BREAKING: Supreme Court Backs Gitmo Detainees; 5-4 Decision Against Bush Administration- UPDATED with VIDEO
By Nicole Belle Wednesday Jun 11, 2008 10:30am
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t David)
The Supreme Court has ruled that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the U.S. Constitution to challenge their detention in civilian courts.
The justices, in a 5-4 ruling Thursday (.pdf), handed the Bush administration its third setback at the high court since 2004 over its treatment of prisoners who are being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba.
"We hold these petitioners do have the habeas corpus privilege," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court majority in the 70-page opinion.
He said that Congress had failed to create an adequate alternative for the prisoners held at the U.S. military base in Cuba to contest their detention.
Not surprisingly, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas were the dissenting opinions. In Scalia's dissent, he wrote:
"...it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner. The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today."
Yeah, it's such a hassle to prove you have the right to indefinitely detain someone. People for the American Way:
It’s chilling that the case was decided on a single vote, 5-4. One more Bush Justice on the Court, and the decision would likely have gone the other way. That’s why it’s so important for Americans to realize that in this election year, the Supreme Court is on the ballot. John McCain has already promised the GOP that he would nominate Justices to the Court exactly like those Bush has brought to the bench. This year, we must reverse the tide, and begin to restore a Supreme Court that upholds our individual rights and the laws that keep us free.
Login or Register to post comments.
thier can be no doubt now
Whoa....I NEVER thought I'd see this!
"The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today."
That statement applies to so many rulings from the stacked wingnut court, how appropriate to hear it from the fascist pig Scalia.
Don't forget this is the same USSC that decided in 2000 the voters don't matter and Bush waz da man!. The Bush Cabal is still laughing all the way to the bank.
Devious stuff.
Surprise, surprise....The four decenting votes were from Roberts, Alito,Thomas
and Scalia
Reich-wing implosion in 4...3....2.....1....
maybe this is the beginning...maybe...
Scalia is such a seething prick. Every time you read a dissenting opinion from him the only thing you can really gather from it is not that he's upset with the legality or equity of the decision.... but that he's pissed off that he doesn't have the ability to solely effect law in this country. In other words, that democracy still exists, and it still exists to disrupt fascists like him and the people who put him into power from completely sweeping away dissent.
lyleleander @ 8:
Perfect bumper sticker slogan. Scalia is clearly the most r partisan judge on the Court, yet reich-wingers are so blinded by their own hate and stupidity to see this simple fact.
That's great. Now, if we can only get the right of habeus corpus back to US citizens that this ReichWing court took away....
i cannot fully describe how much i hate the being that in scalia. you lost, get over it.
The only thing this country will live to regret are the 4 conservative justices on the Court.
Jesus. Don't these dissenting judges understand what the constitution is FOR? Its there to keep people's civil rights (and human rights) inviolate. IE: You cant take them away because youre afraid of a bunch of [[people with whom you disagree.] Edited. Lay off the racist invective here-Sitemonitor].
Habeus Corpus has formed the foundation of human rights for a thousand years! You dont just take it away because Bush says some group of people are scary! You need to have more than just "Those guys look like terrorists" to destroy someones life by detaining them FOREVER.
And now we emerge
Torch in hand we surge
Light to push the darkness back
For the courage that we have lacked
Now from our hearts it shall swell
The greedious gluttony in it's death knell
For we are many and they are one
And one by one, we will be done
I'm somewhere between happy as hell with this decision and frightened that if McCain picks the next Supreme Court judge, we are so fu*ked for such a long time.
Why didn't Scalia refer to his butt-buddy, Jack Bauer, on this one to show how treating prisoners inhumanely produces results?
Americans are so gullible.
[Deleted. Knock it off. It's trolling with flamebait. Quit being a sore winner-Sitemonitor]
"This year, we must reverse the tide, and begin to restore a Supreme Court that upholds our individual rights and the laws that keep us free."
Agreed.
The only problem is that I don't trust the electoral system we currently have in place. Specifically the privately owned, computerized voting machines.
If we want a free and fair election in November every one of us needs to get involved locally to work directly at the precinct levels where people will be voting.
We MUST be actively involved in all our neighborhoods on Election Day to observe the elections. Lots of cameras watching the counting. All of us INSIDE the process, not outside complaining.
Right, it's a pity the Decider can't lock up anyone he chooses for no reason at all.
I wonder if justin can write poetry like I can?
McCain cant win! If he does, womens rights will be destoyed! I hope American women realize how perilous our future is if one more right-wing justice is ushered in. I might have to move my daughters out of the states.
JW @ 13:
Of course they understand what the Constitution is for. That's why they're working so hard to subvert it. You can't very well establish a Fourth Reich with that pesky 200 year old piece of paper in the way, can ya?
