Supreme Court Rules Guantanamo Detainees Have Constitutional Right To Challenge Detention

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Supreme Court Rules Guantanamo Detainees Have Constitutional Right To Challenge Detention stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

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
advertisement

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 11 Next › Last » (19 pages total)
- bdd I'm a Fan of bdd permalink
photo

IMPEACH NOW!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:42 PM on 06/12/2008
- bija I'm a Fan of bija 5 fans permalink

The scary part is that there were 4 who voted against it. Our country's Constitution is hanging by a thread.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:38 PM on 06/12/2008
- peacekitten I'm a Fan of peacekitten 609 fans permalink
photo

truly. but we do have the power to stop it.

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

Kennedy's decision holds that, just as America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy, it cannot not go abroad in search of tyrannies to create.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:29 PM on 06/12/2008
- TroubleNYC I'm a Fan of TroubleNYC 9 fans permalink
photo

Kennedy said that? I thought it was Washington or Adams or one of the earlier ones.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:30 PM on 06/12/2008

Engraved on the Justice Department:

"Where Law Ends, Tyranny Begins"

Bush has been trying to override the rule of law since he got in - his judicial appointments and those put in at Justice are partisan HACKS - yes, even his supremem court appointees - and Mukasey is a JOKE as well.

King George III had MORE limitations than this President - George W. Bush embodies all our Founding Fathers feared - he IS a tyrant, enabled by the FAILURE of the Legislative Branch to do their jobs,

IMPEACH - or it's time for a second American Revolution.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:27 PM on 06/12/2008

Consider the implications of the following passage on the Irag occupation:

"[T]he Government’s view is that the Constitution had no effect [in Cuba], at least as to noncitizens, because the United States disclaimed sovereignty in the formal sense of the term. The necessary implication of the argument is that by surrendering formal sovereignty over any unincorporated territory to a third party, while at the same time [retaining] total control over the territory . . . it would be possible for the political branches to govern without legal constraint. Our basic charter cannot be contracted away like this.The Constitution grants Congress and the President the power to acquire, dispose of, and govern territory, not the power to decide when and where its terms apply. Even when the United States acts outside its borders, its powers are . . .subject "to such restrictions as are expressed in the Constituti­on." . . . To hold the political branches have the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will . . . [ would lead] to a regime in which Congress and the President,not this Court, say "what the law is" . . . [and] subject [the Suspension Clause] to manipulation by those whose power it is designed to restrain."

Will conservatives, who view America as the new Rome, decry extending Constitutional liberty in the same breath they advocate extension of political power?

Kennedy's decision holds that, just as America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy, it does

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:26 PM on 06/12/2008

This, once again, shows what a complete disgrace and immoral group the Bush Administration is. For a country that supposedly prides itself in respect for the constitution and rule of law, we have shown the world just how low we have sunk over the last eight years. Am I supposed to be proud of my country for this?? How do you rectify this miscarriage of justice? You can't.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:08 PM on 06/12/2008

This was, without question, the correct decision, and how close the vote was (5-4) shows just how disastrous Bush's appointees have been to the Constitutional integrity and wisdom of the Supreme Court.

Not surprisingly, Bush disagrees with the decision, and is already looking for legislation to allow his administration to weasel out of it. Make no mistake, keeping prisoners at Gitmo with no legal recourse has nothing to do with making us safer. It is nothing more than a tactic to remove opponents of dictators and tyrants that "our" government puts/keeps in power to allow American corporations to do whatever they want. In other words, it is all about American-style democracy, which is nothing other than pure imperialism.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:27 PM on 06/12/2008

Imperialism or tyranny?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:37 PM on 06/12/2008

The constitution is mere technicality when enforcement is up to an executive branch of government which has shown such a rampant disregard for the Constitution. Speaker Pelosi has all but said that her loyalties lie with partisan prospects over protection of the constitution. Hence, the people have completely lost their protection. Senator Obama seems as unwilling to compromise his political prospects by checking the President with threat of impeachment as is Speaker Pelosi. Oaths of office are mere mutterings that provide the key to the office door. Our constitution is only as good as the honor of those we elect to protect it. Treason reigns. But, it is nice to have the Supreme Court backing the Constitution -- maybe they can hold it up for a day when elected officials become honorable. It would be a new day if Senator Obama said enough is enough and while the process of impeachment is likely not to deny a day in office to this President, it is an important and much needed statement about our willingness to defend the Constitution. Pigs could fly then, huh?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:00 PM on 06/12/2008
- MsLiz I'm a Fan of MsLiz 105 fans permalink
photo

