Guantanamo detainees can challenge their detention in civilian courts.
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.
and
The court said not only that the detainees have rights under the Constitution, but that the system the administration has put in place to classify them as enemy combatants and review those decisions is inadequate.
The administration had argued first that the detainees have no rights. But it also contended that the classification and review process was a sufficient substitute for the civilian court hearings that the detainees seek.
It’s about damn time.
They’ll just stop taking prisoners.
I certainly hope so. If this decision results in an end to the US-paid bounty hunters snatching innocent people off the streets, that would be another benefit.
Myca, I think he means that they’ll just murder them instead.
I wouldn’t put it past this administration. They’d call it “Freedom Depopulation” or something.
Unless we start paying untrustworthy people for bodies the way we’ve paid them for captured ‘terrorists’, that might improve the situation.
I’m personally just hoping that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed will be freed from his unjust torment soon. When will the sufferings of the innocent cease?
Due process is such a hassle. Why, we might as well just let them go, if you’re going to insist on finding out if people are guilty!
Seriously, Robert. I’m right there with you.
—Myca
The historical record of the US reminds me more and more of the behavior of a serial drunk. Binges of violent, abusive behavior punctuated by periods on the wagon . The latter supposedly redeeming the former.
Back in the ’90s, I helped litigate some cases on behalf of Haitian refugees held at G’tmo under Bush I and Clinton (yes, G’tmo has a long, bipartisan history as a gulag). We were entirely unsuccessful; we could not secure them individual access to counsel nor any avenue to challenge their detention (and subsequent repatriation to Haiti) in court. It’s interesting to see the issue come around.
If they stop taking prisoners, how are they going to use “enhanced interrogation” to get information out of the non-prisoners? Sacrifice a ram and wait for the ghosts to come lap up the blood?
The historical record of the US reminds me more and more of the behavior of a serial drunk. Binges of violent, abusive behavior punctuated by periods on the wagon .
I’m surprised there are no comments on the 5-4 ruling. I would bet the farm that I could name the 4 dissenters [checks the link] – yup, now I’d have 2 farms.
I can barely ready SCOTUS news and decisions these days without wanting to cry and/or overthrow the government (well, moreso than my usual feelings). To see Scalia write that the decision ”will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed” pisses me off to no end. This guy is one of a group of 9 people that are among the top 15-30 most powerful people in the US government right now (excluding the corporations that are actually running the government) and his responses, public comments, and written opinions which form the basis of the evolving government are nothing more than kindergarten babbling and whining. He’s an asshat that has risen to the highest position in our judiciary but speaks like a Foxnews commentator with no thought or pause for his incindiery and reactionary comments. What does that say about the political system and America’s democracy? Why do we put up with this nonsense?
Detaining someone indefinitely without some kind of hearing to establish their status is un-American in my estimation. In fact, the Geneva Conventions call for it IIRC. So I agree that the Federal government is wrong in this case.
Now, it’s not at all clear to me that the proper remedy to this is access to U.S. civilian courts as if these guys were common criminals. But they should have a chance to establish whether they are in fact properly classified as POWs, unlawful combatants, or whatever, and then be treated accordingly. Every person deserves their advocate. I have to say, though, that for someone like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed my mindset approaches “give him a fair trial and then hang him.”
Just for the record, “unlawful combatant” is a made-up, erroneous term. One is either an accused under trial or a prisoner of war.
“Made up”? You mean as opposed to being one of the categories created by God’s natural law, or something? All the categories are “made up” because they are categories of law, the human variety, all of which is “made up”.
“Unlawful combatant” and its variants have been in use for more than 100 years, since the First Hague Conference in 1899. It’s a bit late in the game to start pretending that George Bush invented the concept.
Now that the SC opened the doors to fricken lawyers and judges having a larger role in this war I hope they will just turn them all over to some friendly middle eastern government (preferably Egypt) and get out the housing terrorist business altogether. Or at least declare them prisoners of war where I doubt even the SC would allow them access to our civilian courts.