WAR: Supreme Court Rules on Holding Terror Suspects

The U.S. Supreme court has ruled that the government can hold a terrorist suspect without trial but that the suspect does have the right to use the courts to challenge their treatment. This is a ruling that can be seen either as a victory by the Bush adminstration due to the court recognizing congress gave the administration the right to indefinitely hold a suspect on terror charges. or as conflicting news reports maintain, this ruling can be seen as a defeat for the Bush adminstration because it clearly gives access to the U.S. court system that has heretofore been denied.



This being an election year with the public more and more politically polarized it will be interesting to see how this ruling plays out over time. One thing for sure though, if you are named as a terrorist for any reason you will probably not benefit from the bill of rights. This can be seen as a danger to rights in general by both liberal and conservative alike politics aside.

[edit on 28-6-2004 by Zion Mainframe]

[edit on 28-6-2004 by John bull 1]

[edit on 6-30-2004 by Valhall]

Wow! This is a huge decision that contains 3 different mind-sets involving detainees. Most significant is that Justice Scalia's opinion is the most liberal. He basically came out and said that if you're going to detain someone, charge them with something or release them.
He wrote:

"It follows from what I have said that Hamdi is entitled to a habeas decree requiring his release unless 1) criminal proceedings are promptly brought, or 2) Congress has suspended the writ of habeas corpus."

Personally I like the overall decision - The US has the right to detain and hold these people, but they must be charged with a crime. If the US has a valid reason, such as in Hamdi's case where a charge of Treason will most likely follow, then this should not be an undue burden to the govt.

SCOTUS

Seems to me everybody else in the world is reporting this story the other way around.











[edit on 28-6-2004 by John bull 1]

Originally posted by Bleys
Wow! This is a huge decision that contains 3 different mind-sets involving detainees. Most significant is that Justice Scalia's opinion is the most liberal. He basically came out and said that if you're going to detain someone, charge them with something or release them.
He wrote:

"It follows from what I have said that Hamdi is entitled to a habeas decree requiring his release unless 1) criminal proceedings are promptly brought, or 2) Congress has suspended the writ of habeas corpus."

Actually, it is hard to see what scalia is trying to do. The majority decision was to vacate the decision and remand it back to the lower courts, a victory for Hamdi, therefore despite Scalia�s words, he still voted to support the government position.

Maybe this is a way for the current administration to say, "Look, Iraq has a democracy, just like ours!"

As is apparent from posts so far one could read this decision either way as it relates to Gitmo type prisoners they get the right to be charged or released and if charged it would seem they could be held somewhat indefinitely.

The one clear loss to the government that I see in this is the advantage of recieving intelligence from one of these individuals without other parties concerned knowing of it. This could have a detrimental effect on catching or breaking up terror cells.

I guess we have to balance the intell loss against keeping our freedoms.

I think that if charged, they are then entitled to thier day in court. As for Hamdi, he was a 20 yo idiot, like Walker. If the Government is looking for intel from him, we are in big trouble.

HR I was not refering to Hamdi but was making the comment more in the general sense that there is a disadvantage to suffer in possible intell gathering at places like Gitmo especially in the case newly captured prisoners.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Actually, it is hard to see what scalia is trying to do. The majority decision was to vacate the decision and remand it back to the lower courts, a victory for Hamdi, therefore despite Scalia�s words, he still voted to support the government position.

Howard are you sure on this? Remember there were 3 separate opinions in this case. I found this:

Writing for an 8-1 majority in the case of American-born detainee Yaser Esam Hamdi, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the Court has "made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens." Four of the Justices (Souter, Ginsburg, Scalia and Stevens) said that they would go further and order Hamdi�s immediate release, and Justice Souter in particular said that holding Hamdi incommunicado is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. The case is Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 03-6696.

The context of his opinion and this statement from the ACLU lead me to conclude that Scalia is troubled by the Administration's actions to forgoe Judicial Review.



[edit on 28-6-2004 by Bleys]

I have no problem with American citizens getting their day in court. Even if they are terrorists wanting to destroy the very country that wants to give them the right to be heard!! HOWEVER!!! I have a great problem with giving detainees who are suspected terrorists a day in court. Let them sit their butts in Gitmo. That keeps them out of the way. How many that we have detained and have been returned to their homes are plotting against us right now??

Originally posted by Phoenix
As is apparent from posts so far one could read this decision either way as it relates to Gitmo type prisoners they get the right to be charged or released and if charged it would seem they could be held somewhat indefinitely.

The one clear loss to the government that I see in this is the advantage of recieving intelligence from one of these individuals without other parties concerned knowing of it. This could have a detrimental effect on catching or breaking up terror cells.

I guess we have to balance the intell loss against keeping our freedoms.

It may indeed hinder Intel efforts, but the ruling IMHO reasserts everyone's constitutional rights. If we flaunt our own constitution that has made America the current longest standing democracy, how can we expect the rest of the world to take our nation building with anything but skeptacism.

"indivisable with libery and justice for ALL"

Detainees can still be held, but now the gov't must show the court reason why they should be held. At least that is my interpretation. The fear is that the possible leaks of intelligence information that may occur from more liberal courts as a result of stating the govt's case, or that the court may not decide in favor of the govt and a terrorist could walk freely among us as a result.

Had war been officially declared, then the problems would not exist because these detainees could have been held as POW's and dealt with by the military courts.

Just my .02

from the decision: JUSTICE O�CONNOR, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE
KENNEDY, and JUSTICE BREYER, concluded that although Congress
authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances
alleged in this case, due process demands that a citizen held in the
United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful oppor-
tunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral
decisionmaker. Pp. 14�15.
JUSTICE SOUTER, joined by JUSTICE GINSBURG, concluded that Hamdi�s detention is unauthorized, but joined with the plurality to conclude that on remand Hamdi should have a meaningful opportu-nity to offer evidence that he is not an enemy combatant. Pp. 2�3,
15.
O�CONNOR, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and KENNEDY and BREYER, JJ., joined. SOUTER, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, dissenting in part, and concurring in the judgment, in which GINSBURG, J., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, J., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

As I read that, it was a 6-3 decision with O�Connor, Rehnquist, Kennedy , Breyer, Souter, and Ginsburg, on one side and Scalia, Stevens, and Thomas on the other.


[edit on 29-6-2004 by HowardRoark]