Supreme Court Rules Guantanamo Detainees Have Constitutional Right To Challenge Detention

MARK SHERMAN | June 12, 2008 11:19 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It
In this May 15, 2007 file photo that was reviewed by the U.S. Military, a detainee, center, is escorted by U.S. military personnel at the detention facility on Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base in Cuba. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday, June 12, 2008, that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts. (AP Photo/Brennan Linsley, File)

WASHINGTON — In a stinging rebuke to President Bush's anti-terror policies, a deeply divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign detainees held for years at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have the right to appeal to U.S. civilian courts to challenge their indefinite imprisonment without charges.

Bush said he strongly disagreed with the decision _ the third time the court has repudiated him on the detainees _ and suggested he might seek yet another law to keep terror suspects locked up at the prison camp, even as his presidency winds down.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the 5-4 high court majority, acknowledged the terrorism threat the U.S. faces _ the administration's justification for the detentions _ but he declared, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

In a blistering dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Bush has argued the detentions are needed to protect the nation in a time of unprecedented threats from al-Qaida and other foreign terrorist groups. The president, in Rome, said Thursday, "It was a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented." He said he would consider whether to seek new laws in light of the ruling "so we can safely say to the American people, 'We're doing everything we can to protect you.'"

Kennedy said federal judges could ultimately order some detainees to be released, but he also said such orders would depend on security concerns and other circumstances. The ruling itself won't result in any immediate releases.

The decision also cast doubt on the future of the military war crimes trials that 19 detainees, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other alleged Sept. 11 plotters, are facing so far. The Pentagon has said it plans to try as many as 80 men held at Guantanamo.

Lawyers for detainees differed over whether the ruling, unlike the first two, would lead to prompt hearings for those who have not been charged. Roughly 270 men remain at the prison at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. Most are classed as enemy combatants and held on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaida and the Taliban.

Story continues below

Some detainee lawyers said hearings could take place within a few months. But James Cohen, a Fordham University law professor who has two clients at Guantanamo, predicted Bush would continue seeking ways to resist the ruling. "Nothing is going to happen between June 12 and Jan. 20," when the next president takes office, Cohen said.

Roughly 200 detainees have lawsuits on hold in federal court in Washington. Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth said he would call a special meeting of federal judges to address how to handle the cases.

Detainees already facing trial are in a different category.

Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr said Thursday's decision should not affect war crimes trials. "Military commission trials will therefore continue to go forward," Carr said.

The lawyer for Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's one-time driver, said he will seek dismissal of the charges against Hamdan based on the new ruling. A military judge had already delayed the trial's start to await the high court ruling.

It was unclear whether a hearing at Guantanamo for Canadian Omar Khadr, charged with killing a U.S. Special Forces soldier in Afghanistan, would go forward next week as planned.

Charles Swift, the former Navy lawyer who used to represent Hamdan, said he believes the court removed any legal basis for keeping the Guantanamo facility open and that the military tribunals are "doomed."

Guantanamo generally and the tribunals were conceived on the idea that "constitutional protections wouldn't apply," Swift said. "The court said the Constitution applies. They're in big trouble."

Human rights groups and many Democratic members of Congress celebrated the ruling as affirming the nation's commitment to the rule of law. Several Republican lawmakers called it a decision that put foreign terrorists' rights above the safety of the American people.

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

At its heart, the 70-page ruling says that the detainees have the same rights as anyone else in custody in the United States to contest their detention before a judge. Kennedy also said the system the administration has put in place to classify detainees as enemy combatants and review those decisions is not an adequate substitute for the right to go before a civilian judge.

The administration had argued first that the detainees have no rights. But it also contended that the classification and review process was sufficient.

Chief Justice John Roberts, in his own dissent to Thursday's ruling, criticized the majority 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 and Clarence Thomas also dissented.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens _ the court's more liberal members _ 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."

Scalia, citing a report by Senate Republicans, said at least 30 prisoners have returned to the battlefield following their release from Guantanamo.

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 petitions 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."

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.

