countries willing to take some prisoners, such as Muslim Uighurs from northwest China, who face repression at home.

I hope somewhere we have an ultra-clandestine, Rainbow 6-type of special forces who have presidential get-out-of-jail-free cards and take out some of the garbage before the world ever knows their names. Lord knows nothing good can come of terrorists, wearing no uniforms, fighting on behalf of no nation-state and deliberately targeting civilians being given Geneva Convention and U.S. Constitutional protections.

Okay, so now we know the rules.

I expect some creative work-arounds.

Delta Force.

I'm just glad the Supremes are finally getting involved.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1213293363.jpg

face repression at home,
this means the folks at home KNOW what to do with them.
Us..well we don't want to hurt the poor fellows feelings now do we.

so, in the end we deserve everything that is coming our way.
Rika

Applying our Constitutional protections to non-citizens, and combatants at that, sounds a bit dubious. We can certainly apply the protections applicable under the Geneva Convention to conventional combatants who recognize those rules themselves; we apply them reciprocally. However, when those combatants refuse to follow those rules themselves, they should not expect (or demand) to be protected under them.

This is a classic case of attempting to apply old rules to a new situation. We have not adapted our rules to these sorts of combatants. They are using our own rules against us, knowing full well themselves that they are operating outside of those rules. And they intend to keep doing so, once they use those rules to get out.

well said Jeff, the Geneva Convention obviously doesn't apply, the US Constitution not so obviously does not apply(legally does not, morally maybe it does) So they get charged with cospiracy to commit murder and we compromise our intelligence gathering ability, or I guess that is how it plays out.

To me, this basically means we don't take terrorists as prisoners any more. Either they get killed in combat or our partners in the region will "interrogate" them.

The court seems to have overturned itself on this decision as compared to Johnson v. Eisentrager (see link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_v._Eisentrager ).

I think the extreme reading of this is that everything we do, short of declaring war, is a police action where those we are in conflict with are covered by Constitutional protections. If the prisoners at Gitmo have constitutional protections there, when and where did they get them? Is Gitmo any different from any other foreign land?

I am confused.

And the lesson here?

When you meet a terrorist, you kill him. Even if your finger happens to slip on the trigger a little. Oops. Too bad.

Total cost? $0.19 for a 7.62 bullet.

Total cost savings? Countless millions of dollars. Not to mention the headaches and political posturing by the grandstanding election year goofballs in Washington.

I have no problem with SCOTUS' ruling. They're saying "no end runs around the constitution", it is a powerful rebuke to what we all have agreed (more or less) is an over-reaching administration.

Good for us. Seriously.

This ruling will also cause us to re-gain some face internationally, IMO. It will remind everyone why America was well thought of to begin with.

How can Mary tell me what to do when she lost her love so true?
And Flo, she dont know. "Cause the boy she loves is a romeo.

The nerve of them!

They should be handing down their DC Gun ban decision any day now shouldn't they? I remember at the time the talking heads said that a decision would likely come sometime in june.

Sadly, our fighting troops are being snitched out by journos & brought up on charges for supposedly, or alledgdley, doing this.

For everyone, a Self Exam: If all of your positions on the current WOT, and the conflict in Iraq agree with our enemies' positions on the same issues, maybe you are not really an American, you just happen to be living here.

Patiently waiting. :)

I agree. The Supreme Court is bound legally and ethically to make its decisions based upon our Constitution and laws. They did the right thing under that charter. What I'm trying to say is that we have not done a good job of adapting those laws to the current situation. We need to do that.

We are facing an enemy that was never envisioned, that could not possibly have been considered when our current laws and rules governing how we deal with them were written. We are applying outdated laws to a new threat. The Supreme Court absolutely must judge our actions against those laws until we give them new ones to judge us against. They don't (or at least should not) make those laws themselves. We have a separate process to do that.

Those that decry the Supreme Court's ruling on this have misplaced their anger. They should focus it upon those responsible for that other process; that of passing effective law to deal with this new threat. Those folks have taken half measures, and never laid the groundwork necessary to address this new threat. They tried to bend existing law to address it, and have now been called on that. Which, like you say, is a good thing.

Funny you should also mention the DC gun ban ruling. One would hope the Supreme Court will apply the same scrutiny under existing law and Constitutional standards as they did in the Gitmo case. If they do, there is only one possible ruling. What is also funny is that many who will applaud the Court's strict interpretation in the Gitmo case will decry one if handed down in the DC case. They will be looking for a more adaptable, "living" Constitution that will be "adapted" to "modern times" in the DC case, thereby allowing them to keep their ban intact.

Let me see hear . . .

Military tribunal . . . probable torture . . . no due process . . . very limited (or non existent) legal options . . . summary convictions (undoubtedly) . . .

Does this scenery remind anybody of anywhere else/anytime else?

Bravo to the Supreme Court of the United States of America!

Ian

Well put.

Let me see here - non-U.S. citizens, captured on foreign battlefields, out of uniform, not belonging to any military of any nation state, deliberately targeting civilians, having declared war on the U.S. and not physically on U.S. sovereign soil.

What other country would consider foreign terrorists caught in third party countries somehow entitled to that country's domestic laws?

If you targeted and killed a busload of German students in China and were caught in Pakistan, why would you expect to be entitled to German constitutioal protections? If the world thinks Americans view themselves as the world police and the supreme moral and legal authority, this decision only reinforces that. If our laws apply to everyone everywhere, where don't our laws apply?

Perfectly said. Any country over there would have gotten the info out of them and shot them.