THIS SUPREME COURT DECISION IS HUGE! WHERE ARE YOU ALL?

The Bush Administration's attempt to strip the prisoners at Guantanamo of habeus corpus rights is OVER!!!

edit to add link to the Post's own story on the subject.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/12/AR2008061201695.html?hpid=topnews

Former link to their AP story quoted below.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

High Court ruling may delay war crimes trials
By MARK SHERMAN
The Associated Press
Thursday, June 12, 2008; 12:07 PM

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."

(jump)

The court specifically struck down a provision of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that denies Guantanamo detainees the right to file petition 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."

Any more reason to vote against CheneyJr?

And all of the justices who voted to uphold the constitution are the older SC justices. Its imperative to get a dem into the WH just for that reason.

and will continue to be the most important issue in the 2008 election. It's critical to so many people in so many ways; and the consequences of the decision could be affect us (either positively or negatively) for at least a generation.

*shudder*

:P

Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely and Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives


dp

I just read the decision -- has the Kool Ade lost its effectiveness or something?

No, that's right, election year -- I forgot.

so I don't get what relevance the election year has in this case.

The GOP needs to look more moderate.

There is a lot of political influence on the Supremes.

Sorry, I got over-excited.

This is very important, however.

this is an important, and surprising, dcsision.

:shrug:

One more radical fascist on the Court and we are suddenly in a totally different country.

One more fascist on the court would just be the final nail on the coffin. :scared:

I love your sig! Funny and scary at the same time.

Really, my wife and I were both gleeful at first notification. Perfectly gleeful. That good enough?

this is so essential to the freedom of all.

Let's say we go back in time to WWII. Assuming today's decision applied back then, would all the German prisoners we captured and held in POW camps during the war be entitled to petition US Courts as to the validity of their confinement? That seems bizarre to me.

The one thing I find frigtening about today is that all these guys are being held INDEFINITELY. With a regular war, the prisoners are returned after the war. Here they are kept for life. Something is definitely wrong with that. How can a wrongfully held guy ever regain his freedom?

and not entitled to any of the protections afforded to POWs. That is a big part of the problem.

have vowed to take up arms against us again if released.

it means "show us the evidence". It doesn't mean they all get realeased to go back and take up arms against us again.

It means that the needs to be evidence provided in a case against each of them. It means that each gets a day in some sort of court where that evidence can be reviewed and evaluated and the detainee gets to make a case for their own innocence. It means that those who are innocent, whose neighbors turned them in in order to receive a bounty check, can make their case.

Seriously, many murderers show no remorse, so anyone accused of murder shouldn't be given a trial?!?! This doesn't automatically release anyone, but it does say that they have the right to ask why they are under arrest.

Wow...I am just...speechless. :wow:

I think his point was: these foreigners, captured on the battlefield, didn't have the right in the first place. So there's no right to give up.

This description does not apply to all of the inmates of Guantanamo Bay. How can we possibly apply the same standard of military justice to non-combatants?

but it sure does not look like I went about making it the right way.

I will say that this discussion has been extremely illuminating and I have learned much I had not known before.

I should have had a primer on the concept of habeas corpus before I engaged my mouth.

Still I am uncomfortable with giving legitimately captured (I still do not know how you can arrest someone while under combat conditions) on a field of battle can be extended complete constitutional rights.

I do now understand how the rights of the US constitution can and should extend to anyone held in US legal custody.

I make a distinction between that and those who took up arms against us and fought on a field of battle.

...as long as there is paranoia in the hearts of conservatives.

Which is to say, for a very, very long time.

:kick:

I feel our country is slowly being returned to us.

it starts resonating with people in other countries that we do respect individual rights. Read an op/ed by T. Friedman this morning that also gave me some hope; essentially, he notes that the very fact that this country has nominated Barack Obama has surprised Egyptians (he is currently in Egypt) in a favorable way. I've always maintained that the key to reducing radical fundamentalism and terror is to appeal to the moderate segment of the Arab/Muslim community, and this decision and the election of Barack Obama as the next U.S. President will be steps along that path.

I do hope these steps start to heal some of the damage. I also hope that we can continue to right the wrong as that would be the best "advertisement" for "democracy" that there is.