WASHINGTON — In a stinging rebuke to President Bush's anti-terror policies, a deeply divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign detainees held for years at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have the...
WASHINGTON — In a stinging rebuke to President Bush's anti-terror policies, a deeply divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign detainees held for years at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have the...
Filed by Nick Graham  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
848
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (19 pages total)
- kfdan I'm a Fan of kfdan 23 fans permalink
photo

"Bush said he strongly disagreed with the decision ... and suggested he might seek yet another law to keep terror suspects locked up at the prison camp ... "

It's time to put this President in his place which I believe should be prison but that's not going to happen. At the very least, he simply needs to get the message that he's not wanted and his decisions will have no force of law. Now, we need to remember this President doesn't care what the law requires, so, Congress has to make sure he gets the message!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:51 AM on 06/14/2008

TO: Wash DC Surpeme Courts's Constitutional Rights at Guantanamo for Foreing Terrorists. June 13, 2008

This is all very well and good for one would not inflict non-use of Habeas Corpus not even on one's enemies.. King Charles in England was not popular and violated Habeas Corpus and was removed by military and beheaded for violating Habeas Corpus acts. His son King Charles II took throne later. Habeas Corpus means a prisoner cannot be held in jail without first seeing a Judge to determine if he is guilty or not. If guilty he goes back to jail. If innocent he is released from jail. Devereaux' 63 Government of a Free Nation.



In richest nation on earth too many homeless are made to live on dangerous streets. The National Coalition of homeless has carefully documented 280 hate crimes,including 131 murders. Crimes range from beheading to drownings to brutal stabbings and beatings. At same time, homeless people have had their civil rights violated in nearly every major city in the United States and even entire cities by laws against homeless. Terry Messman of Street Spirit and published by American Friends Service Cmte. April 05 Google homeless in Berkeley,Ca and select The murder of a homeless woman in Berkeley. SF Chronicle Meridith May in May 05 article of another brutal death of homeless woman. Crimes have risen at time when media put out constant bigoted message against poor.

Eva Hart A Christian In Army from 62-70 670 Eddy St. Sfc 94109

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:05 PM on 06/13/2008

TO: Habea Corpus Upheld for Guantanamo Detainess of Foreign Terrrorists June 13, 2008 Continued

Let me clarify a point. It is that homeless are put out of certain neighborhoods and even entire cities by LAWS by politicians who hold widespread hate and prejudice against poor thus causing these crimes. Not just Civil Rights violated as I put above. Non-homeless pepole do not realize the brutality of these crimes against poor Terry Messsman writes.

The poor don't even have Due Process of Law and Constitutional Rights and Decencies yet enemies of America get these Rights. It is so unfair and cruel. People can change. We should work to care for poor not harm them. By Terry Messman.

Eva Hart A Christian

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:44 PM on 06/13/2008

Good post and I'm glad the detainees were given their rights. Rights for them means the rights for American citizens won't be challenged as the Bushies want to do. They have continually ignored the Constitution, the very fiber that our country is based on. Barack Obama being a professor of Constitutional Law will understand that to preserve our Constitution and adhere to it's laws will make our country return to what is should stand for. The trouble to me is electing a president that doesn't understand or respect the law. Bush, Cheney and McSame barely finished college and had no affiliation with the law, hence no respect for what it means.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:12 AM on 06/13/2008
- marko77 I'm a Fan of marko77 33 fans permalink

Yes, I say put them on trial......and I know the proper punishment for Sheik Kahlid Mohammad - the guy who said he murdered Daniel Pearl. No death penalty for this guy. The Sheik said he wants to die as a "martyr" - but how can he be a "martyr" after killing an unarmed man in cold blood?? No way. (The Prophet Mohammed forbade the killing of civilians.) As a result, the Sheik needs to be given a long "time out" in the adult corner: Grant him a long life in a Super-Max prison.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:07 AM on 06/13/2008
- MsLiz I'm a Fan of MsLiz 117 fans permalink
photo

Let him meet Ted Kazinski and Eric Robert Rudolph who also killed for their causes.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:45 PM on 06/13/2008
- Guynemer I'm a Fan of Guynemer 6 fans permalink
photo

"The Prophet Mohammed forbade the killing of civilians."


Rubbish.