Dr. (terrorist fit jab) Matt @ 18:
stfu
L.A. Confidential @ 17:
Let's check the evidence for that statement:
They "elected" the shrub twice, they read the bible and believe in jeebus and mouth "support the troops" ad nauseum.
You are correct!
I fully concur with this decision, yet have difficulty understanding why the vote (5-4) could have been so close. The basic rights which have been witheld from the prisoners at Gitmo are fundamental to our country and must be restored. It does not take a great visionary to project that the same unjust treatment we have witnessed in our base in Cuba could someday blead into the legal system as it affects each and every U.S. citizen. Heaven forbid that the Supreme Court will ever become overbalanced with the type of justices the Bush administration has burdened us with, and with which John McCain has promised to recommend.
As always, the SCotUS makes decisions long after they would actually be useful. But hey, they need to keep up their reputation as the most worthless part of the federal government.
I'm shocked and delighted. Also hopeful. I would have bet that the majority would vote against the Constitution.
I hope this invalidates the Military Commissions Act in whole.
Dr. (terrorist fit jab) Matt @ 9:
The hard core "conservatives" appear to have no self awareness or reasoning abilities whatsoever. They act like morally blind people.
forget impeaching bush....impeach scalia
the man is certifiable
liftr36 @ 26:
The reason is because of Jack Bauer being cited as precedent by Alito, and the conservative's pants-pissing fear of OMG TEH TERRRRRRRRRRERRRRRRISTS!!!
Oddly enough, they aren't all that big on prosecuting people who blow up women's health clinics.
The only thing the Nation regrets is that a malignant sociopath like Scalia and similar maladjusted personalites like Roberts, Alito and Thomas were ever appointed to the court.
If they arent going to impeach Bush, then at least impeach several of the members of SCOTUS.
The fascist members of SCOTUS seem to think that the military can 'detain' someone that isnt a prisoner of war - but rather something they call (and invented) - a 'detainee'.
I would argue that by definition, anyone 'detained' by the military is a prisoner of war - and if not, then they ought not be detained.
This is clearly nothing less than an attempt to wedge open fractures in the US legal system for unintended (and manufactured) governmental benefit.
Oh PS, to the idiots who turn every thread into a hillary/obama bicker, please just stfu or find a different blog. And to all the cynics who've lost all hope, grow a par and do something about it.
Underground Pirate @ 29:
The hard core "conservatives" appear to have no self awareness or reasoning abilities whatsoever. They act like morally blind people.
Oh trust me, they aren't acting.
A lot of detainees at the GITMO concentration camp were not scooped up on the battlefield, but "Sold" to us by Afghan warlords. It's a total crock of shit. What happened to the hunt for Osama Bin Laden and the domestic U.S. Military Grade Anthrax Terrorist? War on Terror, my ass. regards
Doggiebobo @ 5:
Does Uncle Clarence EVER oppose overseer Scalia?
"...The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today..."
That is the same thing I said when the Supreme Court stopped the 2000 vote recount in Florida.
lyleleander @ 8:
Oh, and Mr. Justice Scalia regarding your advice:"2000 election --Get over it."
Never. Not a chance. Nada.
about time
tyree @ 24:
both of yuz stfu
anyone that is a frequent poster knows that we are here to support the party not keep dividing it.
no matter what side your we are on the SAME side
think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jake S. @ 14:
I love this Jake S. Nicely done.
We are just one vote away from Fascism...just one
Once more into the breach, dear friends
Once more into the breach.
Repeat after me : NO MORE REPUBLICANS IN NOVEMBER
MDC @ 37:
And You were absolutly correct.
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
Well, Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas: What would Jack Bauer do in this situation? [snark]
tyree @ 24:
easy people....infighting is hugely counterproductive.
we have more important things to focus on.
Uncle Joe Hussein Mccarthy @ 30:
Scalia said that "the federal courts are incompetent" to make the detainee rulings!
Imagine that. Scalia just called the federal courts incompetent!
The pot calling the kettle black?
“The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.”
We already regret what the court has done here today -- four Supreme Court justices voting against the Constitution -- but the big news is, hey, the righties say our Nation will live! Yay!
Guardian UK: Ghost ships
This is great news. If some of these people are truly terrorists and as bad as Cheney would have us believe then these people can rot but I sure as hell would never take Cheney's word for it. Make the government prove it. Not such a novel idea but one that this administration seems to think does not need to happen. They/we will even have to prove that Cheney and Bush should be locked up for the rest of their lives but I don't see any problem there. Do you? I think it would be a "slam dunk".
Nicole, you missed the Williams spin. He said (in effect) this ruling was a 'get out of jail free' card when he said - For the big five not quite so clear (Sheik Mohammed etc) as their cases for habeous corpus are not as strong. He seems to have missed the core meaning here - process and rule of law NOT utility. (Scalia surely regrets just how untidy democracy can be)
This may also have bearing on the military commissions act - which he appears to also have missed.
