Bush Administration Says Detainee Trials To Continue

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

MARK SHERMAN | June 13, 2008 08:54 AM EST | AP

Compare other versions »

In this June 6, 2008 file photo, reviewed by the U.S. Military, the sun rises over Camp Delta detention compound at Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base, in Cuba. The 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, Pool, File)

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court's decision on Guantanamo Bay will unleash a torrent of court filings from detainees seeking their freedom but won't affect the military trials planned for some terrorism suspects, Attorney General Michael Mukasey said Friday.

The Bush administration disagrees strongly with the high court's decision that the foreigners held under indefinite detention at the Guantanamo naval base in Cuba have the right to seek release in civilian court. President Bush said Thursday he would abide by the decision, but also said his administration was evaluating whether to respond to the court's ruling with new legislation.

In Brussels, Belgium, on Friday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he would reserve judgment on "what we ought to do next" at Guantanamo until he received briefings on the ruling.

"I have often said that ... we would like to close Guantanamo," Gates said. "I think that despite the fact that in many respects Guantanamo has become a state-of-the-art prison now, early reports of abuses and so on unquestionably were a black eye for the United States."

Thursday's much-anticipated 5-to-4 ruling was the third time the justices have repudiated Bush on his ambitious and hugely controversial schemes to hold the suspects outside the protections of U.S. law.

Speaking at a Group of Eight meeting of justice and home affairs ministers in Tokyo, Mukasey said, "I'm disappointed with the decision, in so far as I understand that it will result in hundreds of actions challenging the detention of enemy combatants to be moved to federal district court."

He added: "I think it bears emphasis that the court's decision does not concern military commission trials, which will continue to proceed. Instead it addresses the procedures that the Congress and the president put in place to permit enemy combatants to challenge their detention."

He said the Justice Department would comply with the ruling while studying the decision and "whether any legislation or any other action may be appropriate."

So far, 19 of the detainees, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other alleged Sept. 11 plotters, are facing military war crimes trials. The Pentagon has said it plans to try as many as 80 of the roughly 270 men held at Guantanamo.

But 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's decision.

"The entire legal framework under which Mr. Hamdan was to be tried has been turned on its head," said his lawyer, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Brian Mizer.

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."

In writing for the court majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy acknowledged the terrorism threat the country 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 on Thursday, said, "It was a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented." 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.

Lawyers for detainees differed over whether the ruling, unlike the first two, would lead to prompt hearings for those who have not been charged. Of the roughly 270 men remaining at the prison, most are classed as enemy combatants and held on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaida and the Taliban.

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.

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.

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.

Chief Justice John Roberts, in his own dissent, 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.

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.

 
Comments
276
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 Next › Last » (7 pages total)

"President Bush said Thursday he would abide by the decision, but also said his administration was evaluating whether to respond to the court's ruling with new legislation."

Does anybody besides me think this was an inadvertant slipup by the president that reveals how he believes he has more power than granted by the Constitution -- I mean, seeing as how it is the CONGRESS that passes legislation and all, why would he think his administration has the power to respond with new legislation??? Did he just accidentally forget to say "I will work with Congress on new legislation...."??????? Oh wait...I forgot! He has his SIGNING STATEMENTS!!! DUH. Silly me. I guess he can go back and add his new legislation to one of those pesky laws he has already signed.

******************** IMPEACH THE CRIMINALS ********************

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:06 PM on 06/14/2008

I think he's just flipped off the Supreme Court again.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:48 AM on 06/14/2008
photo

"In a BLISTERING dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said..."
I think we know where this Justice's REAL blistering comes from, and it ISN'T from dissenting.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:04 AM on 06/14/2008

President Bush ought to ignore this decision. It's a bad one that is going to see more Americans dead.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:22 AM on 06/14/2008

Like Stephen Colbert said "Why do we need judges. We have George W. Bush don't we?"

