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 12 13 14 15 Next › Last » (19 pages total)
- dsgeorge I'm a Fan of dsgeorge 20 fans permalink
photo

Supreme Court = Issue #1 why this country needs to vote Obama

To all my Hillary friends - this is most important - please put aside your dissapointment - I feel for you as an Obama supporter but WE NEED YOU - to all my Obama friends - give Hillary's campaign $10 to put towards her debt -- I did.

Supereme Court = Issue #1

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:32 PM on 06/12/2008
- dentuso I'm a Fan of dentuso 428 fans permalink
photo

Okay... so let me get this straight.

The US isn't allowed to hold anyone without charging them with something?

And we needed a freakin' Supreme Court ruling to determine that this was against the constitution?

Maybe one day we'll know if any of us are actually allowed to spread BS, getting a country into war that ends the lives of thousands of young men and women.

Oye.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:28 PM on 06/12/2008
- urbangreen I'm a Fan of urbangreen 3 fans permalink

"... we needed a freakin' Supreme Court ruling to determine that this was against the constitution?"
***

No. We the People knew it all along. It was the Republicrat Congress (including all worthless Dems who voted w. this disaster of a President) who needed the Supremes to tell them that their lap-dog Military Commissions law was unconstitutional.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:21 PM on 06/12/2008
- thebanana I'm a Fan of thebanana 7 fans permalink

Gitmo, Abu Ghraib...s­ame difference. Have the Supreme's finally woken from their long slumber?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:27 PM on 06/12/2008
photo

Five of them have.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:32 PM on 06/12/2008
- BronxBorn I'm a Fan of BronxBorn 50 fans permalink
photo

Should have been Nine.
Wake me up when this nightmare is over.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:47 PM on 06/12/2008
- MizLiz I'm a Fan of MizLiz 59 fans permalink
photo

The other four are joined at the hip. They are a disgrace to this country IMHO.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:01 PM on 06/12/2008
- StillAmused I'm a Fan of StillAmused 261 fans permalink

This poses a real problem for the imaginary 'war on terra'. They'd finally nailed Saddam's chauffer, and they were just getting warmed up. Could bin Laden's tailor have been far behind?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:24 PM on 06/12/2008
photo

Another episode in "The Constitution Churns" brought to you by the Dumbo Administration.
Would wrongful imprisonment charges be forthcoming?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:20 PM on 06/12/2008
- DonKrieger I'm a Fan of DonKrieger 3 fans permalink
photo

You can find the complete opinion on the Supreme Court site in PDF form:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1195.pdf

Also, we have placed in on our site in a very fast and convenient form which uses only your web browser. We have placed table of contents info in the left frame so you can immediately jump to the concurring and dissenting opinions:

http://www.evendon.net/PGHLookups/BoumedieneVBushM.htm

Don

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:19 PM on 06/12/2008
- pmorlan I'm a Fan of pmorlan 4 fans permalink

Thanks for the links, Don.

I hope that any of the Clinton supporters who say they won't vote for Obama read the dissents in this opinion so they can see why we must elect Obama.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:41 PM on 06/12/2008
- Krikkit I'm a Fan of Krikkit 14 fans permalink

HABEAS CORPUS RESTORED!!!!

HALLELUJAH!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:17 PM on 06/12/2008
- plainsman I'm a Fan of plainsman 16 fans permalink
photo

This sounds good, but I wonder, will the U.S. have to show evidence (tortured out of detainees) to refute the lawyers claims, or just say, "we have evidence this man is an enemy combatant, and no, you can't see it b/c it's top secret." I can't think of any judges that would rule in favor of the detainees. Until the government's evidence (or lack thereof) is made available to civilian judges, I don't see how this ruling will have any measurable effect.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:16 PM on 06/12/2008
- Grunty1 I'm a Fan of Grunty1 219 fans permalink

Any judge who understands the rule of law would. Which pretty much discounts any apppointed under a Republican.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:35 PM on 06/12/2008
- Xysea I'm a Fan of Xysea 5 fans permalink
photo

I think the US govt should have to provide its evidence on why it detained the individual, especially what led up to the incarceration without trial.

The detainee should be able to mount a defense, with a lawyer, in court.

May the best man win. If the govt has sufficient evidence, it will be easy to convict the detainee of some crime or to deport him, or whatever the consequence will be. But America was founded on the notion of 'innocent until *proven* guilty'; to do otherwise, tarnishes who we claim to be.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:43 PM on 06/12/2008
- plainsman I'm a Fan of plainsman 16 fans permalink
photo

I agree wholeheartedly. I think the tribunals formula of "Guilty until proven innocent" is a travesty of justice.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:13 PM on 06/12/2008
- congaboy I'm a Fan of congaboy 2 fans permalink

The government needs to show Probable Cause to detain take a person into custody. PC is the lowest standard by which evidence is reviewed and it can be established almost entirely on hearsay. Illegally obtained evidence can be used to establish PC, because a review of the legality of the evidence will be heard later in the proceedings at hearings called "motions hearings" in which the court is asked to review whether the evidence complies with the Constitution and the rules of evidence for trial.

So, information obtained through torture can be used to arrest and hold the accused, but it may not be allowed as evidence at trial.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:53 PM on 06/12/2008
- plainsman I'm a Fan of plainsman 16 fans permalink
photo

So basically, you're saying that this ruling doesn't change anything, because the false admissions obtained during torture can be used as evidence for PC? So were left with the same kangaroo courts, where detainees aren't allowed to review or refute the evidence being used against them.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:51 PM on 06/12/2008
- dolphy I'm a Fan of dolphy 46 fans permalink

The irony of this is most of the detainees will be freed because most of the "confessions" will be proven to be made under duress. Even the guilty ones.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:09 PM on 06/12/2008
- sharonh I'm a Fan of sharonh 208 fans permalink
photo

Haleleuja, amen. Finally after up to 6 long years for some, the right to challenge. What is of concern is the narrow margin of this passage, and the length of time it took to get here. Consider Supreme Court appointees when considering your choice of POTUS.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:16 PM on 06/12/2008
- mebble I'm a Fan of mebble 4 fans permalink
photo

Gitmo. Brought to you by the same people who brought you George Bush. There are some members of the Supreme Court who also deserve impeachment.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:13 PM on 06/12/2008

We should definitely make a note of the names of those dissenting judges--Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas--Bush regime sympathise­rs--becaus­e as far as I'm concerned they voted against the Constitution.

Also, 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.'" I'm curious. Just how many "aliens" has our country detained as "enemy combatants?" And what is Roberts criticizing for being "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded?" The Constitution?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:08 PM on 06/12/2008
- Rashomon I'm a Fan of Rashomon 2 fans permalink
photo

This has nothing to do with whether they are guilty or not. This is not letting them off the hook as some Conservative commentators want to assert. This ruling simply says if these prisoners are on American soil and held under the American legal system then they have Constitutional rights. This is as it should be. They may very well spend their whole life in prison but they have the right to challenge their detention, which is much more than prisoners have in other [less progressive] countries.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:07 PM on 06/12/2008
- SPQR1052 I'm a Fan of SPQR1052 17 fans permalink
photo

It's a fine day in America, again, finally.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:06 PM on 06/12/2008

Wow! That 5 to 4 vote with Bush-appointee Roberts leading the dissent says a lot about the important issues at stake in the November election. Watching from Canada, I hope Americans decide it is time for a change.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:25 PM on 06/12/2008
- pahpah25 I'm a Fan of pahpah25 6 fans permalink

if the charges could be proven in court...th­ere would be no problem putting these men on trial,,,,,­,,,,,,,,th­at they haven't been charged and tried...te­lls me that the charges cannot be proven and are probably the result of torture...­...why are bush et al so afraid of these men?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:58 PM on 06/12/2008

People have been held up for 5 years and its only now the court have a voice? Give me a break. has there been no constitution for the last 5 years?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:56 PM on 06/12/2008

The constitution has been on forced hiatus for a while. About 7.5 years to be exact...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:25 PM on 06/12/2008

Has taken this amount of time for the case to reach the Supremes for the third time.

A case has to reach the Supremes before they can act.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:37 PM on 06/12/2008
- SaulGood I'm a Fan of SaulGood 33 fans permalink

some of these "people" were just boys at the time. unimaginable.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:42 PM on 06/12/2008
- brizzle I'm a Fan of brizzle 3 fans permalink

I feel great empathy for these "detainees". As badly as our POTUS has served his country, perhaps all of these guys are innocent after all.

Close Guantanamo!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:56 PM on 06/12/2008
photo

Most of the people at Guantanamo were sold to the US by war lords or even their neighbors. If any of them were guilty, don't you think they would have gone to trial by now. The trials they are going to hold in September (kangaroo trials) are going to be based on the confessions of the detainees while being tortured. THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:17 PM on 06/12/2008
- barriosbabe I'm a Fan of barriosbabe 241 fans permalink
photo

Good point.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:53 PM on 06/12/2008
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next › Last » (19 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

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

Connect