Surah 9:29 - Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah

Surah 4:101 - When ye travel through the earth, there is no blame on you if ye shorten your prayers, for fear the Unbelievers May attack you: For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies.

Surah 2.191 - And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

Surah 3:85 - Anyone who accepts other than Submission as his religion, it will not be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter, he will be with the losers.

Hadith 4:196 - I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, none has the right to be worshipped but Allah.

Hadith 9:57 - Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.

Hadith 9:50 - No Muslim should be killed for killing an infidel.

Al Bukhari 4:196 - I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, none has the right to be worshipped but Allah.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:33 PM on 06/13/2008
- Mercedes I'm a Fan of Mercedes 26 fans permalink

I was just Googling "Project for the New American Century" (PNAC) and there is a LOT being written about its members, sponsors, etc...and its soon ending. But the interesting thing is that a lot of former PNAC sites are CLOSED ACCOUNTS.

Could be that the PNAC is running out of money to even keep itself on the Web?

I thought that the PNAC agenda was going to be a "success" for corporate Americans and the Neo-Cons. Doesn't look like it right now...

If you have a chance, check it out anyway and see the names of the original signers and their TRUE agenda for the New American Century. You may find it Very Interesting!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:59 AM on 06/13/2008

Funny, that when Kennedy is in the majority of a five-four decision, that majority is considered to be liberal and the decision derided by the Repugs.

However, when Kennedy joined four others in Selecting a President in 2000, he was considered to be one of the boys and that infamous decision was hailed by the Repugs.

That terrible misuse of IRAC, meaning that the five reached a Conclusion, first, then manufactured Rules of Law to support that Conclusion, but, again, that misuse of IRAC led to Iraq

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:16 AM on 06/13/2008
- arvay I'm a Fan of arvay 140 fans permalink
photo

In addition to the contempt for our Constitution and the damage to our global human rights credibility, Guantanamo represents a gigantic lost opportunity.

Treating these prisoners lawfully and humanely would have sent a powerful lesson to the world about how a law-based society behaves, and would have been much more effective in "turning" some of these individuals against their ideology. The contrast between our behavior and those who routinely murder and behead people would have been obvious for everyone to observe and absorb.

Instead, Bush and the neocons showed their contempt for our Constitution and civilization itself. Now we'll have not only Guantanamo on our record, but Abu Grab as well. But we have every reason to be optimistic. Our nation started with liberty and slavery cohabiting, and we've suffered for that, but we're moving in a good direction. And we'll wipe away these blots as well.

One more thing. With his statement that "we are at war with radical Islam" Justice Scalia defines himself as a shallow partisan rather than the deep-thinking, principled jurist he likes to play on TV. The phrase is right out of the Republican/Rove-ian playbook, is outside his judicial expertise or purview, and is a great example of trying to make the Constitution "relevant to the times" -- something he routinely condemns.

His Intellectual dishonesty will stink down through the history of our nation.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:39 AM on 06/13/2008
- MsLiz I'm a Fan of MsLiz 117 fans permalink
photo

Well expressed.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:48 PM on 06/13/2008
- Mercedes I'm a Fan of Mercedes 26 fans permalink

Well, one illegal Bush law out, many more to go.

Barack Obama is the ONLY one willing to bring back our country to the way it was before Bush and his Neo-Cons tried to start their own world monarchy by pushing the PNAC (Project for the New American Century) agenda; which is failing miserably.

But the Democrats have to fight him all the way to the end, so Bush won't do what he wants before he leaves office in January--INVADE IRAN.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:00 AM on 06/13/2008