Here is the link to their story on the subject.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/12/AR2008061201695.html?hpid=topnews

By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 12, 2008; 12:28 PM

The Supreme Court today rebuked the Bush administration for a third time for its handling of the rights of terrorism detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, saying those in custody there have a constitutional right to challenge their captivity in federal courts.

By a 5 to 4 vote that brought strongly worded and remorseful dissents from the court's conservative justices, the majority held that an alternative procedure designed by the administration and Congress was inadequate to insure that the detainees, some of whom have been imprisoned for six years without a hearing, receive their day in court.

"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote. "Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law."

giving thanks.

because after I make this post I am under no illusion I will not be immediately banned for being insufficiently progressive.

I DO NOT BELIEVE THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION COVERS ANY AND EVERY BREATHING INDIVIDUAL ON THE PLANET AND CERTAINLY NOT THOSE WHO HAVE TAKEN UP ARMS AGAINST US AND WISH US AS AMERICANS TO BE DEAD IN LARGE NUMBERS WHO ARE CAPTURED ON THE BATTLEFIELD!!

All this ruling will do is make it easier for those we do catch for killing us (Sheik Mohammad for instance, he masterminded 9/11 and admitted it, should he be released??) to be released and to kill more of us.

I feel this ruling will result in more US blood being shed.

I hope this does not get me banned, but I imagine it will.

I do not support torture, neither do I support an enemy captured on a legitimate battle ground being able to use US courts in order to either get circus trials or released to kill more of us.

And all because a bunch of lawyers say so, man I think Shakespeare had right, first you kill all the lawyers.

Also how far are we going to take this.

After all if I am wrongly arrested I can ask to see/question he officer who placed me under arrest.

Are we going to question the soldiers who caught these wonderful people??

I think you raise important issues: What do we do with people who admit they want to kill us? Seems strange to keep them detained forever. But also seems strange to let them go so they can join the movement and kill us.

And I agree: The US Constitution does not apply to the entire planet, let alone those foreigners captured on the battlefield. Otherwise, any enemy opponent we capture in wartime would have the right to file suit in US Courts to challenge their detainment. Seems like a procedural nightmare.

If you are banned, see ya!

The US always had moral authority around the world because we were better than that, at least we used to be. But as I see it, they either need to be charged and tried and live with the results of the trial, or under POW status with full protection of the Geneva Convention. Legal limbo is simply not acceptable.

Following our laws and the most basic of human rights doesn't equate with releasing guilty people. Nor does applying our constitution to our actions in any way relate to applying it to every living breathing person on the planet--it means WE follow it when dealing with people.

were caught on on a foreign battlefield under arms fighting against us.

Now you can make an excellent case that they should have been categorized as POW's. In fact I wish they had been.

In addition to the extent that any US laws were violated by US personnel guarding these prisoners than they should be subject to prosecution.

But to allow any one to claim US constitutional rights whenever they are captured is to me ludicrous.

It is what outrages me about lawyers.

There is a big difference.

it does not seem to me to make much of a difference.

But if it does (and I still do not see how, but I am open to being educated if you choose to explain the difference to me).

If there is a legitimate difference than as I understand it than US laws constitution an all would apply.

Many of them were arrested for possibly plotting against the US, but not actually doing anything. They were NOT captured in a battle. As far as I know, there is no real "battlefield". It still goes, if they were captured on the field of battle (wherever that may be), they should be treated as POW's and be treated under the Geneva Convention. If they were arrested, they should have a trial and be treated like a criminal. There is no "in between".

"...caught on on a foreign battlefield under arms fighting against us" do you??

I've read that many were sold (by bounty hunters from rival tribesmen) to us. This bounty was paid for by the American taxpayers, by the way.

But, yes, you're right. Those caught on the battlefield should have been categorized as POWs.

Then we wouldn't have had this problem in the first place.

No one deserves to be "disappeared."

"I've read that many were sold (by bounty hunters from rival tribesmen) to us. This bounty was paid for by the American taxpayers, by the way"

Theses people should have access to US courts then.

But I am going to have one heck of a time of Sheik Mohammad is released, you just know he will plan more death and destruction for the United States if he gets another chance.

relevant if the detainees are classified as POW'S as they would then be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. As long as this admin continues to consider them as "enemy combatants" or "enemy non-combatants" then they should have Constitutional protections just like you and me! Can't have it both ways!

I believe they should have been designated POW's to begin with.

I still have a problem with letting a sworn enemy of the US who wishes many of us dead, maimed or worse access to our judicery for the soul purpose of either making a mockery of our system (ie "I wish to become a martyr) or to be released and to kill more of us.

What were they arrested for? Go back to freeperland, you will find more support there. Terra Terra Terra

Restoring Habeas Corpum means that they will get to see their accusers and know what crimes they have been charged with and have a trial. Of course, after some of them have been detained and abused for 5 years, somme of them not knowing why, I wouldn't blame them for picking up arms against us. Some of those detained don't even know what crime they have been charged with, and no court has found them guilty. If they have done something wrong, then convict them, give them a sentence, and be done with it. If they haven't done anything, they should be let go.

The thought behind the judicial system used to be that its better to let a guilty man go free than to imprision an innocent man. Now, it seems like it doesn't matter how many innocent people they imprison as long as one of them may be guilty. I'm sorry, but being attacked on 9-11 doesn't change the constitution.

that they have no idea why they have been taken into custody (for lack of a better term).

Seems to me if you are on a battlefield bearing arms with the intent to harm/kill US service men, that might give you and indication as to why you have been detained.

Now it is beyond debate that they should have been designated as POW's, but just how far are we going to take this Habeas Corpus thing with regards to people who really admit to being our enemy and who have been captured in a foreign land??

There were numerous POW camps in the continental US during the second world war and this subject never came up.

Is there that much of a difference between the designation of an enemy combatant and a POW??

I still believe that this could/will lead to american blood being shed by some of these people should they obtain release.

If it happens you can bet the GOP will only be to happy to rub our nose in it.

And not all of them were detained on the "battlefield". Where is the battlefield? There is no battlefield per se. It really is true that there are many of the detainees who haven't done a thing wrong. They were not captured as POW's, they were arrested. The admin can't have it both ways. Either they abide by the rules of the Geneva Convention, which means they couldn't torture their little captives, or they go to trial.

If they are guilty of something, they should stay in jail. But if they aren't, or it can't be proved, they need to be let go. You can't arrest somebody because they might do something in the future. If that's what America has turned into, then the terrorists have won after all.

From which your conclusions come. This ruling in a sense strikes that down. The government has to have evidence. Imagine that. From the opinion:

"Security depends upon a sophisticated intelligence apparatus and the ability of our Armed Forces to act and to interdict. There are further considerations, however. Security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom’s first principles. Chief among these are freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to the separation of powers. It is from these principles that the judicial authority to consider petitions for habeas corpus relief derives..."

were picked up on a battlefield not the streets of Milwaukee.

" freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty "

This is settled and understood law/practice within the continental US (Alaska and Hawaii also) but they were caught in Afghanistan et-al for crying out loud.

I am a pessimist, I fully expect some of these gentlemen (I use the term loosely) to be released, and to come back and kill either other western targets of Allah or more americans.

Either way if that does come to pass, I for one will not be a happy camper.

to set our laws defining our rights WHEN PEOPLE MIGHT WANT TO TAKE THEM AWAY. If you only allow people to have rights when they don't need them defended, there's really no point in having a Constitution in the first place.

The Supreme Court brought us back to civilization unless you think it is ok if the government can round up people without trial, legal counsel, charges, and torture them, use secret evidence etc. No free country on earth allows that. Habeas Corpus is the foundation of all western democracies and has been for 900 years. Whether the detainee is guilty or innocent is to be determined by evidence. Torture is a constitutional violation due to the fact the United States is a signatory to the Geneva convention. Add to the fact, in Guantanamo, there are innocent people held there as well as guilty as a study done by a University determined a little over 50% of the detainees going through there did not belong to a terrorist organization, the Taliban, nor took up any arms against the United States. There were quite many that were gathered up by other forces such as the Northern Alliance for bounty payments per head. Even kids were gathered up in Afghanistan and flown to Guantanamo.

about Gitmo if what you say is accurate (and I have no reason to really doubt it).

I simply have not payed as close attention as maybe I should have.

I could plead health issues (God knows that would be accurate the past 7 or so years) but that to me is a cop out.

I am learning a lot with this discussion I started, and I want to thank the DU'ers who have been so civil to me.

Frankly I expected to be land blasted since you have to admit my initial post would not be in the majority opinion.

