High Court sides with Guantanamo detainees again

[sumi]

High Court sides with Guantanamo detainees again

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer 23 minutes ago

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."

Kennedy said federal judges could ultimately order some detainees to be released, but that such orders would depend on security concerns and other circumstances.

The White House had no immediate comment on the ruling. White House press secretary Dana Perino, traveling with President Bush in Rome, said the administration was reviewing the opinion.

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 6 years. Roughly 270 men remain at the island prison, classified as enemy combatants and held on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaida and the Taliban.

The ruling could resurrect many detainee lawsuits that federal judges put on hold pending the outcome of the high court case. The decision sent judges, law clerks and court administrators scrambling to read Kennedy's 70-page opinion and figure out how to proceed. Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth said he would call a special meeting of federal judges to address how to handle the cases.

The administration opened the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to hold enemy combatants, people suspected of ties to al-Qaida or the Taliban.

The Guantanamo prison has been harshly criticized at home and abroad for the detentions themselves and the aggressive interrogations that were conducted there.

The court said not only that the detainees have rights under the Constitution, but that the system the administration has put in place to classify them as enemy combatants and review those decisions is inadequate.

The administration had argued first that the detainees have no rights. But it also contended that the classification and review process was a sufficient substitute for the civilian court hearings that the detainees seek.

In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts criticized his colleagues for striking down what he called "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants."

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also dissented.

Scalia said the nation is "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens joined Kennedy to form the majority.

Souter wrote a separate opinion in which he emphasized the length of the detentions.

"A second fact insufficiently appreciated by the dissents is the length of the disputed imprisonments, some of the prisoners represented here today having been locked up for six years," Souter said. "Hence the hollow ring when the dissenters suggest that the court is somehow precipitating the judiciary into reviewing claims that the military ... could handle within some reasonable period of time."

The court has ruled twice previously that people held at Guantanamo without charges can go into civilian courts to ask that the government justify their continued detention. Each time, the administration and Congress, then controlled by Republicans, changed the law to try to close the courthouse doors to the detainees.

The court specifically struck down a provision of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that denies Guantanamo detainees the right to file petition of habeas corpus.

Habeas corpus is a centuries-old legal principle, enshrined in the Constitution, that allows courts to determine whether a prisoner is being held illegally.

The head of the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents dozens of prisoners at Guantanamo, welcomed the ruling.

"The Supreme Court has finally brought an end to one of our nation's most egregious injustices," said CCR Executive Director Vincent Warren. "By granting the writ of habeas corpus, the Supreme Court recognizes a rule of law established hundreds of years ago and essential to American jurisprudence since our nation's founding."

In addition to those held without charges, the U.S. has said it plans to try as many as 80 of the detainees in war crimes tribunals, which have not been held since World War II.

A military judge has postponed the first scheduled trial pending the outcome of this case. The trial of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's one-time driver, had been scheduled to start June 2.

Five alleged plotters of the Sept. 11 attacks appeared in a Guantanamo courtroom last week for a hearing before their war crimes trial, which prosecutors hope will start Sept. 15.

Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman, said he had no immediate information whether a hearing at Guantanamo for a Canadian charged with killing a U.S. Special Forces soldier in Afghanistan would go forward next week as planned. Omar Khadr is one of 19 detainees so far facing the first U.S. war-crimes trials since the World War II era.

Bush has said he wants to close the facility once countries can be found to take the prisoners who are there.

Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama also support shutting down the prison.

Print Story: High Court sides with Guantanamo detainees again on Yahoo! News

[zeyneddine]

sumiyia said

High Court sides with Guantanamo detainees again

No one CARES!

Them boys will stay in Guantanmo for quite some more time.

[Wolfn]

zeyneddine said

No one CARES!

Them boys will stay in Guantanmo for quite some more time.

Are you Muslim?

[m_ali_qazi]

Wolfn said

Are you Muslim?

a ***** is a *****, muslim or non-muslim

[zeyneddine]

Wolfn said

Are you Muslim?

If the brother above is categorized as a Muslim, and if by Muslim you mean cuss others, then no. I only follow Islam.

[m_ali_qazi]

zeyneddine said

If the brother above is categorized as a Muslim, and if by Muslim you mean cuss others, then no. I only follow Islam.

just dont mess with sumiyia

[wheelworks]

Hmm I wonder why Roberto didn't post this article.. I mean he likes posting articles about Muslims right?

[zeyneddine]

m_ali_qazi said

just dont mess with sumiyia

haaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaahaha.
dude, tell her to go cook something for her husband. and stop telling me what to do on an online forum. what an idiot.

[jinnzaman]

Awesome post!

I'm curious which justices voted which why and why. I'm gonna have to check out the opinion.

[sumi]

jinnz,

breyer, souter, ginsburg, kennedy, and stevens were the majority.

roberts, alito, scalia, and thomas dissented.

scalia amused me though... "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

[LEGALEAGLE]

sumiyia said

jinnz,

breyer, souter, ginsburg, kennedy, and stevens were the majority.

roberts, alito, scalia, and thomas dissented.

scalia amused me though... "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Do you think this is an attempt to try to regain some international credibility ? The american judicial system's reputation is at an all time low this side of the pond

Isn't Kennedy notorious for pro-establishment decisions ?

[sumi]

LEGALEAGLE said

Do you think this is an attempt to try to regain some international credibility ? The american judicial system's reputation is at an all time low this side of the pond

Isn't Kennedy notorious for pro-establishment decisions ?

it's possible. this is a series of such cases over a period of time though so i'm not exactly sure...

[jinnzaman]

sumiyia said

jinnz,

breyer, souter, ginsburg, kennedy, and stevens were the majority.

roberts, alito, scalia, and thomas dissented.

scalia amused me though... "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Wow, so the court split almost completely down ideological lines.

Although I disagree with Scalia's ideological dispositions, he's an awesome writer. His opinions always amuse me.

[Jamroll]

Ah, this must be where all the geeky law students hang out.

Habeas corpus, actus reus, prima facie. Take that, legal freaks!

[LEGALEAGLE]

Jamroll said

Ah, this must be where all the geeky law students hang out.

Habeas corpus, actus reus, prima facie. Take that, legal freaks!

students ?! ...who you calling 'student' kemo sabe....I've already won my first case in the Royal Courts of Justice

for all you americans out there thats equivalent to your Supreme Court...