This isn't a war, it is an illegal occupation! Bush lied so he could send troops to overthrow a dictator (like himself) so Project for New American Centruy plan, military bases in Iraq, could take place. He also authorized 9/11, not Bin Laden, (see http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com) which brings many crimes like murder, perjury, treason, etc into play. The media (not press any more) by not reporting the truth, is a co-conspirator to these crimes. Pelosi, by not calling for impeachment, is also now guilty of treason and is a co-conspirator to these crimes. The entire Bush family, Rockerfeller, Rothschild, Morgan, and Warberg families should be put in prison for crimes they have committed over the years! The Federal Reserve Bank is operating illegally in this country per our constitution, but congress wants to look into Roger Clemens possible steroid use! Do we have any gold in Fort Knox, or has the Federal sent what was our gold, to Europe? I think if OUR bank was robbed by these people, WE SHOULD DEMAND ANSWERS & JUSTICE! No audit of Fort Knox in over 50 years? If anyone deserves to be in Gitmo, it is Bush, Cheney, Rockerfeller, Rothschild, Morgan & Warberg! (search> Senator McFadden Federal Reserve 1934 for more info & search> Prescott Bush Union Bank) Get mad and demand answers to important questions instead of wondering what Lindsey Lohan is doing! The 4th Reich is right at our door, when will everyone respond?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:10 AM on 06/13/2008
- Meteor I'm a Fan of Meteor 14 fans permalink

B-i-g, You got it right!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:42 AM on 06/13/2008
- ObamAtomic I'm a Fan of ObamAtomic 172 fans permalink
photo

Scalia as a clarification, a Suprem Justice you should interpret the Constitution?
Avoiding writing law from the bench?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:34 AM on 06/13/2008
- MsLiz I'm a Fan of MsLiz 117 fans permalink
photo

Scalia interprets the law like Falwell interepreted the Bible: Through his own lens.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:48 PM on 06/13/2008
photo

I am very relieved that they got this one right. After their judicial COUP in 2000, I thought the Constitution was gonna be Bush's toilet paper.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:05 AM on 06/13/2008
photo

When Congress approved the Military Comissions Act of 2006, Bush approved, and before signing it entered a "Signing Statement" that stated that Bush reserved the right to "interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions" as he sees fit.
An historic lesson in self righteous bravado, and how it can lead to a serious failure of leadership to our nation.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:42 AM on 06/13/2008
- elcojonu I'm a Fan of elcojonu 28 fans permalink

To any Constitunial Attorney out there.
With only 6 months left in office( which it were 6 seconds) what happens if the Administration decides to ignore this ruling ?
Would a refusal constitute grounds for any MEANINGFUL legal action against ANY member of the Administration ?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:28 AM on 06/13/2008
- MsLiz I'm a Fan of MsLiz 117 fans permalink
photo

Judges will set cases for trial, I hope, and if the prosecution doesn't show up or prove its case, then the defendants are ordered freed. Of course, the Bush adminstration can't prove that all of these guys are guilty, because they were paying informants who sold out innocent bystanders in some cases.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:51 PM on 06/13/2008

The key word here is suspect. Any of the right wing ever heard of innocent until proven guilty.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:00 AM on 06/13/2008

Scalia
Bush/Gore decision was a bad decision. It destroyed the justice department, disabled the congress,
fractured the military, killed thousands and bankrupted the nation. Hey don't let it bother you , it was just another bad decision.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:47 PM on 06/12/2008
- MsLiz I'm a Fan of MsLiz 117 fans permalink
photo

Scalia thinks Bush v. Gore was a good decision because he was joined by Alito and Roberts, who subscribe to the same bogus legal theories Scalia supports.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:51 PM on 06/13/2008
photo

If you are an attorney, It is a wonder that you passed the bar. If you are not, it is a wonder that you have not read and understood the clear language of THE CONSTITUTION of THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA spelled out in any civics class or course on government that I thought were still taught in these United States.

In case you missed it, here is your lesson today my student.

QUOTE: The privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus (produce the body) SHALL NOT BE SUSPENDED, unless when in cases of Rebellion (Which I await with glee and with the hope that it will be bloody) or invasion the public MAY require it. UNQUOTE!!!!! Runnymede and it's document was not a joke.

There is NO suspension clause there (as it relates to WAR), only the clear language of almost 1200 years of precedent that directs "the king" to produce the prisoner (under his jurisdiction) and justify his or her being held after he /she questions his/her detention.

Justice Kennedy had it right when he stated that Habeas Corpus survives even into extraordinary times.

Take your war excuses and put them where they belong. Hoping of course that you get the irony.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:06 PM on 06/12/2008
photo

I meant the above to be directed to KYJuris Doctor.

Again "WAR" does not appear in the document. No amount of parsing will make it appear.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:43 PM on 06/12/2008
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (19 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect