Supreme Court Makes Key Gitmo Ruling Favoring Detainees - With Video
WASHINGTON — A divided 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.
The justices, in a 5-4 ruling, 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.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Dissenting were Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
“Petitioners have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus. They are not barred from seeking the writ or invoking the Suspension Clause’s protections because they have been designated as enemy combatants or because of their presence at Guantanamo,” Kennedy wrote.
“The Suspension Clause has full effect at Guantanamo. The government’s argument that the Clause affords petitioners no rights because the United States does not claim sovereignty over the naval station is rejected,” the opinion readers.
It was not immediately clear whether this ruling, unlike the first two, would lead to prompt hearings for the detainees, some of whom have been held more than six years. Roughly 270 men remain at the island prison, classified as enemy combatants and held on suspicion of terrorism or links to Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Five high-profile Guantanamo detainees appeared in a military tribunal last week, where one, Ramzi Binalshibh, admitted he was guilty of helping plan the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, and mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said he wanted to be put to death so he could be a viewed as a martyr.
The case before the Supreme Court was brought by Lakhdar Boumediene, one of the remaining prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He’s been there since 2002.
After the court ruled in 2004, in Rasul v. Bush, that the prisoners were entitled to have access to the American court system, the government established a military tribunal process. As it stands, the prisoners can appeal adverse rulings to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. It is a process Solicitor General Paul Clement argues provides Boumediene “along with the other enemy combatants being held at Guantanamo Bay, [the opportunity to] enjoy more procedural protections than any other captured enemy combatants in the history of warfare.”
But the detainees’ lawyers contend the current law fails to protect the constitutional rights the court said their clients were entitled to receive in Rasul. They want full habeas corpus rights, a constitutional protection that forces the government to justify in an open courtroom legitimate reasons why an individual needs to be behind bars. Also known as the “Great Writ,” it is a universal right that was famously suspended by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.
Lawyers for the detainees argued the government, though the 2006 Military Commissions Act, unconstitutionally suspended the Great Writ for their clients. They sought a single remedy: a fair and impartial hearing before a neutral decision maker to determine whether there is a reasonable basis in the law and fact for detaining them. They have never received such a hearing, although this court ruled more than three years ago that they are entitled to one.
The government contended the Rasul decision doesn’t cover habeas rights and that earlier court rulings make clear that foreign prisoners held outside the United States have no such right. It further argued that the military tribunals passed by Congress are an adequate substitute for what habeas seeks to protect.
Although Congress expressly chose to foreclose detainees from challenging their status via habeas, it decided that aliens detained at Guantanamo Bay as enemy combatants should receive administrative hearings before a military tribunal, subject to judicial review in the District of Columbia Circuit. That system builds additional protections upon those that are available even to conventional prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention, and it was designed to track the requirements for due process deemed sufficient for American citizens.
Boumediene is an Algerian native who was living in Bosnia at the time of his arrest in October 2001. He and five others are accused of plotting to blow up the American embassy in Sarajevo. They were relocated to Guantanamo Bay in January 2002 where Boumediene remains incarcerated. He denies any involvement in plots against the United States.
This case had provided one surprising twist. In April 2007, the court decided not to consider the matter but reversed itself in June. It is believed to be the first time in 60 years that the court changed course in such a manner. The reversal required at least five of the nine justices to grant review. Normally, only four need to agree to hear a case-and even then very few are granted arguments.
(Fox)
Kennedy’s opinion and the dissents by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
Will force US to classify them as P.O.W’s
June 12th, 2008 at 7:10 amThis is the can of worms opened when you take prisoners who should be shot dead where they are found. They’re not in uniform, they are spies. Liberal “altruism” will be the death of this country if we don’t get mad dog mean toot sweet.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:17 amA prime example of why we cannot affort a Lefty like Barry Obama in the White House making judicial appointments. How the hell did Bush I get suckered into appointing mama’s boy Souter to the court?????? The dolt is as far left as Ginsburg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
June 12th, 2008 at 7:19 amWow we are giving these killers US constitutional rights? these are the same people who have blown up civilians, killed Americans and who the hell knows what else they have done.
