Court Ruling a Blow to Bush

Thank God they struck this down. Score one for the American ideal of justice with this one… I’m actually proud of the Supreme Court for this one.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Supreme Court ruling that Guantanamo prisoners can challenge their detention in US civilian courts dealt a blow to President George W. Bush, but a senior official said Friday the military trials will continue.

“The laws and constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times,” the court said Thursday in its historic ruling, the third blow in four years to 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.

The court ruled by five to four that prisoners in the US military prison in southeastern Cuba “have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus.”

President George W. Bush said he would abide by the decision but disagreed with it, and would consider seeking new legislation, while the Pentagon said it would examine the implications of the ruling.

“It’s a Supreme Court decision, we’ll abide by the court’s decision. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with it,” Bush said from Rome during a European tour.

But in a sign that controversy over the detentions will carry on, US Attorney General Michael Mukasey said Friday that the administration would continue the military trials at the Guantanamo military base on Cuba despite the verdict.

“I think it bears emphasis that the court’s decision does not concern military commission trials, which will continue to proceed,” Mukasey told reporters in Tokyo, where he was joining talks of justice ministers from the Group of Eight major industrial nations.

He said the decision instead focused on the “procedures that the Congress and the president put in place to allow enemy combatants to challenge their detention.”

The top justice official said he was “disappointed with the decision insofar as I understand that it will result in hundreds of actions challenging the detention of enemy combatants to be moved to federal district court.”

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

So far the Bush administration has refused to unveil the body of evidence to justify the prisoners’ continued detention, saying it would endanger national security.

It was not immediately clear how Thursday’s ruling would affect those 270 detainees still held in the jail, opened in January 2002 to deal with suspects rounded up in the US “war on terror.”

“Some of these petitioners have been in custody for the past six years with no definitive judicial determination as to the legality of their detention,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in his 70-page majority ruling.

In a dissenting opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said Congress’s attempt “to balance the security of the American people with the detainees’ liberty interests has been unceremoniously brushed aside.”

Dissenting justice Antonin Scalia went further, writing that “America is at war with radical Islamists” and that the decision “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.”

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

Australian David Hicks is the only “war on terror” detainee to have so far been sentenced at Guantanamo after pleading guilty in a deal which allowed him to serve out his nine-month term at home.

Trials under way include that of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, considered the mastermind of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States, and Osama bin Laden’s driver, Salim Hamdan.

White House hopefuls Republican John McCain and his Democratic rival Barack Obama have both said they will close the prison, and Obama welcomed the decision saying it rejected “the Bush administration’s attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo.”

“This is an important step toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus,” he said.

McCain said however he was concerned by the ruling, adding: “These are unlawful combatants. They are not American citizens.”

The White House has 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.

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.

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

Amnesty International said Thursday’s ruling was an “essential step forward towards the restoration of the rule of law.”

Good. Now let’s hope the House of Lords in the UK strikes down 42 days of detention without a charge. Perhaps liberties, freedom and the rule of law can reclaim some ground.

Makkun

[quote]makkun wrote:
Good. Now let’s hope the House of Lords in the UK strikes down 42 days of detention without a charge. Perhaps liberties, freedom and the rule of law can reclaim some ground.

Makkun[/quote]

It would be nice to practice what we preach once in a while.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
makkun wrote:
Good. Now let’s hope the House of Lords in the UK strikes down 42 days of detention without a charge. Perhaps liberties, freedom and the rule of law can reclaim some ground.

Makkun

It would be nice to practice what we preach once in a while.[/quote]

Hell, amen to that. :wink:

Makkun

Maybe I’m missing something here, but in this and other articles I’ve read, dissenters - including GWB - have made comments along the lines of I’m sure this will cause americans to be killed and otherwise implying that the population of Guantanamo/Gitmo will be released inside the US.

What I understand out of this ruling is that everybody will have to be told why they’re being held, and everybody will have a right to a trial. Under those conditions, if detainees are being held for proper reasons with actual evidence, they’ll be kept exactly where they are, and if not, they’ll be returned to where they came from.

The message I get from these dissenting opinions is that those concerned are sure that everybody in there deserves to or needs to be, but unsure that evidence against them exists. All of this just seems to be incredibly inconsistent to me, and I’d appreciate if someone could point out what it is I’m not seeing.

want to be a part of this thread, but I don’t know how.

[quote]skaz05 wrote:
want to be a part of this thread, but I don’t know how.[/quote]

That’s easy, hijack it and start talking about Iraq.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

Thank God they struck this down. Score one for the American ideal of justice with this one… I’m actually proud of the Supreme Court for this one.[/quote]

Horrible decision on the merits, and once again the Supreme Court gets involved in a political question.

Curiously, the media coverage keeps expressing it as a “blow to Bush”, as if he thumbed his nose at existing law and ran roughshod over time-honored interpretations of habeas corpus.

He didn’t, of course - Bush and the Congress carefully created a legal system based on existing precedent (see Justice Jackson’s Eisentrauger) and afforded detainees some of the most specific procedures and review we have ever seen.

Such careful planning in reliance on the existing law is not the narrative liberals love to imagine for themselves - “finally, the Supreme Court stopped Bush from ripping up the Constitution on habeas corpus!!!” - but that is what happened, only to have a Supreme Court decide to start with a result - we think the Gitmo process looks bad - and find a way to get to a “decision” that backs the result they like.

Habeas corpus has never extended to the battlefield like this, and for many, many good reasons. And if you read the Constitution - I know, I ask too much - the mention of habeas contemplates that it only applies to “at home” jurisdictions.

Want to know what a stupid mess this is? The Court never established how a habeas petition for these detainees would work. Once petitioned, what evidence can be let in, and what is protected by national security? A near impossible task to hash out in litigation, but no matter. The Court never says, and has no desire to. The Court does nothing except decide that it can run parts of wars better than the other branches.

The decision is a travesty, yet another political decision by a branch of government that should not make political decisions. There is nothing “just” about it.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

It would be nice to practice what we preach once in a while.[/quote]

At one point we had over 400,000 detainees on American soil and around the world in WWII and New Deal liberal justices refused the idea that they had traditional habeas rights.

So, all your New Deal heroes were vicious right-wingers that scarred America’s image for “not practicing what we preach”?

[quote]Anonymous Coward wrote:

Maybe I’m missing something here, but in this and other articles I’ve read, dissenters - including GWB - have made comments along the lines of I’m sure this will cause americans to be killed and otherwise implying that the population of Guantanamo/Gitmo will be released inside the US.

What I understand out of this ruling is that everybody will have to be told why they’re being held, and everybody will have a right to a trial. Under those conditions, if detainees are being held for proper reasons with actual evidence, they’ll be kept exactly where they are, and if not, they’ll be returned to where they came from.

The message I get from these dissenting opinions is that those concerned are sure that everybody in there deserves to or needs to be, but unsure that evidence against them exists. All of this just seems to be incredibly inconsistent to me, and I’d appreciate if someone could point out what it is I’m not seeing.[/quote]

Habeas rights typically make governmental authorities err on the side of “not detaining” because they know they will have to establish a burden of proof. That is the entire point of habeas - it creates a procedure that makes governmental authorities think longer and harder before detainment.

In war, “governmental authorities” - i.e., the Armed Forces waging the war coming in contact with the people they detain - will have to think about “erring” on the side of not detaining because of the higher standards to detain the people they face. As such, they will detain fewer enemies, or in the alternative, more of them will be set free because of evidence that doesn’t measure up to hold them. No more detainment because of hunches or being extra cautious or natural overinclusion for safety reasons - now a higher standard is employed, so fewer will be detained and more will be let go.

In a war, that is bad news. Warfighting naturally means being overinclusive when you make the basic assumption of “who is dangerous and capable of harming us?” Now, of course, not so much.

Just don’t wake the left-liberals from their dream that such on-the-ground details don’t make a difference - they are consumed with rank sentimentalism, and damn the consequences of hamstringing our warfighting on the ground.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
So, all your New Deal heroes were vicious right-wingers that scarred America’s image for “not practicing what we preach”?[/quote]

No and yes. They weren’t right wingers but they did scar America’s image.

Who the fuck said you have to be a conservative to trample over the ideals of the Constitution?

EDIT: There are Iraqi POW in Gitmo? Why aren’t they in Iraqi prisons?

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

EDIT: There are Iraqi POW in Gitmo? Why aren’t they in Iraqi prisons? [/quote]

For trying to kill American soldiers? Basically, there’s two options when that happens, detain them until hostilities cease (so you won’t seem on the battlefield again), or shoot them (and never see them on the battle field again). I think we’ll be seeing more shootings and less detentions now. But, I could be wrong.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

No and yes. They weren’t right wingers but they did scar America’s image.

Who the fuck said you have to be a conservative to trample over the ideals of the Constitution?[/quote]

You mean to tell me that denying Nazis access to our civil courts as a function of their detainment in WWII was trampling on the ideals of the Constitution, when the writ of habeas corpus had never been understood to give wartime detainees the privilege?

What ideal, in what Constitution?

EDIT: oh, and just to note - Justice Robert Jackson, widely regarded as one of the greatest justices to sit on the Supreme Court and, perhaps more famously, the architect of the Nuremberg Tribunals and its principal prosecutor, was, by the lights of Beowolf’s comments, was the chief “trampler” of the Constitution.

Tragic or comic? I am not sure, but I weep for the decline of basic civics.

Thunder, don’t you know that anything that offends the sensibilities of liberals is de facto unconstitutional and trampling on the constitution? Apparently, there’s no such thing as something liberals think is bad that the constitution doesn’t prohibit.

Since when did the constitution expand to the whole fucking world? Guess that means freedom to bear arms everywhere, and freedom of religion too.

Christians and Jews can now go to Mecca.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Thunder, don’t you know that anything that offends the sensibilities of liberals is de facto unconstitutional and trampling on the constitution? Apparently, there’s no such thing as something liberals think is bad that the constitution doesn’t prohibit.[/quote]

Boston, I have to get a hold of one of them Constitutions that has that clause in it that says “policy I don’t like is unconstitutional”. Then, like left-liberals, I could dispense with that antiquated and cumbersome process we call “democracy”.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
In war, “governmental authorities” - i.e., the Armed Forces waging the war coming in contact with the people they detain - will have to think about “erring” on the side of not detaining because of the higher standards to detain the people they face. [/quote]

Libs like Irish or Makkun basically never think of the soldiers or marines. “Oh, we must protect the rights of scumbags and mad bombers!” Our guys will die because of decisions like this…and its sickening.

Thanks God. There’s no reason to ever deny due process. It’s not like these captured people are being released on their own recognizance of have any ability to contact ‘terrorist budddies.’ They are lame ducks until they receive a proper hearing and some showing is made that they are a threat. This will have absolutely no detrimental impact on safety and security. Hamdi anyone? The early companion case to this. There, the government asserted it had the right to seize him–an AMERICAN-- indefinitely with no notice of any charges or any hearing whatsover. It claimed it could imprison him until and unless it decided to let him go. That’s ridiculous.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:

No and yes. They weren’t right wingers but they did scar America’s image.

Who the fuck said you have to be a conservative to trample over the ideals of the Constitution?

You mean to tell me that denying Nazis access to our civil courts as a function of their detainment in WWII was trampling on the ideals of the Constitution, when the writ of habeas corpus had never been understood to give wartime detainees the privilege?

What ideal, in what Constitution?

EDIT: oh, and just to note - Justice Robert Jackson, widely regarded as one of the greatest justices to sit on the Supreme Court and, perhaps more famously, the architect of the Nuremberg Tribunals and its principal prosecutor, was, by the lights of Beowolf’s comments, was the chief “trampler” of the Constitution.

Tragic or comic? I am not sure, but I weep for the decline of basic civics.[/quote]

How about an American who was in Germany during the war, and the government DECIDED he was a Nazi without being obligated to make any showing. So they decided to seize him without informing him why and keep him imprisoned FOREVER in some foreign prison with no opportunity to contest the charges against him? Neither this nor any of the prior rulings prevent or should have any impact on government responding to emergencies and seizing people they view as threats in the heat of the moment. The government doesn’t get punished for getting it wrong if it turns out there’s no evidence of any link to terrorist acitvty. They just won’t be able to KEEP the person in jail forever. The Supreme Court has even said that the burden of proof could essentially be reversed in such hearings. The government just needs to prevent some evidence of the person’s threat/status to justify CONTINUED detainment. It’s up to the person to rebut this.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Libs like Irish or Makkun basically never think of the soldiers or marines.

[/quote]

Hey asshole, watch your fucking mouth. Two of my best friends are over there right now… fightin’ the war that chickenhawk cunts like you wanted but were too fucking old and “asthmatic” (you bitch) to fight.

So fuck yourself.