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: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next › Last » (19 pages total)
- MsLiz I'm a Fan of MsLiz 113 fans permalink
photo

The Supreme Court decision would not have been possible if not for a small group of dedicated lawyers. Yes, some of us do not sell out to corporations, and still love the Constitution. These fine lawyers have probably run a risk of investigation and harassment by the Bush administration. How about some appreciation for the lawyers? Write an article, Huffington Post.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:14 PM on 06/12/2008
- Lemeritus I'm a Fan of Lemeritus 110 fans permalink
photo

Hear, hear!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:47 PM on 06/12/2008
- Alethea I'm a Fan of Alethea 68 fans permalink
photo

How funny. All my posts which I thought were so brilliant have been replies to certain people's dumb post who've gotten deleted and my replies right along with them.

Anyhow, for those of you who think that this ruling is a disaster, consider this:

Habeas Corpus and the freedom from being "Rendered" are some of the very core principles that led to our CREATION as a nation.

It's all there in the Declaration of Independence.

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

Take a look at the charges against England part. All of a sudden you'll be confused about which "George" they were actually talking about!

Most notably: "The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States... ....For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury. For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences... etc."

So giving everyone, including detainees, the right to Habeas Corpus is the only CORRECT decision the SCOTUS COULD have made. Otherwise they would be going against the very foundation of morality that this country was founded upon. Unlawful imprisonment is historically unAmerican period. If the Republicans don't like it, then maybe they ought to consider moving to Myanmar.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:10 PM on 06/12/2008
photo

Thank you for your persistence, Alethea. This is well worth your efforts. Well said!

FWIW, I share your frustrations about failed posts. I hope HuffPo is reviewing their policies and practices. I think I've seen improvements recently, but I'm not close to declaring the general problems solved.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:46 PM on 06/12/2008
- PepperzMom I'm a Fan of PepperzMom 7 fans permalink
photo

Response by Shrub to the court decision:

""It was a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented," Bush said. "And that dissent was based upon their serious concerns about U.S. national security."

Ok, since when was the CONSTITUTION and implementation of habeas corpus based on national security, when was the CONSTITUTION amended? The Constitution governs the rights/privileges.

Certain SCOTUS members had better remember that the CONSTITUTION and its interpretation are not controlled by concerns of national security. The law implemented to prevent the CONSTITUTION's rights from kicking in was tossed...not the CONSTITUTION.

*shakes head*

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:53 PM on 06/12/2008
- MsLiz I'm a Fan of MsLiz 113 fans permalink
photo

That's why Bush's law school application was rejected -- when the Dean was Scott McClellan's grandfather, by the way.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:14 PM on 06/12/2008
- Deeg I'm a Fan of Deeg permalink

Ohhhh irony

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:03 PM on 06/12/2008
photo

Although this is a great loss for this administration, it isa humiliating loss for him as our Commander -In Cheif, as it plainly shows that Bush overeached in his efforts to fight terrorism , and thought he was right to make up the rules as he went along, disregarded the Constitution, and has lost... An unlawful, stupid, costly and idiot move. And here we are talking so much about experience, how important it is, when it's so obvious this moron should never have ventured beyond what the Constitution exemplifies.

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 06:49 PM on 06/12/2008
photo

Wouldn't it be nice if many years from now a little girl walks up to her father and asks.."what's a gitmo"? after it has been closed for 20 years?

There are former 15 years olds incarcerated waiting for trial..help me to understand why we need to lock up a 15 year old for 6 years because he represents a threat with no way to defend himself against King Bush?

My god..our savior lord and god Bush wanted to install his personal lawyer into a life long job who would have overturned todays decision. As I've read here if we allow another neo-con right wing blood thirsty court appointment then that is the end of a constitution as we know it. We might as we outsource the court to Halliburton.

The election of McCain IS the end of liberty as relates to the supreme court.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:43 PM on 06/12/2008
- plainsman I'm a Fan of plainsman 17 fans permalink
photo

Hopefully, he'll just have to refer her to Sesame Street.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:22 PM on 06/12/2008

The ACLU has a petition circulating to close Gitmo. Why don't you (and some more people on this board) sign it? They're the ones that helped do the hard work fighting the would-be dictator.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:55 PM on 06/12/2008
- anelder I'm a Fan of anelder 18 fans permalink
photo

Thank you, shall do so.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:21 PM on 06/12/2008
- oafishcad I'm a Fan of oafishcad 46 fans permalink

When the new President gets in and names Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Condi as enemy combatants and sends them to Gitmo for unending prison and torture, will they appreciate the Irony of its UnConstitutionality then?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:39 PM on 06/12/2008

This article was also covered in my local newspaper today. One thing the local article covered (among other statements) is that President Bush says her will enact new legislation to stop the courts in the future.