Supreme court you have fucked up this time.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:20 amFine. Label them as “spies and saboteurs” under the Geneva Conventions, and execute them.
This is why they’re not somewhere in the States, because this sort of maneuvering would have had them out on the streets years ago. Meanwhile, the dem-controlled Congress won’t act to pass the legislation necessary to put these gomers in front of a judge. They know they can keep bitching about how this is all Bush’s fault - never mind that it is the job of CONGRESS to write the laws - and your average American street monkey will believe them. This is a consequence of having a populace that is ignorant of even the basics of how their government works, and I blame the public school system here.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:25 amNothing too new here, just liberals siding with the enemy once again. Do they not understand the documented facts that many of these detainees, when released, go right back onto the battlefield to kill American troops? Pathetic. All this appeasement is going to screw us eventually, and it is really sad to watch it all slowly mounting.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:30 amThe Supreme Court … helping to flush the US down the proverbial toilet.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:35 amOkay. NOW, can we start thinning the herd? Starting w/people(libs) who have “I like that I am a victim” written on their foreheads? Please? Because I agree wholeheartedly with Scalia. And I. Do. Not. Like. The cold chill that went down my back.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:36 amI wonder if this will limit the number of prisoners taken in the field….If I were on the line, I’d have to leave them for the worms rather than later have to read the guy his miranda rights, make sure his religious needs are met, etc.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:42 amI’m with Kurt on this one.
Since when does habeas corpus apply to persons who are not U.S. Citizens?! Also when did we start giving them Constitutional rights? The Supreme Court has really fucked up this time.
Just wait, the next thing they’ll do is say that the Second Amendment is a collective right, not an individual one.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:47 amTerrible terrible ruling, saying these scum have habeas corpus rights. Congress, including the dems who so often are crowing, passed a law saying they didn’t have the rights. All you who have a problem with voting for John McCain, this is the only reason you need. You have a better chance of assuring better judges on the S.Ct. than with Obama. Look at the decision: 5 to 4. Also, note the irony: these *&#$er hate the U.S. and want to blow it up, along with our rule of law, but they then claim rights under the Constitution they so detest, assisted by U.S. ACLU lawyers.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:56 amI think impeachment proceedings against Mr. Kennedy are in definitely in order.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:58 amtypo: not “in definitely in order” but “definitely in order”.
My apologies.
June 12th, 2008 at 8:03 amI am actually ok with this one, I don’t know what it is about it but there is just something fucked up about holding these scum for life without trial that tweeks my sphinkter.
Either kill, try them or hand em off to some sympathetic nation who thinks “waterboarding” is something to be done in a theme park and real interigation involves power tools…
June 12th, 2008 at 8:04 amdamn liberal judges!! all 5 of you are enemies of the state! remember what happens when you go easy on the enemy? you let them go and they commit suicide attacks against you - been there before
i hope you liberals are happy with yourselves! if they get off easy and don’t get executed for their crimes, the blood of whom they kill is on your hands!!!
June 12th, 2008 at 8:06 amIs it too late for the ropes?
June 12th, 2008 at 8:09 am5 SUPREME IDIOTS!
June 12th, 2008 at 8:17 amThe Supreme Court just handed the enemy a major victory.
June 12th, 2008 at 8:19 amMay I remind you, however, it is the Executive Branch that enforces rulings. If I was the President, I would give them the finger, and go about things as usual.
June 12th, 2008 at 8:22 amEvery MSM outlet I am hearing is saying with orgasmic glee “The Bush Administration has suffered another setback/loss/blow”
WAKE UP YOU FUCKTARDS - IT IS NOT ABOUT GEORGE BUSH!!!!!!!
In seven months he will be history, and all of these fucked up laws that were passed just to screw him/his administration will still be here, fucking all the rest of us.
Have any of these liberal bitches actually thought five minutes down this road to where they are taking us??? How is a Marine supposed to collect “evidence” against these jihadi scum while he is still under fire????!!!! Are we going to morandize these pukes too??!!
I guess now it will be up to the Armed Forces to TAKE NO PRISONERS!!!!!!