To me the bottom line is as follows:

A: Torture is a complete No-No no questions or arguments allowed. To the extent that torture was sanctuned by US personnel in knowing violation of the law of that law was shaded in attempt to violate it's spirit, then those involved should be investigated and were necessary prosecuted.

B. Know and proved innocent people held in Gitmo should and must be released, if this is the case than of course US law covers them.

C. People who have picked up arms against this nation with the intention to cause harm either in a small or large way, or who were captured in combat with US forces do not and should not expect US Constitutional protection.

D. Those same people stied in C. should forthwith be designated as POW's with all the literal rights that are attributed them via the Geneva Convention nothing more and nothing less.

May Apologies for getting some this wrong.

B. Know and proved innocent people held in Gitmo should and must be released, if this is the case than of course US law covers them.


This is totally incorrect. A person is innocent until proven guilty. You do not have to prove your innocence, a prosecutor has to prove that you are guilty. Just because they are from another country they still are afforded the same rights.

The people who bombed the World Trade Center back in 1993 were found, arrested, and prosecuted. They are all in jail now. But they had a trial, and were assumed innocent until proven guilty. Of course, they were guilty, and found guilty. Everything worked correctly.

Once we have lost our legal system and our bill of rights, we have lost. It is our legal system and our constitution that make this country great.

As Benjamin Franklin would say, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

It is precisely because the Bushies chose this extralegal designation (the easier to imprison you and me) that we are in this netherworld.

Unlawful Enemy Combatant is a nothing, a legal zero, a Bushism without meaning except what THEY want it to mean.

And remember, according to Red Cross estimates, somewhere between 60-80% of those held at the Gitmo Concentration Camp are innocent, sold to us by their chieftains who didn't like them, etc.

An enemy captured on a legitimate battle ground would have the Geneva Convention to fall back on, not our court system. But none of the people in Gitmo are legitimate enemies captured on a legitimate battleground. they are "Unlawful Enemy Combatants", a legal nonsense word.

I do agree, the issue of releasing people who have vowed to kill us (wouldn't that mean they would be found guilty anyway, like a guy on trial for murder admitting he would kill again certainly submarines his hope of acquittal), if it is a legitimate issue, ceratinly needs to be further addressed.

But let us not forget that this whole mess was created by the Bushies' need to torture the shit out captives, ignore the Geneva Convention, and create their ultra-flexible legal bullshit term that leaves them open to declaring ANYONE an Unlawful Enemy Combatant onthe flimsiest of pretexts.

It puts restrictions on what the US government can do. While they may not be dealing with "US persons" they are still the government and they are still subject to the restrictions placed on them. So it is a red herring so say "any and every breathing individual on the planet." We are not talking about just any random human; we are talking about people currently being held in detention by the United States government.

Your posts show that you are not familiar with the concept of Natural Rights. The United States Constitution is based on the idea that every human being has rights that stem simply from being human. The right to due process, that is a proper trial, is one of those. These rights, such as life and liberty, can only be violated by the state through due process, and thusly due process can never be violated. The right to challenge your detention is part of due process, and it is known as habeas corpus. Habeas corpus was the first right to be recognized as part of due process in the Magna Carta in 1215. This was the first challenge to the absolute authority of kings.

Since habeas corpus is a natural right, it cannot be suspended simply because it is inconvenient. It does not matter who these prisoners are, their right to habeas corpus is absolute. It should be noted that simple challenging their detention does not mean that they will be automatically released. It simply means that a judge will examine whether or not due process is being observed. It's not a get out of jail free card. Further, what harm they may visit on Americans in the future has no bearing on whether or not they shall be released. They are on trial, and they only question is whether or not they are guilty of the crimes they have been accused of. The court does not examine any future "may" or "might." A jury trial deals with matters of fact, not with speculations of the future.

These prisoners further cannot be held indefinitely. Another basic part of American jurisprudence is that all parties are considered innocent until proven guilty. It is only after conviction that punishment can be dealt by the state. So it does not matter whether or not these prisoners have taken up arms against America, because they are only accused, not convicted. Until they are convicted by a jury of their peers, they are considered just as innocent as anybody else.

It is another red herring to invoke the name of Kalid Sheikh Mohammed. He has been duly convicted by jury trial and is therefore not going to be released any time soon.

One for each of the Justices who made this decision.

next.

in November. We must all work harder than ever to make sure that the court does not fall farther away.