One thing we can count on GWB for: If you don't like the Constitution, change it !!!

WTF ?????

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:38 PM on 06/12/2008
- outnow I'm a Fan of outnow 191 fans permalink

He will enact legislation? He will sponsor legislation but who will vote for than other than the GOP heard goose stepping their way to fascism?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:39 PM on 06/12/2008

There were two fantastic victories today !

The Iraqi Parliament rejected the Status of Forces "agreement".

and . . .

Habeas Corpus Resurrectus !!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:28 PM on 06/12/2008

"Live free or Die." Today's take on that common cry during our revolution is: "Live, anyway we can" or "Freedom Only in Comfort." It appears some of the Supremes, the administration and many in congress believe we should pay out our freedom at first threat. This is freedom-on-the-cheap plan. And they dare call themselves "patriots." Those who valued their lives over freedom during the revolution found the Bahamas to be a comfortable venue.

Three cheers for the majority opinion of the Supreme Court.... Let's show the world that freedom is backed by grit and not dismissed when the slightest threat is suggested.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:20 PM on 06/12/2008
- Birdman I'm a Fan of Birdman 39 fans permalink

I bet Bush never seen that coming. Pretty much throws a wrench in his kangaroo court plans.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:18 PM on 06/12/2008

"Live free or Die." Today's take on that common cry during our revolution is: "Live, anyway we can" or "Freedom Only in Comfort." It appears some of the Supremes believe we should pay out freedom if any threat of harm can possibly be predicted. This is freedom-on-the-cheap plan. And they dare call themselves "patriots." Those who valued their lives over freedom during the revolution found the Bahamas to be a comfortable venue. Three cheers for the majority opinion of the Supreme Court....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:14 PM on 06/12/2008
- JNagarya I'm a Fan of JNagarya 30 fans permalink

That which "journalists" call -- along with liar Bushit -- "aggressive interrogations" are defined in law as T-O-R-T-U-R-E.

Lying in order to prop up a criminal enterprise is the OPPOSITE of _journalism_.

Mark Sherman: STOP LYING.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:59 PM on 06/12/2008
- oafishcad I'm a Fan of oafishcad 46 fans permalink

Every time someone calls torture-aggressive interrogation, I get so upset. When did our media become the stenographers for the Bush administration? He has NEVER been stood up to by our media in his entire Presidency. They are a contributing factor to every sinkhole that the Bush/Cheney team has sunken America into.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:33 PM on 06/12/2008

Not contributing factors, co-conspirators, is more like it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:11 PM on 06/12/2008
- anelder I'm a Fan of anelder 18 fans permalink
photo

You have to look at the coroporattions that own these networks and reporters. Some - a very few - stand behind the freedom of speech - others prefer the status quo of power.

This is why I find Huffington the place to come and find the braave ones.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:25 PM on 06/12/2008
- Gary47 I'm a Fan of Gary47 15 fans permalink

What a novel idea - remember and honor the constitution.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:54 PM on 06/12/2008
- LWkcma I'm a Fan of LWkcma 5 fans permalink

The only people who should be tried by a "War Crimes Tribunal" are Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their cronies.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:49 PM on 06/12/2008
- dartagnan I'm a Fan of dartagnan 51 fans permalink
photo

The Four Bushmen of the Apocalypse -- Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts -- were the dissenters. One more Republican/neo-con appointee and the decision very likely would have gone the other way. One more Republican presidency and the United States that we love -- a constitutional republic governed by the rule of law and respectful of fundamental human rights -- will be dead and gone.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:46 PM on 06/12/2008
- oafishcad I'm a Fan of oafishcad 46 fans permalink

You have that right.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:35 PM on 06/12/2008

How could these four supposed legal scholars reject habeas corpus??

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:45 PM on 06/12/2008
- anelder I'm a Fan of anelder 18 fans permalink
photo

Because these men are more in favor of the status quo being protected. It's the power base that has been in crontrol for eons. Think: head of household, man in charge, their must be those who lead the rest.
Change is what these type of men/women are afraid of.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:48 PM on 06/12/2008
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next › Last » (19 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

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

Connect