June 12th, 2008 at 8:32 amDID THE GERMAN POWS HAVE THIS RIGHT IN WW-2. I DOUBT IT.
THIS 5 TO 4 BULLSHIT DOESN’T BODE WELL FOR THE 2ND AMEND RULING SOON TO COME DOWN.
June 12th, 2008 at 8:36 amWe have so fked our men and women of the Armed Forces now. The Supreme Court ruled against their OWN PRESEDENCE. They had already ruled they had no jurisdiction for enemy combatants overseas and now they reverse that ruling. How can they do a turn around? Was their a new clause just recently discovered? So tell me where are we going to get a jury of THEIR peers from? Finally, this will force our men and women off the battlefield and into the civilian courts during time of war to testify in regards to their capture (arrest?). Does anyone else see the insanity of this ruling?
June 12th, 2008 at 8:37 amThis changes the law of war, one more step toward declaring that civilized countries don’t fight wars anymore, sort of like Europe has already done.
June 12th, 2008 at 8:49 amShould ship everyone of them to live with the 5 SC judges…make them deal with them…
June 12th, 2008 at 8:58 amZeke Eagle and Q_mech are right. You want to follow the Geneva Conventions on this? Fine.
I would prefer them to use M1 Carbines at the execution.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:04 amHow is an ape like KSM either a POW or an Enemy Combatnt?
He is simply a BANDIT caught trying to harm US citzens.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:30 am“…So who has won? Not the detainees. The Court’s analysis
June 12th, 2008 at 9:30 amleaves them with only the prospect of further litigation to determine the content of their new habeas right, followed
by further litigation to resolve their particular cases, followed by further litigation before the D. C. Circuit—where they could have started had they invoked the DTA procedure. Not Congress, whose attempt to “determine— through democratic means—how best” to balance the
security of the American people with the detainees’ libertyinterests, see Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U. S. 557, 636 (2006) (BREYER, J., concurring), has been unceremoniously brushed aside. Not the Great Writ, whose majesty is hardly enhanced by its extension to a jurisdictionallyquirky outpost, with no tangible benefit to anyone. Not the rule of law, unless by that is meant the rule of lawyers,who will now arguably have a greater role than military and intelligence officials in shaping policy for alien enemy combatants. And certainly not the American people, whotoday lose a bit more control over the conduct of this Nation’s
foreign policy to unelected, politically unaccountable judges.
I respectfully dissent.” C.J. Roberts, dissenting.
JimC,
That would actually be a great movie. It would be a really short one, but a good one. The SC’s wouldn’t last more than a day and in movie terms, that’s about 5 minutes. We could offer Ruthie G. as their first virgin and maybe they’d opt for Gitmo.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:59 amlawyers have won. start the counting the hours.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:59 amWelcome to the end.
I’m with you Poe - We’ve been coddling these asshats too long down in ClubGitmo. Send them back to Iraq where they can be dealt with…ahem…appropriately.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:38 amAnother example of government bureaucracy working against justice. This people have no rights and they should be military tried. Why is it so hard for the FEDS to see that it is a waste of money on these people. I am sure they use taxpayer money to pay for trials for these people. Ask the taxpayers what they want. Ask the 9/11 relatives what they want.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:58 amActually, I’ve been upset by this ruling, but now I see what we need to do–return them to the place they were seized, mostly Iraq and Afghanistan. Even Bosnia. Then,
Open fire. Problem solved.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:07 pmThere is a precedent that was set in the 40’s on how to deal with these detainees that the libistan Supreme Idiots ignored.
This judicial oligarchy needs to come to an end. They have no oversight. Congress makes laws, not these fools.
The criminal justice system is incapable of dealing with the GWOT. Extending constitutional rights to jihadi scum is
exactly what CAIR and the unindicted co-conspirators therein want.
GW should have done what FDR did and tell the Supremes to shove it.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:45 pmIF YOU ARE ALL PISSED NOW, WAIT UNTIL THESE SENILE OLD BASTARDS RULE THAT THE WASH D.C. GUN BAN IS CONSTITUTIONAL. BYE BYE 2ND AMEND.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:10 pmSimple. TAKE NO PRISONERS.
June 12th, 2008 at 5:44 pmTAKE NO PRISONERS
June 12th, 2008 at 5:45 pmThe death of America. The Democrats,Progressives, Liberals, Marxist and the rest of the dumb fucks who support them are the death of this country. I ready for a second revolution. Time to take back the country with leaders that have a spine and a sense of Duty, Honor, and Country.
Fuck this shit. This country is screwed.
June 12th, 2008 at 6:57 pmIf one of those mo fo sobs gets out and kills or injures an American, the 5 yahoos on the S.C. should immediately be fired, charged and found guilty of aiding the enemy.
June 12th, 2008 at 8:56 pmWhat a group of assholes.
The military should solve this problem by taking no prisoners. ‘Talk’ to the jihadis that are captured for a few hours then quickly and quitely execute the fuckers and drop them in the ocean during resupply runs.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:18 pmIP727,
No one is taking my guns. They would have to kill me first.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:20 pmHEY you gotta see the PBS news hour on this the conservative guest “owned” the liberal and had the interviewer aghast at the meaning of the possibilities that this could bring.
go here and click on the streaming video link
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june08/scotusgitmo_06-12.html
It’s long but the part that I’m referring to can be fast forwarded to it’s 7:28 into the vid
June 13th, 2008 at 1:58 amMUST SEE
U.S. Supreme Court
JOHNSON v. EISENTRAGER, 339 U.S. 763 (1950)
339 U.S. 763
JOHNSON, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, ET AL. v. EISENTRAGER, ALIAS EHRHARDT, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. No. 306.
Argued April 17, 1950.
Decided June 5, 1950.
Respondents, who are nonresident enemy aliens, were captured in China by the United States Army and tried and convicted in China by an American military commission for violations of the laws of war committed in China prior to their capture. They were transported to the American-occupied part of Germany and imprisoned there in the custody of the Army. At no time were they within the territorial jurisdiction of any American civil court. Claiming that their trial, conviction and imprisonment violated Articles I and III, the Fifth Amendment, and other provisions of our Constitution, laws of the United States and provisions of the Geneva Convention, they petitioned the District Court for the District of Columbia for a writ of habeas corpus directed to the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, and several officers of the Army having directive power over their custodian. Held:
1. A nonresident enemy alien has no access to our courts in wartime. Pp. 768-777…
What mandate gave this SCOTUS the power to overule the 1950 ruling?
June 13th, 2008 at 6:23 amDamm, he owned that discussion. This sucks all the way around, I blame it all on whoever was calling the shots that pulled these guys out of there contry of origin in the first place and interned them on “our soil” without thinking ahead to the reprocussions of such an action.
There was a need for that stuff in WW2, and those guys were all PoW’s so it was viable. But there was no plan to give the majority of these guys PoW status, so why bother with the transfer and internment anyway?
It would have been easyer to treat them as common criminals in the country of origin and drop them in some local shithole. Or if needs be transfer custody of them to a “neutral” party (Jordan, Uzbek, Ect) that could handle the internment without giving the liberal aspects of our government a chance to butt in and fuck shit up.
Piss poor planing on someones part.
June 13th, 2008 at 7:49 amExactly where the “blame” belongs. And some of these pukes have been there for YEARS. wtf is up with that?
Some reason to believe Bush 1 was a ‘Conservative’? Reagan RELUCTANTLY accepted him as his VEEP choice to win the ‘center’.
Bush 2 is more of a Conservative than his Dad but he’s still leaving us endangered polar bears and a completely fucked FCC ruling that threatens to do what Congress has not been able to do… silence talk radio.
And he’s been no champion of drilling oil or ‘energy independence’ (whatever that’s supposed to mean) either.
A 5-4 ruling in 2008? The ONLY basis for giving the case standing was that the ‘detainees’ were brought to and remained on ‘American soil’.
June 13th, 2008 at 8:34 amNo fucking way they should have been brought to GITMO and that they are still there is completely fucked up. Kill ‘em or sentence them to hard time but get it the fuck over with.