Supreme Court backs rights for Guantanamo detainees

Supreme Court backs rights for Guantanamo detainees

www.gopusa.com

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The 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.

In its third rebuke of the Bush administration's treatment of prisoners, the court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The court's liberal justices were in the majority.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, ''The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.'

(visit the link for the full news article)

Well, let it never be said that this Court was a rubber stamp for the Bush administration. This ruling will mean major changes in Gitmo.

www.gopusa.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

the supreme court may not be complete lap dogs but at the same time why wait until the man responsible for these abuses of the law and human rights to be on his way out of office to rule on it ? we have been holding prisoners for years now why dident they speak up then instead of waiting till a new pusa is on his way ?

Edit: Never mind.

[edit on 6/12/2008 by The Nighthawk]

They probably knew this was coming thats why may have gone in this direction

According to research carried out by Reprieve, the US may have used as many as 17 ships as "floating prisons" since 2001. Detainees are interrogated aboard the vessels and then rendered to other, often undisclosed, locations, it is claimed.

SOURCE

THEY MIGHT JUST SIDESTEP THE ISSUE
and go back to business as usual

reply to post by krill


It probably has to do with the amount of time it takes to get a case filed and heard by the Court. I don't think that it's been an unreasonable length of time.

i understand theres beauracacy involved redtape and all that . but this was sort of a highprofile and volitile topic that not only involved the us, constituional law, but also involved every country that these suspects were from, as well as rules of war and military protocal. so considering the over all importance of the case you would think they would have upped it to the top of the docket, i remember the supreme court jumping cases up the docket in times past because of so called priority of the case or time restraints, the 2000 election for example. so them being busy hardly seems a legitamate exscuse as far as im concerned.

how do captured terrorists get rights from the U.S. constitution? The bill of right pertains the U.S. citizens. Now i agree the prisoners have rights from UN treaties but I dont believe they rights from the U.S. constitution

reply to post by AKnight


It's because they dont

The supreme court already ruled on this matter, years ago!

I have been ferociously googling for this, but i can't remember the name of the case!

I will post it as soon as i have it

They just totally contradicted themselves on this one.

Originally posted by krill
the supreme court may not be complete lap dogs but at the same time why wait until the man responsible for these abuses of the law and human rights to be on his way out of office to rule on it ? we have been holding prisoners for years now why dident they speak up then instead of waiting till a new pusa is on his way ?

They actually have ruled against the administrations detentions of "enemy combatants" twice before and each time, Bush and the Republican congress(This happened a few years ago) changed the way charges were brought against the prisoners.

I believe at first Bush had no real intention of even giving any of them trials, then the S-court ruled he couldnt do that so he created a war crimes tribunal. This tribunal didnt allow for habeas corpus or any other rights. It basically said, we are going to try you for crimes but we dont have to tell you what you are being charged with, we dont need to present any evidence and the combatants cannot defend themselves. Then the S-court came in again and said that this was illegal and Bush and Co. couldnt do it and then i think they came up with some other kind of illegal tribunal and now they are rulling a third time that Bush and Co.s actions are illegal. The differnce now being that it is a democratic congress and bush no longer has the leverage to create any more illegal courts so it should stand. but i wouldnt be surprised if bush tries some other shady acts.

The Administration realizes that if these "enemy combatants" are able to be tried in real courts that most will be found innocent or there will not be enough evidence to prosecute them. This will result in at least a few(most notibly, the supposed Bin Laden cab driver) combatants, filing charges against the united states and the bush admin for denying habeas corpus, right to a speedy trial, illegal incarciration, etc...

I wont deny that there are probably some really bad people being held but everyone deserves the right to a fair trial. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. You should be able to know what you are being charged with, the evidence against you and you should definetly be allowed to defend yourself. I'm sure some will rip me but, to me these are basic human rights no matter what horrible things you have done.

Not to mention, there are without a doubt some individuals being held who are probably innocent. Being detained for 6+ years without charge is unacceptable. If they are guilty, charge them, if they are proven to be innocent, let them go. Its that simple.

Many of the prisoners that the US has incarcirated have not even had their families contacted.


[edit on 12-6-2008 by iamcamouflage]

This is one of the most outrageous rulings the supreme court has made in a very long time. NEVER in our nations history has the rights of U.S. citizens been given to terrorist caught on the battlefield. The 5 radical liberal judges who voted for this nonsense should be ashamed.

Using this twisted logic, I guess on the battlefield our soldiers will have to give the terrorists shooting at them their miranda rights. Wait a minute, since the court now says they are afforded the rights of U.S. citizens, how can we even shoot at them because it would be like shooting at U.S. citizens. This is just a ridiculous ruling.

This is one reason to vote for McCain since he stated he will at least submit strict constitutionalists for supreme court seats. These 5 radical liberal judges are writting their own laws instead of ruling on the law. Please tell me where in the Constitution that foreign enemies are afforded the rights of U.S. citizens.

Plus, since liberals love so cite precendent, what about the precedent set back during the WWII era by the supreme court which said no federal court had jurisdiction to hear their cases because the base is outside the sovereign territory of the United States. This current ruling is nothing but radical liberal judges gone awry.

hey camo thanx for telling me that , good post i was some how unaware of the previouse rulings considering i stay preety informed i cant belive i missed those.

what theory : first lets talk about precident sience you brought it up. prisoners of war have their own rights according to the pacts we agreed to so for shrub and company to decide oh well we dont have to adhere to those because were special is just plain arrogance also theres the torture precident we have broken human right treatys and laws with the way we treat these prisoners and in some cases even tortured these people like with water boarding . but its ok to water board these guys even though when the axis waterboarded us troops in ww2 they were triad and found guilty of torture for the exact same action because once again were special so we dont have to adhere to law? so yes while your right that non citazens dont have rights promised by the bill of rights or constitution they do have rights dictated by the many pacts, treatys and human rights contracts we signed and adhered to until shrub came in to the picture.

[edit on 6/12/2008 by krill]

Fifty years from now we will look back on this day as one that was the beginning of the end of Bush's foray into fascism. Our nightmare is almost over.

But I must say that some of the responses to this ruling are shocking to me. If the U.S. can't apply the ideals of this country, such as Habeas Corpus, even in the defense of our nation, what exactly is it that we are fighting for? Oh yeah, I forgot, it was supposed to be oil...how's that working for ya?

Our nation's sacred contract, the Constitution, is the one thing that makes our country great above all others. If we trash it, we don't deserve our liberty no matter how much security we have.

Originally posted by krill
what theory : first lets talk about precident sience you brought it up. prisoners of war have their own rights according to the pacts we agreed to

What on Earth are you babbling about? What pact? Do you mean the UN conventions? If so, then sorry, but it does not apply to terrorists.

so yes while your right that non citazens dont have rights promised by the bill of rights or constitution they do have rights dictated by the many pacts, treatys and human rights contracts we signed and adhered to until shrub came in to the picture.

Really??
Please show me any pact or treaty which was signed by these terrorists........Waiting....

reply to post by WhatTheory


you know thats funny so human rights only apply when the human in question isent given the generic title terrorist?

Originally posted by kosmicjack
Our nation's sacred contract, the Constitution, is the one thing that makes our country great above all others. If we trash it, we don't deserve our liberty no matter how much security we have.

Exactly, so please show me in the Constitution where terrorists are afforded the rights of U.S. citizens including Habeas Corpus?

The fascists are the 5 judges who ruled for this abomination and they should be tried for treason considering they apparently did not read the Constitution.

Originally posted by krill
you know thats funny so human rights only apply when the human in question isent given the generic title terrorist?

Dude, this ruling has nothing to do with human rights. It has to do with giving them rights afforded to U.S. citizens. Come on, stop attempting to change the discussion. These terrorists at Gitmo have it good compared to the beheadings and real torture the terrorists use when they capture a soldier. What human rights are you talking about regarding the terrorists in Gitmo??

you do realize i hope that all these "terrorists" picked off of "battle fields" are not just enemy combatents from iraq and afghanistan right? hell what about the poor muslim american cab driver who was arrested afeter droping a fare off at the airport here in the us ? ohhh what a dangerouse terrorist and such a scarey battle field . not everything is as black and white as you seem to belive there are varying shades of grey.

reply to post by krill

Originally posted by krill
prisoners of war have their own rights according to the pacts we agreed to

They are not prisoners of war. They do not wear the uniform of any country. They do not sign treaties with other nations.

Enemy combatants can be held until "the end of hostilities", ie, the end of the War on Terror.

This is such good news. What are you going to do to celebrate? I don't know what I'm going to do, but I have to do something. If I weren't already having a party this weekend. Hmmm.