Th Decider.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:02 PM on 06/14/2008
photo

so, you admit then you *want* bush to again abrogate the constitution and ignore yet another co-equal branch of the government as if he was either a king or tyrant?
ha, i'll bet i know what party you're registered with, and it's not the democrats.
only one party want's us to go back to the pre-constitutional lack of liberties and protections.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:25 PM on 06/14/2008
photo

He who is the author of a war lets loose the whole contagion of hell and opens a vein that bleeds a nation to death.
Thomas Paine

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:39 AM on 06/14/2008

I"ve read most of the comments here on this subject. It is a basic tenet of the law in this country that the legal process is a due process, that is, it must not be an abstracted right indefinitely. However these people are to be dealt with it should proceed with something other than no obvious velocity. I think most citizens might be willing to allow the government some elbowroom on this issue if they had shown even the semblance of respect for the Constitution. They have in fact been shown to be more than happy breaking many laws up to an including public identification of an intelligence officer for political gain and to support their hideous cover-up of the phony grounds ginned up to go to war with Iraq. At some point the courts have to step in and make clear the extent to which both the civilian and military judicial systems may out do each other in doing absolutely nothing. Doing nothing is one of the few things this administration has been able to do well. If the government has a case against these people then by all means let justice take its course. Clearly there are ways to deal with this problem other than doing nothing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:56 PM on 06/13/2008
photo

This is the same crap they always say when things aren't going their way.
"We'll do it anyway." And they have unilaterally stepped over every line drawn in front of them....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:42 PM on 06/13/2008

I hope they just let them all go....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:24 PM on 06/13/2008

Let them all go??? Have you lost your mind. Do you know what a terrorist is? Oh, brother.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:15 PM on 06/13/2008

How 'bout we bake them cookies too?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:21 PM on 06/13/2008

Yeah, I DO. So far, they've 'nailed' Saddam's chauffeur, and bin Laden's tailor can't be far behind.

Do YOU know what a terrorist is (as opposed to an uncharged, unconvicted DETAINEE)?

Amateur.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:44 AM on 06/14/2008

So isn't there a legal team ready to put Georgie and he rest in detention? I'm really sick of this putz.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:02 PM on 06/13/2008

Bush the Criminal smirks because he knows that the Democrats don't have the courage to impeach him.

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

Guess he wasn't kidding when he said "if this were a dictatorship it'd be a heck of a lot easier,just so long as I'm the dictator"....".The accumulation of all powers,legislative,executive and judiciary in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny". James Madison,Founding Father.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:07 PM on 06/13/2008
photo

What I noticed about the picture on the home page was that it looks as if W could have his hand up the
AG's ass because the AG is just a W puppet anyway.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:35 PM on 06/13/2008
- jfor I'm a Fan of jfor permalink

Mukasey has his job because of feinstein and schumer.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:10 PM on 06/13/2008

So SCOTUS has said to Bush Business as usual. Yawn,big deal military trials will go on and the civilian courts will do whatever Bush and Co. says.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:06 PM on 06/13/2008

In this case, the Supreme Court (except for Bush's lackeys Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas) is sending a clear message to President Bush and Vice-President Cheney that they above the law and that the Constitution still applies.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:59 PM on 06/13/2008
photo

What sad, pathetic little nazis we have running our country. It may take one more generation, but the Nazi-conservative-Republican-neocon movement is dead.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:42 PM on 06/13/2008
photo

The problem isn't that these guys were enemy combattants, but they are 'combattants' in such an ill-defined war. By the Bush definition we would still be holding Korean War prisoners as part of the 'War on Communism' and still holding World War 2 prisoners as part of the 'War on Fascism'. Why not just declare a 'war on crime' and then be able to detain anybody anywhere for any length of time because they are enemy combattants in the 'war on crime'!

Anyway it was particularly distressing to see Scalia parroting the neocon scare tactics and essentially accusing the other justices of wanting to kill americans. That kind of spurrious scaremongering rhetoric is beneath the stature of the Supreme Court.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:30 PM on 06/13/2008

Oh, yeah, and one more thing: about that "war on crimes" thing--ssshhh, you might give the wrong people ideas--like another excuse to launch a bogus war.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:45 AM on 06/14/2008

How about a war on treason which could include all dissenters as illegal enemy combatants.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:28 PM on 06/14/2008
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next › Last » (7 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in  or  Connect

 
Right Now on HuffPost
YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER CAN BE GUESSED

Researchers have found that it is possible to guess many -- if...

Obamas Tour The Kremlin

MOSCOW — Russia's first lady Svetlana Medvedev took...

Related Tags