1. Paragraph breaks help the reader
2. Politicians must be realistic and pragmatic to succeed.
3. Hyperbole is not persuasive.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:07 PM on 06/12/2008
- ultrabop I'm a Fan of ultrabop 15 fans permalink
photo

Maybe we haven't become fascist yet?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:58 PM on 06/12/2008
- peacekitten I'm a Fan of peacekitten 609 fans permalink
photo

i wouldn't count on it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:29 PM on 06/12/2008
- Sneaky I'm a Fan of Sneaky 15 fans permalink

You know, having four so-called liberals and four so-called conservatives, plus a moderate, has yielded some positive modern Supreme Court cases. Who'da thunk.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:54 PM on 06/12/2008
photo

Like giving Bu$h the Presidency?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:01 PM on 06/12/2008
- Sneaky I'm a Fan of Sneaky 15 fans permalink

Oh? Presumptive history lesson? Okay, go for it. I'm willing to be educated, if you can educate.

We won't talk about how it was Bush's platforms that proved more popular, or the RNC convincing gun owners that a Democratic president would mean an end to the Second Amendment. I'm aware of the problems surrounding my home state's voting, but those had nothing to do with the Supreme Court.

As I said, enlighten me.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:23 PM on 06/12/2008
- dsbsh I'm a Fan of dsbsh 12 fans permalink

Correction: Not even a court with four moderates, one conservative, and four ultra-conservatives will stomach the worst abuses by the Bush Administration and the radical right.

The last true liberal on the Supreme Court retired in 1991.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:09 PM on 06/12/2008
- VicPerry I'm a Fan of VicPerry 6 fans permalink

Remember how narrow the margin on these kinds of essential SCOTUS decisions is, all you dorkwads who suggest throwing your vote to McCain in the fit over your sore loserdom. You know who you are.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:42 PM on 06/12/2008

Yes, the same ignorant people that thought Bush wouldn't oppose abortion and the same ignorant people that think McCain won't appoint justices that will overturn Roe v. Wade.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:31 PM on 06/12/2008
- partyofone I'm a Fan of partyofone 45 fans permalink

As if anything will change while Bush is in office. He has been delaying and dodging for years. The Supreme Court gave him a blank check when they appointed him president.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:42 PM on 06/12/2008

My thoughts exactly.
This retribution against a bunch of people whose skin happens to be darker
than ours is a sham to try to cover up the real perpetrators of 911. The last world leader to round
up and incarcerate a bunch of innocents based on ethnicity was Hitler, the very man that Bush Junior's Grandpa and Great Grandfather financed and gave support to before and during WWII. Shame on Roberts and his right wing cohorts for their lack of decency and betrayal against a bunch of people held in prisons against their will, tortured, all rights stripped of them including Habeus Corpus and branded guilty. What are the charges and where is the proof of their crimes Mr. Roberts?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:51 PM on 06/12/2008
- katzooks I'm a Fan of katzooks 8 fans permalink

Oh, gee. How very kind of them. Does this mean that, for the first time in 7 years, our president might actually be required to obey, sort of, kind of, in part, at least a tiny fraction of the laws of the land?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:40 PM on 06/12/2008

No. Bush has proven that he is above the law and Nancy has confirmed it. The court has no authority over him.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:52 PM on 06/12/2008

I think the scariest part is how enthusiastically the mindless neo-con sheep on the Supreme Court will cede their power to the executive branch. I'm not a big fan of Hillary, but she might be a perfect candidate for the Supreme Court. She would grab for as much power as she could get. It might help balance the damage the ovine neo-cons are trying to create.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:37 PM on 06/12/2008
- oafishcad I'm a Fan of oafishcad 45 fans permalink

You may be right. It would be the perfect place for her to get her power on.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:43 PM on 06/12/2008
- Chavez08 I'm a Fan of Chavez08 58 fans permalink
photo

Our country won't be safe until these goat farmers and taxi drivers can be properly water-boar­ded...er..­.interroga­ted.

You liberals ruined everything with your Bill of Rights and your stupid Geneva Convention. We were THIS close to catching Bin Laden!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:36 PM on 06/12/2008

Missed it by *that* much.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:14 PM on 06/12/2008
- oafishcad I'm a Fan of oafishcad 45 fans permalink

Using intensive interrogation techniques and loving it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:23 PM on 06/12/2008
- Birdman I'm a Fan of Birdman 35 fans permalink

Apparently in your reality this is true, where the rest of us sit Bush let OBL go.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:32 PM on 06/12/2008
- jazzman I'm a Fan of jazzman 236 fans permalink
photo

A better title for this page would have been: Constitutional Rights - What a concept!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:34 PM on 06/12/2008
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next › Last » (19 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

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

Connect