• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Another blow for King George

fff

Well-known member
Court gives detainees habeas rights
Thursday, June 12th, 2008 10:08 am
In a stunning blow to the Bush Administration in its war-on-terrorism policies, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign nationals held at Guantanamo Bay have a right to pursue habeas challenges to their detention. The Court, dividing 5-4, ruled that Congress had not validly taken away habeas rights. If Congress wishes to suspend habeas, it must do so only as the Constitution allows — when the country faces rebellion or invasion.

The Court stressed that it was not ruling that the detainees are entitled to be released — that is, entitled to have writs issued to end their confinement. That issue, it said, is left to the District Court judges who will be hearing the challenges. The Court also said that “we do not address whether the President has authority to detain” individuals during the war on terrorism, and hold them at the U.S. Naval base in Cuba; that, too, it said, is to be considered first by the District judges.

The Court also declared that detainees do not have to go through the special civilian court review process that Congress created in 2005, since that is not an adequate substitute for habeas rights. The Court refused to interpret the Detainee Treatment Act — as the Bush Administration had suggested — to include enough legal protection to make it an adequate replacement for habeas. Congress, it concluded, unconstitutionally suspended the writ in enacting that Act.

In a second ruling on habeas, the Court decided unanimously that U.S. citizens held by U.S. military forces in Iraq have a right to file habeas cases, because it does extend to them, but it went on to rule that federal judges do not have any authority to bar the transfer of those individuals to Iraqi authorites to face prosecution or punishment for crimes committed in that country in violation of Iraqi laws.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-gives-detainees-habeas-rights/
 

Mike

Well-known member
So they get to file a petition for prison release?

Just so they petition for release doesn't mean they will be released.

I don't see it as the "stunning blow" your article suggests...........
 

Mike

Well-known member
So they get to file a petition for prison release?

Just so they petition for release doesn't mean they will be released.

I don't see it as the "stunning blow" your article suggests...........
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
It means the Supreme Court says King George can't play God- as he thinks of himself....That everyone has a right to their day in Court...

Altho in the other 2 rulings that the Supreme Court has brought down against his actions- he has completely run roughshod over and essentially invalidated them- tearing yet another corner out of our Constitution.... :( :mad:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
It means the Supreme Court says King George can't play God- as he thinks of himself....That everyone has a right to their day in Court...

Altho in the other 2 rulings that the Supreme Court has brought down against his actions- he has completely run roughshod over and essentially invalidated them- tearing yet another corner out of our Constitution.... :( :mad:

The Detainee Treatment Act was passed by the House and Senate before being signed by Bush. :roll: :roll: :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
It means the Supreme Court says King George can't play God- as he thinks of himself....That everyone has a right to their day in Court...

Altho in the other 2 rulings that the Supreme Court has brought down against his actions- he has completely run roughshod over and essentially invalidated them- tearing yet another corner out of our Constitution.... :( :mad:

The Detainee Treatment Act was passed by the House and Senate before being signed by Bush. :roll: :roll: :roll:

And its unconstitutional... Other problem is King George wasn't following the law the way it was written- just using it as an excuse to make up more Bush Law- which is what brought about the challenge.....
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
It means the Supreme Court says King George can't play God- as he thinks of himself....That everyone has a right to their day in Court...

Altho in the other 2 rulings that the Supreme Court has brought down against his actions- he has completely run roughshod over and essentially invalidated them- tearing yet another corner out of our Constitution.... :( :mad:

The Detainee Treatment Act was passed by the House and Senate before being signed by Bush. :roll: :roll: :roll:

And its unconstitutional... Other problem is King George wasn't following the law the way it was written- just using it as an excuse to make up more Bush Law- which is what brought about the challenge.....

On June 12, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the McCain Amendment and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 unconstitutionally limited detainee's access to judicial review and that detainees have the right to challenge their detention in conventional civilian courts.[2]
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The Supreme Court has pretty well now said- that the Administration and the Legislative Powers cannot switch the Constitution on and off at will....


Justice Anthony Kennedy: "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and Security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law. The framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, a part of that law. "

This is a big win for our Constitution and for our Country....
 

hotdryplace

Active member
Hey Oldtimer, since when does our constitution cover terriosts captured on a forign field of battle. They are not even covered by the Geneva convention because they wear no national uniform, represent no nation state, advocate the overthrow of every nation state, and deliberatly target civilans. You consistantly whine about your constitutional rights being taken away, well now every America hater in the world just got the same rights that you have. I thought you were an anti-globalist but now your cheering that our constitution just went global. I should not be surprised because you and 3f's dance in the streets (more likely wrap a dish towel around your head and fire an AK47 in the air, in the street) every time liberals make the job of defending this country more difficult.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hotdryplace said:
Hey Oldtimer, since when does our constitution cover terriosts captured on a forign field of battle. They are not even covered by the Geneva convention because they wear no national uniform, represent no nation state, advocate the overthrow of every nation state, and deliberatly target civilans. You consistantly whine about your constitutional rights being taken away, well now every America hater in the world just got the same rights that you have. I thought you were an anti-globalist but now your cheering that our constitution just went global. I should not be surprised because you and 3f's dance in the streets (more likely wrap a dish towel around your head and fire an AK47 in the air, in the street) every time liberals make the job of defending this country more difficult.

An unlawful combatant is a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict under the International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.


Capture of a Franc-Tireur, by Carl Johann LaschThe Geneva Conventions apply in wars between two or more states. Article 5 of the GCIII states that the status of a detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal". Until such time, he is to be treated as a prisoner of war. After a "competent tribunal" has determined his status, the "Detaining Power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a POW, as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial".

A combatant who does not qualify for POW status can, under the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, expect to be treated humanely; and before he is punished, can expect to get a trial in "a regularly constituted court."

This ruling would not have came about if GW hadn't ARROGANTLY abused the War Powers Act, played games with the Courts, and had fullfilled and followed the previous 2 Supreme Court Rulings...
Even tho the International Law has a recognized recourse for "unlawful combatants"- GW tried to make up his own rules choosing to describe the detainees held under his war powers act ruling as a new term, "Illegal enemy combatants", to avoid the international description. :roll: Another case of GW trying to use verbage to get around the law....Last year the Senate was 4 votes short of the 60 votes needed to put back the international definition...

Then he tried to subvert the courts and the law- by building the prison at Guantanamo- thinking he could put it in a no mans land and hold people unchallenged forever....This caused the Supreme Court to rule against him...

In Rasul v. Bush Supreme Court ruled that "the US Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Naval Base, which the United States occupies under a lease and treaty recognizing Cuba's ultimate sovereignty, but giving this country complete jurisdiction and control for so long as it does not abandon the leased areas." and that as the U.S. had complete jurisdiction the U.S. court system has the authority to decide whether foreign nationals (non-U.S. citizens) held in Guantanamo Bay were rightfully imprisoned. This ruling largely overturned the judicial advantage for the U.S. administration of using the Naval Base, that Johnson v. Eisentrager seemed to have conferred.

Then he refused to follow that ruling and the other Supreme Court ruling that ordered the detainees must have access to tribunals and status reviews held to determine their status and reason for being held-and determine if they could/should be held- which came about because of the increasing long time period of imprisonment- and which even caused some countries, Canada, the UK, Germany, and Sweden, to intervene to limit the degree to which the rights of their nationals have been suspended. Some have been held 6 years with no tribunal or status hearing on why they are being held- some have even been ruled to be nonterrorists by the FBI/Military/CIA- having been turned in by some Swami Chief, short on money, seeking a reward that the military was offering for any bad guys-some even kidnapped by these Swamis out of another country- and have since been found by the military to be no threat- but are still being held...

Then he went one step further and again avoided Congress's law that was passed in 2005 and requires the treatment of these detainees to follow the Military Field Manuel- and the following of the Geneva Convention - both of which prohibits any type of torture...He went around that by turning the "interrogations" over to the CIA- which used simulated drowning, water boarding, strapado, pain infliction, burning and scarification, etc. etc.-- all banned by the military field manuel and by International Law...One of the reasons many countries want Bush/Cheney tried as war criminals- which even Attorney General Ashcroft warned them could happen ( and that I believe was one of the reasons he left the Bush Kingdom).....

No-- GW brought this down on himself- and this ruling gives me the impression that what I and many legal scholars believe- if many parts of the Patriot Act are ever challenged- they will be struck down as unconstitutional....Because they are.....

And Mike is right- all this ruling does is say that you have to show a reason why each detainee is being held- and give them a right to counter it- all in a REASONABLE time.....It doesn't mean they have to be or are going to be set free...
The courts ruled long ago that this had to be done for illigal invaders (illegal immigrants), also noncitizens, before they are deported or held for any reasonable period....

Also I heard Senator Boxer and one of the Republican Senate leaders both say together today that they will begin work on a bipartisan bill to clean up the problems in the illegal law-- and with the hopes of GW slithering off into the sunset, maybe this next one will be honestly and correctly enforced by the new President and there won't be any reason for challenges....

Justice Anthony Kennedy: "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and Security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law. The framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, a part of that law. "

As Justice Kennedy rightfully noted in his opinion- the problem can be taken care of within the system-without compromising the laws/rights/freedoms/ high moral values that have made this country so powerful and great-- and that even in a panic period- the President and/or the Congress can not and should not give up or erode these rights/laws/freedoms that the Constitution lays out.....

If we start compromising and eroding these freedoms/rights that we have now had for over 200 years and that thousands of our forefathers died fighting for- then Al Quaeda and the Terrorists have won....
 

Clarencen

Well-known member
I agree that these people should be given their day in court. Charges should be made against them so they can answer to these charges and defend themselves. But-but-but remember, The people who died in the Trade center, the pentigon, and in that Pennsylvania field didn't have any constitutional rights or any choices or rights. Sometimes I believe an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth might be as fair as any. There are many things out there to shed my tears for, I don't have any to waste on them.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
In writing for the court majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy acknowledged the terrorism threat the country faces — the administration's justification for the detentions — but he declared, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

But in a blistering dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Are you liberals happy ??
Chief Justice John Roberts, in his own dissent, criticized the majority for striking down what he called "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants."

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas also dissented.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens — the court's more liberal members — joined Kennedy to form the majority.










[/b]
 

fff

Well-known member
Clarencen said:
I agree that these people should be given their day in court. Charges should be made against them so they can answer to these charges and defend themselves. But-but-but remember, The people who died in the Trade center, the pentigon, and in that Pennsylvania field didn't have any constitutional rights or any choices or rights. Sometimes I believe an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth might be as fair as any. There are many things out there to shed my tears for, I don't have any to waste on them.

But these people locked up for six years may not have had anything to do with 9/11! How can you justify keeping them away from their homes, families, lives for SIX years without showing they've done anything at all? Will you be surprised when/if they're released that they DO go out and do something aginst the US's interest after being treated this way? Do you expect them to just say, "so long, it's been a nice vacation here in Cuba" while their kids grew up, their parents may have died, they were tortured, and they had done nothing?

And we don't have to speculate too much. McClatchy News has followed up on some of the 66 men released from Guantanamo in the most systematic survey to date of prisoners held there. Many had no connection to terrorism, but their experience turned them against America. They're going to start a series Sunday about these men. Here's a link to their site.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/

IMO, what Bush did with GitMo is much like what the Soviets did with the Gulag. They took people off the streets and "disappeared" them. That's NOT the American way.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Clarencen said:
I agree that these people should be given their day in court. Charges should be made against them so they can answer to these charges and defend themselves. But-but-but remember, The people who died in the Trade center, the pentigon, and in that Pennsylvania field didn't have any constitutional rights or any choices or rights. Sometimes I believe an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth might be as fair as any. There are many things out there to shed my tears for, I don't have any to waste on them.