He needs to be called on this.
Goodbye MCA... The Military Commissions Act is dead: it's central clause, clause 7, is explicitely struck down. Without 7, there's very little of MCA which can stand in the face of previous contrary opinions, esp. Hamdan.
This is a great day!
Scalia's comments show what a shabby mind he has. He says that the courts aren't competent to prove who is and who isn't an illegal enemy combatant and therefore cannot determine who is and isn't covered by Constitutional protections. Typical for this idiot, he misses the point. First, it isn't the courts jobs to determine ones status, it's the courts' jobs to uphold and defend the Constitution. Curious that so many of our Supreme court judges can't figure that out. Second, it is utterly irrelevent what somebody's status is in the first place; indeed, status itself (an insane concept) is irrelevent: Constitutional protections apply to all, they don't have to be earned, they can't be forfieted. If somebody is in the the US, it's territories or falls under the authority of the US flag, they're covered. With few shameful exceptions, that has always been the norm, as settled law.
Scalia is a blood-thirsty, power-hungry sociopath who would twist the laws of the land in order to see to the sating of his lust to cause harm. I wish him nothing but ill and an early and very short retirement.
I guess even some conservative Judges can be reasoned with.
Scalia has lost his mind! His public stance has been that the courts should never adjugate policy:
"I think it is up to the judge to say what the Constitution provided, even if what it provided is not the best answer, even if you think it should be amended. If that's what it says, that's what it says."
Then states that because of his predicted outcome, the reinstatement of Habeus Corpus is wrong?!
The history of the present era will be fascinating, if Americans of the future are able to read...
Impeachment isn't just for the president, vice-president, secretary of state, etc. SCOTUS justices may also be impeached.
it's chilling that this was decided by one vote...
Chilling yes, surprising no. Four blocks of granite for GOP agenda, will not vote based on law or logic. They have an mission and their votes will be 100 percent predictable. No pretense, no excuse. So with that as a perspective the vote is unanimous. At least among the real jurists. And for future reference remember subtract four and you see the true vote.
Abbybwood @ 19:
Again you remind me of why I'm so happy to live in Oregon. Our vote-by-mail system is incredibly awesome.
The Supreme Court is the most important issue of this election for me. As I feel it should be for any woman.
For the angry Clinton supporters who are threatening to support John McCain in November, this is why you "must" vote for Obama. We have 4 justices on the court who have no obligation to the Constitution nor Democratic government. One more justice like Scalia, Alito, Roberts and the always missing in action Thomas, we can kiss our civil liberties good bye, and if you think John McCain is not like Bush, just listen to the 30 or so Republicans in Congress who refuse to support McCain. And it is not because he is not conservative enough, they don't think he has the tempermant to be President. Now for the angry women out there, Roe V Wade, equal pay, civil rights, and so on are on the ballot. So even if you don't like Obama, the question is do you like yourself and are you going to waste all the hard work that has gone into gaining the rights you have gained over the years. For you to even consider setting the entire country back 50 years because you are angry over the Democratic primary is simply childish, immature, and selfish.
Gee, I wonder who the dissenters were. Wonder who penned the dissenting opinion.
Madprogressive @ 59:
*standing ovation*
Very well said!!!
Ricky Bones @ 60:
Never mind, I see now who it was and who wrote it. No surprise!
“…it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner. The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.”
To summarize: "Commanders must prove in court that evidence supports the confinement of enemy prisoners."
In other, older words: "No freeman shall be taken, imprisoned,...except by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. To no one will we...deny or delay, right or justice." The Magna Carta, 1215
Roberts Alito Thomas Scalia
Um, I think everyone here should get a bit of a grip. Civil rights are not making a comeback. Shortly you will be reading of some sort of novel maneuver, some Machiavellian gambit to sidestep this ruling. Bush is above the law. His view of the Executive is that during a time of armed hostilities with another nation the Legislative and Judicial branches are subservient to him. He will not obey this ruling nor acquiesce to the court. Bet on it.
Next pres: expand the court with some raging civil liberties nuts. Take up it to 11, or 13 justices. Fuck the cons and their activist judging style.
I want judges that interpret the law, not ones that change it when they think 'special conditions' warrant. There is no such thing in law. That's why we make them.
Scalia and Thomas and the other two can go to hell.
Rowdy! @ 64:
BUMPER STICKER.
Anybody here have a print shop? I'd buy one of there fer sher!
Not surprisingly, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas were the dissenting opinions. In Scalia’s dissent, he wrote:
“… The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.”
The nation is regreting that the Bush/Cheney Junta and The Republican Crime Syndicate were able to put your sorry darksided demonic ass's on the Supreme Court!
WOOT! A win for the good guys. Suck ass Scalia.
Yellow Elephant Safari @ 67:
Excellent! I will buy one.
Bush's buddies in the Supreme Court are always with him. We need to change lifetime appointments to change the bias. No branch of the government should contain a lifetime bias. Make them elected officials.
The nation already regrets the four morons of the apocalypse having been named to the bench.
Barry @ 71:
Don't blame Bush. The Democratic pussies in Congress confirmed all these bastards.
"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall - think of it, ALWAYS."
--Mahatma Gandhi
But it doesn't. The dissenting justices do just what the administration has repeatedly done; they refuse to define what these prisoners are under our laws. They're not civilians, but since there is no declaration of war, we'll have to take the administration's word for it. So, they're POWs, right? Well, no, because there is no declaration of war, and these prisoners don't wear uniforms. So, they have no protections as civilians or as POWs; they're, um, well, let's see, "enemy combatants!"
The administration invented a new class of human, which one would think requires a very high standard of proof. Their argument seems to be that since it's a new thing, the government doesn't have to prove anything!
The dissenting justices seem to want me to believe that our military will stop protecting the nation, because on the battlefield they'll be worried about being sued; I'm not sure what else they're trying to say. We live in a nation that presumes that the police need evidence to arrest someone, and that the military is controlled by the Executive Branch, which is the highest law enforcement organization in the nation. So, yeah, you have to prove your assertions. If you don't like it, get a job a Blackwater.
RichStraightWhiteAmericanMale @ 63:
this ruling means nothing to the mighty king bush and his handy dandy signing statement pen !
serge @ 72:
You would be amazed that half regret the five.
And on a related note, this should be a warning to all those women out there whining because Billary didn't win.
Fine, continue to pout and cast your protest vote for McSame.
Just don't come crying to me when Roe v.Wade is overturned and you lose the ability to control what happens to your own body.
“…it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner. The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.”
As a dissenting opinion, this is not an applicable argument for the law being examined.
if that's not the definition of "activist", then....
Scalia: “… The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.””
I think he really means HE (Scalia) will make the nation live to regret this.
Barry @ 71:
Absolutely. Maybe just give them a reasonable term like 8 years or something.
♠Bangkok-Bob♠ in Chiang Mai @ 42:
How about the Repubs disband like the Nazi's did. No more republicans ever!
My dad was a repub, and he couldn't wait for me to go to Vietnam to "help win" that war.
I loved him, but his republicanism was the worst part of him.
Scalia: "The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.”
Actually, Judge, in less than eight years we should, as you advised, “Get over it. It’s so old by now.”
Aachoo @ 74:
Thanks for this.
I've recently read that less than 10% of the 'detainees' being held by the US 'government' are at Gitmo. Will this decision effect the others?
Why all the excitement? Everybody knows that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the fourth branch of government. No one will even get a hearing. Dick Cheney can keep torturing Pakistani cabdrivers to his heart's content.
Seriously - does anyone think that the administration will do anything different? Feh.
None of this could have happened without the blessing of the U.S. Congress (as well as the 4th estate). None of this could have happened without the blessing of the American People, which makes me ashamed.
The courts are only 8 years behind public opinion
Aachoo @ 74:
true, the tyrants and murderers always fall, but as for the way of love....
these entities still exist via their roles, not their organisms. The actors change, but the script remains the same because of our inherited social binds and constructs. As long as we can blame individuals (tyrants and murderers) for society's ills, we never need discover the real reasons for our suffering.
There is more than ample scientific evidence that evil (as best as anyone is willing to define it for themselves during research) is relative, that many environments trump acquired "good" character through exposure, and that any of us in the right place and the right time, can be Hitler or Ghandi.
The way of truth has promise, the way of love, though beautiful for the self, has social and environmental pitfalls.
What "feels" right, would be facility enough for harmony, and our instincts are well-evolved, if not for the massive layers of social constructs and indoctrinations through our history that lay our "love" on a bed of conflicts and falsehoods.
I long for the day when the way of "love" is the rule that works for us.
For now, we are dealing with a force that has the power, anger and communication skills of a rabid grizzly bear, and for now, the way of "love" as delivered pure from the self's heart, is not likely to resonate the way we wish.
Scalia's opinion is horrifying! It's too much trouble to prove EVERY prisoner is guilty, huh?
