5-4: Supreme Court backs rights for Gitmo detainees... - PhillyBlog

Mars · #1 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 12:59 PM

The writ of habeas corpus remains part of American jurisprudence...

Quote:

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."

Quote:

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.

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.....

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080612/...tus_guantanamo

Mars · #2 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 04:09 PM

I disagreed with the court's ruling back in 2000 when they stopped counting the Florida ballots and SELECTED Bush as the President so I completely understand his point of view...

Unfortunately, I don't have the power he does to push "additional legislation" in the lower courts and with judges he, Reagan and his father appointed to try and buy time and circumvent the Supreme Court.

Also, if the court was deeply divided and the majority didn't rule..then I guess the ruling would still be pending and stalemated now wouldn't it? I guess if Bush had it his way the Supreme Court would only have 4 justices and we would have a dictatorship ruled by judges loyal to the Supreme ruler and the ruling national party as opposed to the U.S. Constitution...

Quote:

ROME (AP) - President Bush on Thursday strongly disagreed with a Supreme Court ruling that clears foreign terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts. Bush suggested new legislation may now be needed to keep the American people safe.

"We'll abide by the court's decision," Bush said during a news conference in Rome. "That doesn't mean I have to agree with it." The court's decision was sure to be popular in Europe, where many leaders have called for the closing of of Guantanamo.

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.

"It was a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented," Bush said. "And that dissent was based upon their serious concerns about U.S. national security."

Bush said his administration will study the ruling. "We'll do this with this in mind—to determine whether or not additional legislation might be appropriate so we can safely say to the American people, 'We're doing everything we can to protect you.'"

Source: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Simon Wolf · #3 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mars

The writ of habeas corpus remains part of American jurisprudence...

Barely.

5-4?

Sweet freaking merciful baby Jesus!

raider.adam · #4 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 10:26 AM

The only attempted circumventing of the Supreme Court that I recall taking place was with Franklin Roosevelt and his attempt to pack the courts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mars

Unfortunately, I don't have the power he does to push "additional legislation" in the lower courts and with judges he, Reagan and his father appointed to try and buy time and circumvent the Supreme Court.

As for the ruling, I am glad the Supreme Court supported people's rights to be told of their charges and the ability to seek defense.

This was a good civil rights day.

Colin P. Varga · #5 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 10:42 AM

http://www.whyy.org/91FM/

markedixon · #6 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raider.adam

The only attempted circumventing of the Supreme Court that I recall taking place was with Franklin Roosevelt and his attempt to pack the courts.

Well, there was Andrew Jackson's tactic. When the court ruled that the Cherokee were entitled to their lands in Georgia, he simply ignored the ruling and told the army to round up the Indians and march them west. It was called the "Trail of Tears," a story which doesn't create a very appetizing precedent for ignoring the Supreme Court.

But I know how presidents must feel. With the court now mostly a Republican creature, it is going to be a real drag on the efforts of President Obama and his Democratic Congress.

Illiniwek · #7 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 12:58 PM

Amazing. Foreigners abroad gain the rights of American citizens by making war on the United States in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Just 40 years ago, making war without being part of a uniformed force subject to national command constituted a war crime. Now it earns Constitutional protection for its perpetrators.

Another goofy 5-4 decision by Kennedy, especially in light of the fact it overrules an action by the two political branches that the court itself called for.

raider.adam · #8 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markedixon

Well, there was Andrew Jackson's tactic. When the court ruled that the Cherokee were entitled to their lands in Georgia, he simply ignored the ruling and told the army to round up the Indians and march them west. It was called the "Trail of Tears," a story which doesn't create a very appetizing precedent for ignoring the Supreme Court.

Good reminder, yes.

Quote:

But I know how presidents must feel. With the court now mostly a Republican creature, it is going to be a real drag on the efforts of President Obama and his Democratic Congress.

First, that "Republican creature" just ruled against Bush.

Second, what do you think is on Obama's and Pelosi's agenda that will get them challenged in the Supreme Court?

Simon Wolf · #9 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illiniwek

Amazing. Foreigners abroad gain the rights of American citizens by making war on the United States in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Just 40 years ago, making war without being part of a uniformed force subject to national command constituted a war crime. Now it earns Constitutional protection for its perpetrators.

*facepalm*

Either you're a civilian and subject to civil laws, or you're a member of a military organization and subject to military laws. Prisoners held at Gitmo are either in US territory and subject to US laws or they are in Cuban territory and subject to Cuban laws.

All the Supreme Court did was say that this legalistic limbo that the Bush administration has been trying to create doesn't exist.

Or would you prefer that the US government be allowed to ignore habeas corpus and make people "disappear" into off-shore prisons, never to be see again?

raider.adam · #10 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illiniwek

Amazing. Foreigners abroad gain the rights of American citizens by making war on the United States in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Just 40 years ago, making war without being part of a uniformed force subject to national command constituted a war crime. Now it earns Constitutional protection for its perpetrators.

Another goofy 5-4 decision by Kennedy, especially in light of the fact it overrules an action by the two political branches that the court itself called for.

I understand what you are saying, but the point of view I see it as, if the exemption is that they were making war, how do you know they were making war?

I mean, it is one thing if you are in a conventional battle and people are operating tanks and machine guns. You can safely assume they are making war.

But if you are grabbing people out of homes and buildings based off of "intelligence" (which we have seen can be faulty) how can you guarantee the people are waging war?

The instrument of habeas corpus is a way to safeguard liberties and protect against unlawful and incorrect imprisonment.

Now, if Congress wants to declare a state of war and due to that suspend habeas corpus as a war power, I could agree (Lincoln did it at the opening of the Civil War).

Other than that, I would rather have the government be obligated to provide authority for detention.