Fat Tony, Uncle Thomas, Benito Alito, and Maximus Roberts were the 4 in favor of trashing the Constitution.

Thank the Blue Dog Democrats for Alito and Roberts.

"Today the Court strikes down as inadequate the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants. The political branches crafted these procedures amidst an ongoing military conflict, after much careful investigation and thorough debate. The Court rejects them today out of hand, without bothering to say what due process rights the detainees possess, without explaining how the statute fails to vindicate those rights, and before a single petitioner has event attempted to avail himself of the law's operation."

http://supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1195.pdf

said he was pleasantly surprised about the decision, since the SC has been missing in action, that last part is my comment.

Try LBN--we are all cheering!

I would've voted for Hillary if she had won, even though I'm still kinda pissed about the "working White American's" crap...

this group of thugs think they have to actually abide by the Supreme Court. I don't think they believe that.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/

Defying Supreme Court
Bush has also challenged statutes in which Congress gave certain executive branch officials the power to act independently of the president. The Supreme Court has repeatedly endorsed the power of Congress to make such arrangements. For example, the court has upheld laws creating special prosecutors free of Justice Department oversight and insulating the board of the Federal Trade Commission from political interference.

Nonetheless, Bush has said in his signing statements that the Constitution lets him control any executive official, no matter what a statute passed by Congress might say.

In November 2002, for example, Congress, seeking to generate independent statistics about student performance, passed a law setting up an educational research institute to conduct studies and publish reports ''without the approval" of the Secretary of Education. Bush, however, decreed that the institute's director would be ''subject to the supervision and direction of the secretary of education."

Similarly, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld affirmative-action programs, as long as they do not include quotas. Most recently, in 2003, the court upheld a race-conscious university admissions program over the strong objections of Bush, who argued that such programs should be struck down as unconstitutional.

Yet despite the court's rulings, Bush has taken exception at least nine times to provisions that seek to ensure that minorities are represented among recipients of government jobs, contracts, and grants. Each time, he singled out the provisions, declaring that he would construe them ''in a manner consistent with" the Constitution's guarantee of ''equal protection" to all -- which some legal scholars say amounts to an argument that the affirmative-action provisions represent reverse discrimination against whites.

Golove said that to the extent Bush is interpreting the Constitution in defiance of the Supreme Court's precedents, he threatens to ''overturn the existing structures of constitutional law."

A president who ignores the court, backed by a Congress that is unwilling to challenge him, Golove said, can make the Constitution simply ''disappear."

"A president who ignores the court, backed by a Congress that is unwilling to challenge him, Golove said, can make the Constitution simply 'disappear.'" That the Congress, both when controlled by Republicans and Democrats, is complicit with the subversion demonstrates why impeachment is "off the table."

I truly believed that we would hold those men indefinitely.

Or is that horribly passe'?

When SCOTUS upholds basic Constitutional precepts and we actually feel a combination of elation and relief. What we should feel is "Yeah? And? Isn't that their JOB?"

Remember -- these are foreingers captured in a war. It has never been held that such individuals have constitutional rights, let alone the right to petition US Courts for habeus corpus. This is a really tricky area of the law. I don't think it's basic at all.

I smirked at a picture of Smirk and Sneer when I heard the news. They tried and failed. I feel a wee bit better about the country I live in.

Could it be that common sense and reason are beginning to show themselves again after a long hiatus now that the Bush regime is coming to an end? We can hope, can't we?

Thank God they haven't ignored that.

I hope everyone realizes how important it is to elect Barack Obama this
November. He has taught Constitutional Law and cares that we stick to
it. He will appoint SCOTUS judges who understand individual rights.

He has Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas to back him up.

Dammit, Congress should never allowed Roberts and Alito to be put on the Supreme Court. Those guys are loons and they're young loons, too. Meanwhile, the bare five majority who have any sense are old!

It just makes me sick that this is even up for discussion. I'm too worried and discouraged to celebrate.

:bounce: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :applause: :applause:

And explaining to people why they should vote for Barack Obama....

McCain would surely attempt to appoint Supreme Court judges that are as bad as the ones bush appointed.

anything that pisses him off is good!

they definitely upset the White House, as he attacked that he agreed with the 4 judges who voted against it, and he sounded like he was saying he was going to find a way to ignore the SCOTUS ruling!!

he's a fascist, but you knew that.


New Obama & anti-McSame Items!
www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable