Habeas Corpus

The Supreme Court upheld the rights to Habeas Corpus for detainees:

NPR said: The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are protected by the Constitution and can appeal their detention in U.S. civilian courts. In a 5 to 4 ruling, the court also said that the Bush administration's system for classifying detainees as enemy combatants does not meet basic legal standards. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, said, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times." He was joined by the court's four more liberal justices, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens. This is the third time the justices have told President Bush that his plan for handling foreign terrorists violates the Constitution. This time, the president had Congress on his side. In 2006, the Republican-controlled Congress passed a law called the Military Commissions Act. It closed the courthouse doors to Guantanamo detainees and set up a new system for terrorism trials at the camp in Cuba. The Supreme Court now says the 2006 law unconstitutionally suspended habeas corpus — a prisoner's right to challenge his detention. The ruling overturns a lower court decision that said the law was constitutional. Justice Antonin Scalia led the court's more conservative bloc in a scathing dissent, saying that the majority opinion "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." Chief Justice John Roberts and justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas also dissented. Roberts criticized his fellow justices for striking down what he called "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants." The administration opened the prison facility at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in order to house detainees suspected of ties to al-Qaida or the Taliban. About 270 men captured in Afghanistan and Iraq have been held there, indefinitely and without charge, for up to six years. The Guantanamo prison, known for its harsh treatment and aggressive interrogations of inmates, has become a symbol of U.S. heavy-handedness in the war on terrorism. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

yay.

Justice Antonin Scalia led the court's more conservative bloc in a scathing dissent, saying that the majority opinion "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

um, riiiiight.

not like the current administration will follow this ruling anyway. they seem to just do what they want, when they want, and how they want, and use terrorism to scare the general public into following.

Scalia - the mini-fascist.

I'm glad to see that at least -something- is being done to restore our rights and the Constitution.

If THEY don't subscribe to our constitution then THEY aren't limited in how they deal with our people.

This puts us at a disadvantage.

Disadvantage or Moral high ground.

It depends on how you look at it.

If we act like terrorists the aren't we terrorists as well?

Stevie Wonder could've seen this coming. This case was basically about asking the Supreme Court if it was ok with them that Congress and the President wanted to take away some of their power.

I am surprised that Roberts was in the minority. Scalia and Thomas you'd expect to dissent, and Alito is a pick'em, but Roberts should know better.

This ruling doesn't do anything but allow detainees to use the Federal Courts to challenge their detention. That doesn't mean the courts will let them go; it just means they get their day in court.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, said, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times." He was joined by the court's four more liberal justices, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

Mighty strong words from the same gang that brought us the Eminent Domain fiasco just a few short years ago. Who said what about "restoring constitutional rights"? I guess it depends on who's getting their rights taken away, and who isn't...

[edit]

I'm getting more and more steamed at this the more I think about it. So now, suddenly, the Constitution is a holy, inviolable thing that needs to be held in sacred honor? What a complete crock of crap.

In other words, according to the Supreme Court of the United States, people who actually OWN something (and therefore have something to loot) have no rights, but the people who would loot (or destroy) DO have rights?

Utterly pathetic. I'm thinking of half a dozen new uses for a time machine as we speak. And they wouldn't be pretty.

How DARE anyone on the Democratic side of the aisle try to claim they are better than Republicans.

The one thing most people don't realize is that there is a war going on. And I'm not talking about our troops in Iran.

Whether we acknowledge it or not multiple countries say they are at war with the Great Satan (that's us). Just because we haven't declared war back doesn't make it any less real. They are on a war footing and using war powers.

carguy123 wrote: The one thing most people don't realize is that there is a war going on. And I'm not talking about our troops in Iran...... .

See, that's the same mistake W made.

carguy123 wrote: Whether we acknowledge it or not multiple countries say they are at war with the Great Satan (that's us). Just because we haven't declared war back doesn't make it any less real. They are on a war footing and using war powers.

Yes and only MORE war can solve this.

I agree with the court. I also think that just because several countries and fringe groups have declaired war on us.. does not mean we get to stoop to their level. There does come a time when taking the High(er) moral ground will earn us more allies than enemies

carguy123 wrote: The one thing most people don't realize is that there is a war going on. And I'm not talking about our troops in Iran. Whether we acknowledge it or not multiple countries say they are at war with the Great Satan (that's us). Just because we haven't declared war back doesn't make it any less real. They are on a war footing and using war powers.

Aint much of a war. As I've pointed out before, over the last 10 year, generously, 10,000 Americans have lost their lives to Terrorism and/or the War on Terrorism. Roughly 1,000/year.

Which pales in comparison to a whole host of preventable deaths that Amercains really face.

Based on the loose rules added to the "threats" these guys in Gitmo have put on America, we should be putting drunk drivers down there- they kill a lot more Americans than terrorists have.

We should sometimes put this into some kind of perspective.

BTW, when the Declaration of Independance quoted "All Men Are Created Equal"- nobody that it covered was a citizen of the US, since it didn't exist. As far as I can tell, the court has decided that indeed, "we hold these tuths to be self evident".

Otherwise, we are no better than the barbarians that we fight.

Eric

Duke wrote: How DARE anyone on the Democratic side of the aisle try to claim they are better than Republicans.

http://www.ontheissues.org/court/court.htm

9 of the Justices were put on the bench by Republican presidents. That's out of 12.

~ Breyer, Ginsberg, Souter, Stephens - considered left leaning moderate

~ Thomas, Rehnquist, Roberts, Alito - right leaning moderate

~ Kennedy, O'Connor, Miers - true moderate

~ Scalia - conservative

Seems to me that the conservatives have a slight edge on this court.

Xceler8x wrote:

Duke wrote: How DARE anyone on the Democratic side of the aisle try to claim they are better than Republicans.

http://www.ontheissues.org/court/court.htm 9 of the Justices were put on the bench by Republican presidents. That's out of 12. ~ Breyer, Ginsberg, Souter, Stephens - considered left leaning moderate ~ Thomas, Rehnquist, Roberts, Alito - right leaning moderate ~ Kennedy, O'Connor, Miers - true moderate ~ Scalia - conservative Seems to me that the conservatives have a slight edge on this court.

I don't have much of that fancy book learnin' but I'm pretty sure there are only nine Justices. O'Connor Retired in '05, Rehnquist passed away in '05, and withdraw her name and was replaced by Alito. Though seven of the nine were apointed by Republicans.

Stupid decision. So now all prisoners of war are entitled to habeas corpus!? What's next: soldiers having to give Miranda warnings to captured enemy and collect evidence, lest the prisoner challenge his incarceration in civilian court?

Here's a test for all who support this idiotic decision: if Osama is captured, should he be tried in a civilian court?

We are not at war with a specific foe. In a traditional war against another nation, POWs would be released when the two nations sign a treaty to end hostilities. There is no other nation to end hostilities with. There is not clearly definable end to a war on "terror".

Many of these people detained were not captured on any battlefield. Many are essentially being held on the suspicion that we think they have terrorist links.

This sets up a system of review so that our government does not have the power to just say "this person is a bad guy" and lock them up without having to support their claim or provide a condition for the prisoner's release.

POW's ARE covered under the geneva convention.

Hell they should cover the current enemy combatants... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

but bush was able to declare these people as effectively, "sub human" so no laws applied.

Pete: these guys aren't POW's.. they're somehting else that has yet to be defined.. really.

Wally wrote: I don't have much of that fancy book learnin' but I'm pretty sure there are only nine Justices. O'Connor Retired in '05, Rehnquist passed away in '05, and withdraw her name and was replaced by Alito. Though seven of the nine were apointed by Republicans.

I was talking about the Zombie Justices. You know they keep them alive for more cases right?

Zombies huh? Talk about Habeus Corpse-us!

ignorant wrote: POW's ARE covered under the geneva convention. Hell they should cover the current enemy combatants... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions but bush was able to declare these people as effectively, "sub human" so no laws applied. Pete: these guys aren't POW's.. they're somehting else that has yet to be defined.. really.

Forgive me if I'm not quite understanding your point.

Bush hasn't defined the prisoners, the Geneva Convention has. They are unlawful combatants (terrorists), thus not entitled to Geneva Convention protection, though we are extending it to the GITMO prisoners.

There already was a system of judicial review for GITMO prisoners (put in place in response to the very concerns expressed above), which this ruling has nullified.

PeteWW wrote: Bush hasn't defined the prisoners, the Geneva Convention has. They are unlawful combatants (terrorists), thus not entitled to Geneva Convention protection, though we are extending it to the GITMO prisoners.

What exactly defines an unlawful combatant? Define that....

PeteWW wrote: Bush hasn't defined the prisoners, the Geneva Convention has. They are unlawful combatants (terrorists), thus not entitled to Geneva Convention protection, though we are extending it to the GITMO prisoners.

Wrong. Wikipedia: Unlawful Combatant

The status of these people has been largely made up by the Bush administration on need->invent basis. Detainees should be covered under the conventions or the laws of the detaining country. So far the administration has denied their rights under either. The policy is that these are people with no rights and no access to any legal system. That simply can't happen, we are a nation of laws.

PeteWW wrote: Here's a test for all who support this idiotic decision: if Osama is captured, should he be tried in a civilian court?

Why not? Try the man under the law, then punish him according to it.

Tim Baxter wrote:

PeteWW wrote: Here's a test for all who support this idiotic decision: if Osama is captured, should he be tried in a civilian court?

Why not? Try the man under the law, then punish him according to it.

Exacly. This is the country that put to death Timothy McVeghn (sp?) for blowing up a building in Oklahoma City, killing 150+ Americans. Seems to me that we'd be pretty competent in prosecuting OBL, and having the same end result.

Dead is dead- it does not matter what court it comes from. And as far as I'm concerned, if he's tried in a civilian court of law, then that helps justify our position of treating all people equally, however vile they are.

Eric