Your right Clarence- nor did Sharon Tate or any of the others killed by Charles Manson- or the many 100's killed each year by the illegal invaders to our country...But our Constitution says they all have a right to have their legality to be held reviewed- and their future decided by judge, jury or tribunal....
I too have worked cases where I would have preferred to just take the suspect down to the river - pop & a cap- save the state money, and/or pull the gallows lever- but our country was built on our freedoms and our strong belief in rights for all, and its the thing these terrorists so envy, that I don't want to see their threats bringing it down.....
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Clarencen said:
I agree that these people should be given their day in court. Charges should be made against them so they can answer to these charges and defend themselves. But-but-but remember, The people who died in the Trade center, the pentigon, and in that Pennsylvania field didn't have any constitutional rights or any choices or rights. Sometimes I believe an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth might be as fair as any. There are many things out there to shed my tears for, I don't have any to waste on them.

Your right Clarence- nor did Sharon Tate or any of the others killed by Charles Manson- or the many 100's killed each year by the illegal invaders to our country...But our Constitution says they all have a right to have their legality to be held reviewed- and their future decided by judge, jury or tribunal....
I too have worked cases where I would have preferred to just take the suspect down to the river - pop & a cap- save the state money, and/or pull the gallows lever- but our country was built on our freedoms and our strong belief in rights for all, and its the thing these terrorists so envy, that I don't want to see their threats bringing it down.....

First of all these detainees were afforded more U.S. Constitutionally protected rights than any other prisoners of war in history. Military Tribunals have been ruled as Constitutional and as fair as any courts in the world. They have been upheld previously by the Supreme Court.

Does anyone seriously think these "Prisoners Of War" were detained for being choirboys? Remember too, that they have not set foot on U.S. soil.
Do they even deserve Constitutional rights?

It would have been very simple to leave these guys in Afghanistan and try them according to Islamic law, then they would have been beheaded and problem solved.

Do you think that if you go to another country and break the law, that YOU will be afforded U.S. Constitutional Rights?

The Supreme Court Liberals got it wrong on this one. Bad wrong.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
King George is wrong to keep those guys there this long, but the Court is wrong to say that enemy combatants have constitutional rights. That was already ruled on in 1950 and was set.

I have no use for Bush, but to his credit, before taking anybody to Gitmo, he went to the justice dept. and asked them what the law said he could do and could not do. They cited a previous ruling that said enemy combatants held in a foreign facility had NO constitutional rights. There's 5 justices that need a blanket party.
 

Mike

Well-known member
It has been a worldwide precedence for thousands of years that prisoners of war can be detained/imprisoned until the war is over, or until prisoner release/exchange negotiations are made.

WITH NO ACCESS WHATSOEVER TO A COURT OR TRIBUNAL!!!!!

This was done here during the Civil War and every other war in history.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Mike said:
It has been a worldwide precedence for thousands of years that prisoners of war can be detained/imprisoned until the war is over, or until prisoner release/exchange negotiations are made.

WITH NO ACCESS WHATSOEVER TO A COURT OR TRIBUNAL!!!!!

This was done here during the Civil War and every other war in history.



BUT this war is OVER!! Remember MISSION ACCOMPLISHED


Want to repeat Andersonville do ya???
 

fff

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
King George is wrong to keep those guys there this long, but the Court is wrong to say that enemy combatants have constitutional rights. That was already ruled on in 1950 and was set.

I have no use for Bush, but to his credit, before taking anybody to Gitmo, he went to the justice dept. and asked them what the law said he could do and could not do. They cited a previous ruling that said enemy combatants held in a foreign facility had NO constitutional rights. There's 5 justices that need a blanket party.

Give me a break. Do you think Bush would have gone to the DOJ if he had not been confident they would support his stand? It was HIS Justice Department, manned by HIS people, agreeing with HIS stands on virtually everything. Got a link to that previous ruling the Justice Department referenced?

Ah yes, those torture confessions have proved so useful. That, at least, was the claim of our President in justifying one of the most egregious assaults ever on this nation's commitment to the rule of law. But now comes news that charges have been dropped against the so-called September 11 attacks' twentieth hijacker, one of dozens so identified, because the "evidence" he supplied under torture and later recanted is not credible enough to go to trial.

The fact that the information produced is worthless--as evidenced by Qahtani, once driven insane, naming everyone around him in the camp as a major Al-Qaeda operative--will not deter those who condone torture. But others expert in these matters, including presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain, will recoil from such tactics.

It was the treatment of Qahtani and other prisoners, as witnessed by horrified US Navy Department investigators at Guantànamo, that got the attention of the Navy's then-General Counsel Alberto J. Mora. In one of those all-too-rare examples of true heroism that makes one proud to be an American, Mora challenged the Bush Administration to practice the human rights standards that America proclaims to the world. But Bush would stay true to his own values: "Any activity we conduct is within the law," Bush stated in November 2005, adding, "We do not torture."

What was it then? As the New Yorker's Jane Mayer reported in 2006, citing the Army's own interrogation logs, Qahtani, in addition to being subjected to documented beatings and other physical abuse, was put through an S&M routine calculated to drive him mad, which it accomplished:

"Qahtani had been subjected to 160 days of isolation in a pen perpetually flooded with artificial light. He was interrogated on 48 of 54 days, for 18 to 20 hours at a stretch. He had been stripped naked; straddled by taunting female guards, in an exercise called 'invasion of space by a female;' forced to wear women's underwear on his head, and to put on a bra; threatened by dogs; placed on a leash and told that his mother was a whore.' "

Quite an advertisement for the American way of life. Should we expect the rest of the world to boycott the Olympics when we next get to host the Games? Others might question why the Third 1949 Geneva Convention's prohibition against "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment," doesn't apply to the United States.

The failure to elicit any usable incriminating information from Qahtani once again supports the view of most experts that torture is not only morally repugnant, it is in fact counterproductive to getting at the truth.

But this didn't trouble John Yoo, then the Justice Department lawyer who wrote the infamous Bybee memo on torture, named after Yoo's boss, Jay S. Bybee, who was rewarded for his leadership with a judgeship on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Los Angeles. Yoo, the best recent example of what the great anti-Nazi writer Hannah Arendt once referred to as the "banality of evil," teaches law at UC Berkeley when not touring the country to argue that if an action does not produce death through organ failure it can't be torture. Audiences tend to clap politely and observe that while they don't agree with him, he is, as I was told by a UCLA professor after such an appearance, "a very bright fellow."

On February 6, 2003, as Qahtani was being led around on a leash, Yoo visited Mora in his Pentagon office. Mora later told the New Yorker writer Mayer that he asked Yoo, "Are you saying the President has the authority to order torture?" Yoo answered with a clear "yes." Following that stellar legal advice, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, with Yoo's encouragement, officially approved "hooding," "exploitation of phobias," "stress positions," "deprivations of light and auditory stimuli" and the other horrors that the scandals of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo would burn into the legacy of the United States.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080526/scheer
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
fff, "Give me a break. Do you think Bush would have gone to the DOJ if he had not been confident they would support his stand? It was HIS Justice Department, manned by HIS people, agreeing with HIS stands on virtually everything. Got a link to that previous ruling the Justice Department referenced? "

So it means nothing that HIS DOJ quoted an established ruling? When citing a ruling that was established over 50 years ago, what difference does who is citing it make? Do you realize that yesterday's court decision actually was a REVERSAL of a previous ruling and not the first time this type of a case was heard?
 
Top