That GOD good things are happening. To the 4 justices who dissented, you are morally bankrupt and shouldn't be in a position of authority at a popsicle stand. I think I get so angry because of the feeling of helplessness. If I were ever around any of the fascists that are trying to run the country right now, I would have to find a way to show them the utmost contempt and disrespect possible without being arrested. Any ideas what that would be? I ordinarily would never do something this insensitive but I'm thinking just impersonate them but do so like I am mentally challenged.
liftr36 @ 26:
Call me paranoid, but I have always suspected that the main reason for opening these black prisons and concentration camps like GITMO, the main reason for attempting to strip constitutional protections from "detainees" or "illegal" combatants, and further, the main reason that all this manufactured anti-immigrant hysteria (complete with FEMA authorization to build concentration/death camps alll over the nation - in order to handle "immiration emergencies or other situtations") was to both habituate Americans to accept atrocity committed against the "other" and to habituate other Americans to the act of committing those atrocites....."National security", "fighting terrorism" and all the other surface issues being just cover for this deeper purpose. It is a process of gradually anesthetizing the national conscience that must be taken as a necessary step in changing the cultural paradigms that Americans hold - mostly unknowingly, a process of creating a slow, gradual shift of America's national paradigm about human rights, democracy and liberty.
The totalitarians have probably figured it out that the average American of conscience, or American possessed with a semi-functioning conscience, wouldn't get too upset about atrocities committed against some far-off, nebulous group of boogeymen IF Americans could be very slowly and subtlely habituated to that kind of thing...especially if the initial group targeted for persecution is sufficiently "other". If the target group is sufficiently "other", the remaining mainstream of "us"es would find them just a little too abstract to be accorded in-our-guts objective reality. There might be some complaints, but atrocity against the designated group of "other" boogeymen would soon become just part of the backgorund clutter, noise in the national culture that soon becomes unnoticed, and... eventually accepted as a normal part of reality. Or so it was intended.
At that point, the hard part of the work is done. Subsequently, any further expansion of the circle to contain ever greater numbers of "other"s is a much easier thing to achieve. If everything went well, we would always accept that the "other" would, by God, get what it (notice the dehumanizing "it") deserved. Gradually, the circle of "other"s would expand to include everybody except the very highest level of elites, the only group of "us"-es. We would notice that we ourselves were included on the wrong side of the circle's perimiter only when it was too late to do anything about it.
"Otherization" is intended to be a gradual process of subversion, where a democratic nation of free citizens living in liberty is slowly transformed into a land of cowering and frightened subjects who are compelled to live in a totalitarian and repressive police state. But if the cultural paradigms are not quietly and gradually shifted, so that habituation to change goes largely unnoticed, the transformation of a nation of free citizens into a land of abject subjects becomes exceedingly difficult....probably impossible to carry out absent overwhelming force deployed against the citizens. It becomes easier if we are all taught to prey upon the nasty, mean and very scary "other". Or, taught to praise our proxies who commit the acts of predation. Once that's done, it's just a matter of making bigger circles.
The only way true liberty and democracy can fail in America, the only way America can fall, is from within. It could be safely assumed that Americans would never knowingly vote for their own enslavement and degradation, if they were even partially informed as voters. Therefore, those who wish to achieve transformation into a totalitarian dictatorship must work their works through a process of gradual subversion and incremental corruption, like leprosy, loosed upon the body and soul of the nation.
The GITMO's, black prisons, renditions, torture, Patriot Acts, Military Commissions Act, spying on citizens, the boogeyman scapegoating of immigrants appear to me to be the tools that are deployed for achieving that end. Making the other deserving of persecution. Habituation "us" to fear. Habituation "us" to atrocity. Until an undercurrent of fear becomes normal and invisible. Until atrocity and predation become normal, unnoticed and an unquestioned aspects of our accepted reality. If any part of the process fails, liberty and democracy endure. No wonder Scalia is pissed.
Hope he's so pissed and worked up that he blows a major gasket and solves all of our Scalia problems for us.
The fact that 4 justices have no regard for basic human rights is disturbing.
RichStraightWhiteAmericanMale @ 48:
It worries me. They've been wrong about everything else...
When people, be they Supreme Court Justices or elected officials, proudly stand up and shriek about how THE CONSTITUTION IS DESTROYING AMERICA, shouldn't there be some lawful method for removing them from their positions? Didn't they all swear an oath to PROTECT the Constitution? Why are we letting this happen? Ms Pelosi, can you answer this? Anybody?
I've just finished reading the Court's syllabus on the case (and a very forceful set of arguments by Kennedy, writing for the majority). The entire case is 134 pages long, so it's going to take a while to plow through the dicta and the dissents.
Based upon the syllabus, though, it is obviously apparent (as it has been to many of us who are based in reality) that the Bush Administartion and the compliant Congress sought to hamstring the Constitution. Thanks to even a 5-4 Court, that ends today.
Madprogressive @ 59:
Excellent post! You need to save this and keep repeating it until the elections. Well done!
Really good news.
Once upon a time, kings, marquis, & barons could have their men pick citizens up off the street and throw them in dungeons forever.
But that was before that Magna Carta was signed 800 years ago by English Barons, basically saying that British citizens couldn't just arbitrarily be imprisoned without recourse - a counter balance against unlimited, royal power.
Only an idiot like George Bush could turn that clock back 800 years in his and Cheney's goal of unlimited presidential power.
Can someone tell me how these four "strict constructionists" can look at Article 1, Section 9 of the constitution and come up with a dissent here?
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Case of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
Where's the rebellion? The Invasion?
Or the fifth amendment's "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger . . .nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
War has not been declared and the only public danger is that these four will be joined by another, equally reprehensible and transparently partisan judge and thus gain a majority of genuflecting squiddlings on the Court for President McCain.
These four pathetic excuses for human beings -- especially the chief rodent, Scalia -- deserve to be run out of town on rails, or maybe just air dropped into Myanmar where they'll find a government run according to the principles they seem to hold so goddamned dear.
Of course, criminal Bush just announced he doesn't care about the ruling and won't follow it. Start those effing impeachment hears, spineless Dems.
Most of us did not need the Supreme Court to tell us that this is the case. We, as Americans, already knew what the founders meant with the constitution and that amending it for some rag head who lives in a cave only does what the rag head would want to accomplish. In other words, the rethuglicans did exactly as Osama wanted them to do.
Indeed, the nation should regret what the supreme court has done today. Only five justices backed habeas corpus. It should have been all of them.
The nation should regret that very, very much.
So, according to the report, Scalia says that civilian courts are incompetent to judge whether someone is an enemy combatant, and notes that many people released from Gitmo have gone on to stage attacks in Iraq.
It's been said before: Many people are not violent criminals going into prison, but they sure are when they come out.
This is definitely a ruling which time has come. Who cares if Scalia barks about the ruling? After the injustice, torture and blatant circumventing of habeas corpus, it is time that the detainees have the right to properly try their case in a court of law without being handicapped by the government.
I'm just shocked with the court stacked with these "activist Repubican judges" that this slipped through.
[And, thank you very much, Site Monitor. I wish you a wonderful day. :) ]
Damn activist judges!
Have you read the Roberts dissent? He is PISSED. It reads more like a Scalia opinion that a Roberts opinion - he basically accuses the other half of the court of being a bunch of idiots.
Breaking...Supreme court now officially sides with the terrorists. Time to move to Israel where they don't follow the law so closely.
The Wanderer @ 95:
And look how important Anthony Kennedy has turned out to be. Which also necessitates a look at how important it was for the Senate to reject Robert Bork.
Got that, Senate Democrats? You should refuse to confirm any judge appointed by Bush from here on out. No matter what. And if the Republicans manage to install Gone InSane into the White House, you need to fight like hell to keep his first, second, third and fourth choices off the courts. Refuse to confirm anyone whose views we don't like. Just flat out refuse. It's your Constitutional duty.
Remember Scalia is the judge who said that torture is not "cruel and unusual" becuase it's not punishment. So basically it's okay to put 220 volts through a man's testicles as long as you don't call it punishment...
A very sick man. And he made it onto the Supreme court. God help us.
And the courts do the obviously right thing...amazing in this day and age. They overturned McCain's heinous effort to repeal all law governing habeas corpus since the Magna Carta. And still, there are four neanderthals in the court who don't see the light!
Just a question............
Bush signed a law suspending the right of habeas corpus to persons "determined by the United States" to be an "enemy combatant" in the Global War on Terror and he made himself the determinator of whether you are in fact an enemy of the state. This means all American citizens have potentially lost their right to habeas corpus, all it takes is for his lordship to say you are an enemy combatant.
How can we now restore Habeas Corpus to the people in Gitmo without giving it back to all people? Remember you are innocent until proven guilty, and you have a right to hear the charges against you and you have a right to trial by a jury of your peers.
If they give Habeas Corpus back to the people in Gitmo that means they have to repeal the law suspending it in the first place!
.
What Scalia defends amounts to defending Hitler's private court system...
.
Maybe now we can start executing the Christian terrorists who have destroyed everything that the United States is supposed to stand for. Sell lottery tickets to get to see who gets to put bullets through these Christian terrorists and we could restore the economy, too.
“…it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner. The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.”
Let me paraphrase - this is a bad decision because it means that detainees are now considered innocent until proven guilty, and are entitled to the due process of law. Now, I'm not a big city fancy lawyer.... but the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the color of the sky in Scalia's world isn't blue.
Two can be added to SCOTUS. Precedent follows justices equal to number of US Judicial Circuits. Sen. Obama, there are ELEVEN US Judicial Circuits.
221 d 9 h 53 m
Every day that bitch does not move to impeach further endangers this nation. She's all about CYA for her collusion in allowing torture. I hate her.
Karma is a bitch.
You reap what you sow....
The shoe is on the other foot....
What other cheesy cliche's apply to this situation?
Reading Scalia's dissent, it's like listening to the pigs argue their superiority in Orwell's Animal Farm.
How this guy graduated first in his university class, graduated from Harvard, be seated on the Supreme Court and then write this crap is beyond belief...
I love it when Scalia calls himself and "Originalist," is sounds good is a speech but his rulings are COMPLETELY based on HIS religious and political beliefs NOT on the constitution.
“The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.”
Wow. Sounds like a threat. How professional.
Did he include lovely a throat slicing motion while he was saying it?
Karen @ 108:
Yeah, I just read the syllabus and skimmed through the opinion and the Scalia dissent. The battle for Anthony Kennedy's soul goes on, but he had a good day today. A useful history of the Writ.
This is one of those moments that, I think, exposes Scalia though. His fetish for original intent is a serious issue. You always look to legislative debate to work out what a law was meant to do and Scalia's gotten some strong arguments from this in the past. But how on earth does he work out that the framers of the Constitution (many of whom where detained by the British military in a colony thousands of miles from England) did not intend habeas to extend beyond US borders? His argument seems to be "Habeas has never applied in Guantanemo before, so the founders couldn't have intended it should". His approach sometimes seems more accurately to be "What would the founders have intended if I were one of them?"
In any case, I haven't read the whole thing carefully, but I wonder if habeas applications ever came from the Western territories before statehood. Good opinion nevertheless.
Thomas Stone @ 109:
Which just goes to show the sample-shopping, cherry-picking, intellectually dishonest fraud that is Scalia. What he argues violates all of the Constitution's provisions prohibiting Bills of Attainder - punishment without convitcion by a trial (regardless his attempts to dpresent and defend the specious argument that torture's not punishment). Torture interrogation violates due process protections. Torture violates the the 5th amendment's protections against self incrimination. Torture violates right to an attorney and to have an attorney present as one's advocate. And yes, by any standard of humanity, torture is cruel. His argument also demostrates Scalia's own personal degradation, because what he is argues on behalf of completely betrays even the meanest, most minimal known principles of basic human decency.
All attempts to empathize with that man, just to attempt to understand his perspective and point of view, leave me feeling filthy, as if I had done something shameful. It's like getting into the mind of a ravenous beast. God help us, indeed.
Here's the organization to thank for the legal work:
Center for Constitutional Rights
And here's their synopsis of the case:
Al Odah v. United States
Wow, so these "enemy combatants" (a BushCo fabricated pseudo-legal term) actually have the right to respond to charges against them by demanding there be evidence?
They are challenging the absolute power of our king!
The prosecution wouldn't need the subterfuge if they had a real case. Evidently they are a little short to bring this to trial onshore. They'll have to give the cases up, but look for them to have the defendants swim home.
Scalia - "The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.” I agree. We will one day regret it was only 5-4 and not 9-0.
One wonders, when we start criminal proceedings in the Hague, is it possible for Alito and Roberts to have their nominations invalidated? Is there any historical precedent? I mean, I know we've never had a legally recognized war criminal as our #1 in command, so it's impossible to compare anything directly, but one could argue that lifetime appointments made by a convicted war criminal are anathema to the laws and spirit of the Constitution.
I am totally, completely, absolutely STUNNED. Never thought they would come through on this one. Perhaps they have seen the writing on the wall in terms of historical context in that the U.S. cannot be morally fit to be an arbiter of world peace, humanitarian rights and so forth if their own Supreme Court considers torture and no legal rights a national policy worth upholding.
And they may realize the effect the coming election may have on their legacy, i.e., a Dem wins and the next retiree from the SupCourt will be replaced by a more common sense (and constitutionally upheld) justice.
Thank you for informing people and posting this.
Surely there are those on the supreme court that know and have more information of what is really going on.
also a strange response about this case...
--> Scalia: Court’s Decision Restoring Habeas ‘Will Almost Certainly Cause More Americans To Be Killed’
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/12/scalia-courts-decision-restoring-hab...
Just WHO exactly is being held there?
Americans faught and died to make Habeas the law of the land.
Why the unprecedented secrecy?
Based on what we know..
what Cheney and Bush has already done and how they have retaliated against patriotic officials,
including CIA officials that speak the truth...
[Deleted for so many different violations of the commenting policy that I won't even begin to list them. HK, If you ever come back and take just one misstep, you will be banned. Thank you. Site Monitor]
This is the happiest day for people who believe in the principals of the United States Constitution since Bush took office. I applaud the five who voted for this and thumb my nose at the four who did not.
They may as well shut Gitmo down, now. It no longer serves this Administration's efforts to circumvent the law.
It's wonderful news, yet, oddly, it shouldn't even be news if your Constitution had mattered (at all) these last 7 1/2 years!!! I'm greatly pleased by this, and saddened to think on it.
Bush also said he doesnt like the outcome of this decision.
I wonder if this decision also applies to the "floating prisons"
that was just recently revealed.
Why the concern and unprecedented secrecy?
I would think the trials would be shown to the public,
so "America could see" what Bush has done and how he caught
and protected the public from the terrorists".
Edwin Hussein @ 131:
Look at it this way: Since Reagan took office in 1981 there as been a concerted effort to stuff the courts with ideolouges, a concerted and successful efort to take over the medi, a concerted and seemingly almost successful effort to create a one party system. That is a lot of work with a lot of money, time and effort being used to subvert our nation and yet although they almost succeded it is begining to look as though they fell short of their goa. We have a lot of work to do, but this is not a day to be sad. Celebrate our successes and keep up the fight.
The Smiths @ 132:
Maybe if you take the purpose of Gitmo at face value. In my opinion it was a way to push the envelope to see what they could get away with. Imagine if they had a ruling in their favor what it could mean. Perhaps Obama would have been framed and shipped off and Hillary too if they felt McCain could not win. Or any enemy.
Originally Patriot Act II had a clause that said a terror suspect could be stripped of his American Citizenship. When word of that leaked out the uproar made them withdraw it.
This is shocking the SC would vote against t3[-] 8005[-] again.
holy fucking shit! there still may be a country left to believe in.
Scary that it was a 5-4 decision.
HK @ 129:
[Deleted for so many different violations of the commenting policy that I won't even begin to list them. HK, If you ever come back and take just one misstep, you will be banned. Thank you. Site Monitor]
How are we 'safer' without the Constitution?
I don't Get it, If these guys were taken into custody when they were on American soil then they deserve the right to a regular trial. If they were taken prisoner in Iraq then they should face a Military Court outlined in the Geneva Convention. Could someone clear up some facts for me? Possibly show some credible sources of information as to why they should get a trial in a civilian court?
I fear this is a ruling with no teeth. The Bush crew's just going to stall for time and re-classify the prisoners in Guantanamo as "Anglebert-Humperdinks", who fall neither in the category of prisoners of war, criminals, terrorists or "enemy combatants". And we all know that Anglebert-Humperdinks are so dangerous thay can't even be heard by a secret court. If the Supremen court strikes that down, they reclassify them as "Slut-Ban-Wallas" and so on...
Grey Seal @ 139:
I know. Did you ever think we'd see a day where it took an slim Supreme Court ruling to allow prisoners the right to a trial?? Imagine if Iran, Iraq, S, Korea, hell even Canada announced they would be seizing American citizens and detaining them without trial for as long as they wanted. People here would blow blood vessels in their brains.
HK @129
Hey, buck up. Grow some spine. We already have too many Chicken Little's in this country who are more than anxious to give up our Constitutional freedoms. They are afraid of their own shadows. They believe that if we abandon those freedoms, we will be somehow safer. But those freedoms have stood the test of time, and they are what give us a decent society to live in.
If Bush was correct to state that many terrorists hate us for our freedoms, and there are probably some who do, then giving up the 800 year-old right of habeas corpus will be just what those terrorists want. Say, since you apparently do not object to this, does this make you an al Queda sympathizer?
Hmmm. Maybe we need an investigation here, or even a prosecution. Of course, you would not want to claim any of those pesky Constitutional protections that you have so little regard for.
"It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.”
Too bad Scalia didn't say that before the invasion of Iraq.
Let's hear it for Anthony Kennedy. CHEER!
What will this do to the Bush Administration's schedule of show trials for some of the detainees, carefully timed to coincide with the GOP convention and the period leading up to the election in November?
“It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed. The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.”
Yup, that's definitely a threat.
God forbid the McCainocrats hand the Supreme Court back to the Repugs.
http://gopnot4me.blogspot.com/2008/06/mccainocrats-hate-constitution-bor...
A great decision - and the correct decision.
I don't usually listen to AM radio, but I was driving today, and Michael Savage was having a meltdown. He wants the 5 liberal justices put in jail and tried for treason. He yells a lot. And he's wrong a lot. What a hate monger.
Required @ 3:
For eight years we have regretted the 2000 decision.It will be many more before we will overcome the Bush damage.
HK @ 129:
[Deleted for so many different violations of the commenting policy that I won't even begin to list them. HK, If you ever come back and take just one misstep, you will be banned. Thank you. Site Monitor]
What the hell are you talking about? What kind of fear mongering idiot are you? Only [Deleted. Abusive. Site Monitor]would wish the evil you so lamely wish on others.
btw,what the hell is a gave site?
[sully, I hope you're not awaiting an answer from this one-off troll. That comment was from four days ago, you know? BTW, please don't post in All Bold and/or ALL CAPS. Both are considered shouting. Someone will read your comments. I promise. :D Site Monitor ps- Thanks for drawing our attention to one that got by us!]
Login or Register to post comments.