Supreme Court To Hear Gitmo Detainee Appeals
Via Reuters:
The U.S. Supreme Court said on Friday it would hear appeals by Guantanamo prisoners on their right to challenge their indefinite confinement, a test of President George W. Bush's powers in the war on terrorism.The high court in April had denied the same appeals by the prisoners. In a surprise and highly unusual reversal, the justices said they would hear arguments and decide the two cases during the court's term that starts in October.
At issue is an anti-terrorism law that Bush pushed through Congress last year taking away the right of the foreign terrorist suspects at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba to have a judicial review of their detention.
The Supreme Court's decision to hear the cases was a setback for the Bush administration, which had urged the justices to turn down the appeals. Read more...
Finally!
Gee, someone got mighty smart all of a sudden.
"The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the cases was a setback for the Bush administration"
Really? I sense another 5:4 decision coming down the pike. Anybody who thinks the the Roberts court will deliver anything but another Kafkaesque nightmare hasn't been paying attention.
Snowball,
That is exactly what I thought when read this. This looks like another decision to grasp the opportunity to insert precedence over reason.
I agree with Snowball . This court is rigged (along with everything else in this administration ) and another 5-4 is a sure thing . Re-hearing the case is merely theatrics to give the appearance of " justice " but justice left town long ago . Want change ? Impeach , indict and incarcerate this whole circus .
FU@K bush/cheney/rove
why are the criminals still in office making the laws that even they won't obey.
shit-for-brains, darthfartwad and turdblossom are fascist criminals and have commited crimes against the American people and the American constitution that are impeachable offences.
get some balls congress and start impeachment proceedings.....NOW NOW NOW !!!!!!!
Yah, the only people who belong in Gitmo are Bush himself,Laura and the twins. Those people now there in Gitmo are not nor ever were terrorists. This is so sad.
Snowball @ 3:
That's exactly what I'm afraid of. Hearing the case then turning it down adds legal weight to the administration's case... something we do NOT want. (Note: Legal weight does not equal legality, merely that it will require even more effort to fix)
bob says
you got it right.
sad that shit-for-brains like a bully only beats up on the weak and innocent.
you or i or any us citizen could be in gitmo just because shit-for-brains is having
one of his assinine fits. maybe that cheney's hand is moving even deeper these days.
Yea, it'll be another 5-4. This time Roberts will either say it's the Government's right to "Free Speech" or "National Security" and/or Scalia chips in a "Let's turn 'em over to Jack Bauer -- he'd know how to tortue them!"
Or else the court finds that all medical care at Gitmo should be yanked. So things don't look as bad here in the Us, of course.
Or maybe they do as they did before and tell the Administration to sing a different tune?
They've been lobbing this hot potato back and forth for a few years now. I dread that this may be its final resting place and the quality of their decision will be even worse than the ones we've been getting pummelled by the past few days.
8
JJohnson Says:
(Note: Legal weight does not equal legality, merely that it will require even more effort to fix)
we can fix it. start impeahment for the whole lot of this sorry administrations group.
It is spooky that Congress has not been in a battle royal over the Military Commissions Act, and The Supremes are having another crack with that filthy unconstitutional law inserted. That was the out they gave * before: Get Congress to make a law. They did. Now, if the SCOTUS upholds it, we are in bad trouble... well... it's already very, very bad... but it's very possibly about to get radically worse. This is, I have to add, as much the Democrats' fault as the Republicans' now.
And in Supreme Court Sports, it's Lunatics 5, Sanity 4. It's predicted the score will be the same for the next game, and the game after that, and the game after that, and the game after that...
Sadly, with this court, it would not surprise me in the slightest if they kill habeas corpus....
s.d. says:
Sadly, with this court, it would not surprise me in the slightest if they kill habeas corpus….
they are waiting for cheney to give them his new updated copy of the constitution so they can make that decision.....
sadly I am worried that this is a mixed bag....I mean Scotus made alot of really OTHER awful decisions this week...but we shall see.....it should NEVER have happened....
I mean GITMO should not have happened.- oooops
It is already decided.
Bob, agree with you entirely. These people are most likely innocents picked up willy nilly, or, they guys who signed up because they had nothing to do in their lives and needed a meal or two now and then.
This whole thing is disgusting. I can't even begin to imagine what these poor people are going through. Having sociopaths for leaders brings this kind of result. But then, when was it ever really that different? Although I believe for sure this is the worst the US has seen, the guys at the top are not Bush, Cheney, Rove, etc, are they? They are the unseen faces behind these flimsy excuses for human beings.
Anybody see a television special shown years ago that showed what was done with the 'Taliban' that were captured in Afghanistan? Locked in shipping containers and trucks in the desert and left to die or strafed with bullets. Nice, really nice. I guess they had nowhere to put these guys, at least not without spending some thousands of dollars.
Get ready for the worst Supreme Court ruling since Dred Scott.
We are a nation of lazy, pathetic cowards. Think of how many things we have let go on while we root for sports teams, go water skiing, save up for that new widget...NAFTA is killing farmers world wide, Gitmo is torturing innocent people who can't even get legal help, the Clean Air Act is a polution nightmare, our Supreme Court is straight out of Planet of the Apes, the gold is gone from Fort Knox, our cities are being turned into SWAT team training grounds, the majority of the world hates us...
It is all like some ugly Sisyphus nightmare that repeats day after day. I want so much to think that the real "American" spirit will rise up in our hearts and minds and we will fight back, but we don't. I'm geting old, I'vd done what I could for decades, but where is the next wave?
We've got the worst president in our history, the worst congress in our history, and we very well might be the worst citizens in our history.
Wow, it's like this Supreme Court has Torret's Syndrome or something. No Bong hits for Jesus but High school T's with ChickenHawk George on them are Hunky Dory. Now this...I don't know. I'm just plain burnt out.
I expect SCOTUS to give POTUS a blank check on this.
jurisprudence rottenus
[Deleted. Lethal, only to yourself-Sitemonitor]
Political reality forces Congressional Democrats to wait on repealing the worst acts of the previous Congress. The Republican/Lieberman bloc can easily fillibuster any true change in the Senate. Any bi-partisan effort that is not veto-proof will be vetoed by President Bush.
And,yes, the SCOTUS will rule in favor of torture and against international treaty. Does anyone believe that vetting Bush's nominees did not include hearing their views on Gitmo, renditions, or warrantless wiretapping?
But the deft surfing of public opinion will ensure a Democratic victory in 2008. And that is the only way they can seriously address the criminality of the Republican takeover of America and the courts.
Don't worry. No one as criminal and incompetent as a Bush appointee can long survive without the Republicans in charge of the investigations.
Even now the SCOTUS is exposing themselves as legal hacks and perjurers before the US Senate. Their partisanship will be their downfall.
But how the heck are they going to get Kennedy (the new swing voter) to go along with the Roberts gang? And if it's not a sure thing, why have they agreed to hear the case? This is puzzling...
Lethelstorm, three reasons:1. It's the right thing to do. 2. Innocent until proven guilty. 3. We play by the rules.
That should be enough reasons but here is a bonus: If we want to be the good guys we need to walk the walk.
Not sometimes, not when it's easy, not just when everybody else does, but all the time.
Because it's in the constitution which these assclowns took an oath to protect and defend. If the government can take it from them they can take it from everybody. Read some history instead of fox noise.
Reason number four for Habeas Corpus - Right now it can be taken away not only from foreigners, but also from US citizens if they are declared an enemy combatant.
Terrorists will never be able to take away our liberty. We can only do that to ourselves.
SCOTUS may decide that the GITMO cells let in too much light and air, are too spacious, and the military has no right to waste taxpayer money on three meals a day and health care for enemy combatants.
They may also express annoyance at being interrupted for such petty matters, and suggest that surrounding GITMO with an impenetrable, opaque dome, allowing no entry for other than inmates and guards, would be the best way to insure no further involvement of SCOTUS, so they can get on to the important matters of the day, such as restricting women's rights, promoting the welfare of aged white males. curtailing speech critical of government, giving churches access to taxpayer funds, establishing the bible as the official good book of the US, and proclaiming every day as 'Give thanks to Jaysus for George W. Bush Day'.
[Deleted-Sitemonitor]
What's that awful smell?! Oh, I see..Wingnut Troll
Lethalstorm Says
Blah..Blah..Blah..Kill You All..Blah..Blah..Hate Liberals..Blah..Blah..Blah..Like to Torture you to death.. Blah..Blah..Blah..Squak! Must watch more Faux News..Blah..Blah..Blah!:
That is all. Ignore Wingnuts watch their heads explode.
Habeas Corpus isn't about terrorists or the captured American prisoners. It's about our country making a choice between authoritarianism and democracy.
Telling people why you are locking them up and giving them a chance to defend themselves use to be considered a safeguard against government tyranny - a hallmark conservative value before 9/11. If we dump Habeas Corpus, them we are no better than the Islamic Republics that operate without it.
If I had a family member killed by a terrorist that was captured, I would want justice to be served. However, I would want justice to be served to the guilty person and not to a group of people who were rounded up because they were the usual suspects.
The way the SCOTUS is set up now ...they don't stand a chance.I feel for the people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time who had nothing to do with any "terror" activity.
Considering Scalia already made up his mind on the situation (see his comments throughout the years), it is likely that that the Court will find that the US can hold the people forever without charges.
This court is sickening. They overturned parts of the Sherman Act (antitrust) that prevents companies from price fixing. The law has been in place since 1911. So much for respecting the rule of law.
How come the Dems are not going around saying Activist Judges, just like the Republicans did? The Court is a monster. They ruled that money is equiv to free speech. but real speech (Bong Hits 4 Jesus) is not free. For that matter, why aren't the Dems going around and saying "up or down vote?
I'm a little slow at figuring these things out, but it seems to me that we now know what the authoritarians meant when they bleated on and on about original intent, with regard to the constitution and the founding fathers. They meant that all those pesky amendments should be done away with and by their God given power of five, that is exactly what they intend to do.
Ya'll should be frightened by this court, very, very frightened...
anonymous @ 27:
I think is pretty obvious The right wing side of the court thinks they can put the boot to all this detainee rights
Some have suggested that it is "unprecedented" to give "prisoners of war" a chance to have a 'trial." This assertion has a faulty premise: Not all the people at GTMO or in US detention are prisoners of war -- they are illegally detained non-combatant civilians. Before anyone in the GOP arrogantly argues that anyone is "giving" anyone any rights, the GOP needs to explain why -- despite no trial -- it has denied the rights of civilians to challenge their detention.
None of the GTMO prisoners of war -- even the civilians -- have been properly handled per the MCA; and the procedures have been retroactively devised only after the Supreme Court interjected. It is not acceptable for anyone to assert -- after having ignored the prisoners status under Geneva, to then argue that this "trial" is unprecedented. Those arguing "again" trials, were likely ones arguing "for" the original illegal treatment of non-charged civilians. These arguments are without merit.
It is likely the foolishness of these arguments, especially about those who never took up arms, is what inspires the world to further support anti-American combat forces. This does not not advocate violence; but merely asks the world to speculate as to the reasons why people who have taken up arms against Americans are in the "wrong" when the US government consistently appears to get it wrong in Afghanistan.
US Bungling: Illegal Detention of Civilian Non-Combatants
Consider the "reconstruction" after Katrina. Afghanistan has no better outlook. Yet, when we look at the Reconstruction in the South after the American Civilian War, Lincoln made the decision to put the pas in the past. Sadly, Lincoln was assassinated before he could see the reconstruction. America took the time to set aside its animosity in the South, but refused to do the same in Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed, there are differences; but let's not advocate a one size show fits all approach when the opposition wears sandals, and they're innocent civilians illegally detained in contravention to Geneva.
They deserve trials to ensure they are released. If the US, this late int he game, releases a combatant, it can hardly be called a problem: "what took so long" for them to find the evidence? Looks like Addington and Bradford Berenson were spending too much time believing they were saving the world, and not enough time focusing on whether the world needed to be saved from them. Funny how Berenson is asking for the justice he's denied other civilians. Brad Berenson of Sidley Austin is one of the legal counsel who is a "former" White House counsel, and subject of these most recent Committee subpoenas.
It looks as though Berenson and many other GOP legal counsel have been targeted for indictments. What is the GOP legal counsel's explanation?
I object to the Cheney admin's word "detainee." One can be detained for hours, even days, but not four years. Those people in Guantanamo are prisoners in the American gulag, and Congress gave Cheney and company the power to "disappear" you and me to an undisclosed location whenever they wish. But aside from that we're safer, right?
Comments are closed on this entry