Habeas Begins: Gitmo Prisoner Opens New Era Of Court Challenges

McClatchy:

The Taliban tortured Abdul Rahim Abdul Razak al Ginco. They thought he was a U.S. spy. Then, U.S. soldiers called the Syrian native an enemy and shipped him to Guantanamo.

Now, Ginco will be turning a spotlight back on the Bush administration itself. Newly empowered by the Supreme Court, Ginco has become the first Guantanamo detainee to demand in a U.S. federal court that the military show the hard evidence that justifies his detention. Scores of others are expected to do likewise, attorneys predict.

The war on terror may never be the same.

On June 12, the court rewrote the rules for the Guantanamo detainees in the landmark case known as Boumediene v. Bush. The 5-4 majority opinion authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy concluded that the foreigners held at the U.S. Navy's Guantanamo Bay facility were protected by the U.S. Constitution's habeas corpus protections.

Read the whole story: McClatchy

Comments

[Bobrobert]

HEE HEE HEE

Bush should be tried for war crimes.

Cheney should be tried for war crimes.

nuff said

Be sure to vote all!!!

[gcallaghan]

This bizarre legal carousel took 6 years to get back to where we started. Presuming the torturing has already ended, what a stain this was to our nation.

Let the neocons try to rewrite THIS out of the history books.

[Grunty1]

It will be beside the imprisonment of Japanese Americans during WWII as one of the lowest points in US history. And those people weren't even physically tortured

[kay]

I think conservatives don't want the detentions challenged because it may force the conservative lawyers who authored and authorized this disaster to defend their work.

[XME]

Similarly to the prison system, if there is eve ONE detainee that is being held who isn't actually guilty, America must be a nation that affords them the chance to prove this.

We would want and expect the same from any other country if they detained an American claiming they were a terrorist!

[RickO]

They're afraid if they let someone go, that person will go home and join the fight against us again. That may be true in many cases because if these guys were pissed off before, they're really pissed now. But there are only a couple of hundred people there. Many thousands more are recruited around the world because of Guantanamo. It has had more of a negative impact than almost anything we've done.

[PAposter]

Yes it has, and these people and their nations have every right to be outraged. It's one thing to keep these people in our sights, quite another to imprison them and forget them without any evidence to charge them with a crime. What, we can now detain people indefinitely, because of a gut feeling? WTF?!

[PAposter]

"On June 12, the court rewrote the rules for the Guantanamo detainees in the landmark case known as Boumediene v. Bush..."

Rewrote? They have always had protection under 'habeas corpus', they cannot be indefinitely imprisoned without cause or opportunity to be heard. These practices are a disgrace, and everyone should be outraged, lest we have them do unto our citizens.

[rooks]

You cannot have a war on a tactic. We need new verbiage!

[mathme]

Well, this is

The
War
Against
Terror

The war is against a feeling that such a tactic is meant to elicit.

[atomic]

Amazing to think that Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Pretty Boy Roberts all voted against human rights. Scalia is particularly disgusting and completely out of his mind ... he has no business being on the court and should be impeached for shear evilness ... Scalia is a partisan traitor if ever there was one ... deciding law based on who he likes to go hunting with.

Scalia is nothing more than a corporate elite thug posing as a judge ... He is the biggest disgrace on the court ... that is if you don't count that moronic psychopath Thomas.

[Grunty1]

Not amazing, expected from Neo-con appointees.

[Tommygun264]

Let the 'pub lemmings begin their lament. Heaven forbid we actually prove ourselves morally superior to our enemies rather than just claiming moral superiority while sinking to the level of terrorists, betraying the ideals we claim we are trying to defend.

America is taking a tiny baby step back toward claiming her place as the shining beacon of liberty and justice she once was and she is taking Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia along, kicking and screaming. For it is not just enough to survive, one must be worthy of survival.

[BARRISTER]

In a true Democracy,the Constitution protects ALL. If the argument is that because the prisoners are not on US soil, they are, ergo, not within the Jurisdiction of the United States Constitution, then the President and the Congress have NO Constitutional Powers to legally do or aurthorized to be done, ANY of the myriad things, including rendition and Military Tribunals, which have been and continue to be done. Both the Congress and the President derive their powers and authority from the Constitution. If it doesnt apply to "Detainees", it doesn't apply to them and their actions are unauthorized, unlawful, illegal and criminal. Ironic how we extend our laws outside of our territorial limits to "criminalize" other Nations Citizens - e.g.; Noreiga in Panama, persons overseas doing business with countries not in favour of Washington; our tax Laws, etc. etc., but, when we like it, the VERY SAME legal principles upon which we base these incursions have no place in our Jurisprudence - kinda like the "No Precedent Decision" in Bush v. Gore in 2000.

Wake up , us blindly egotistical myopic morons!!! The World is watching and it will be Quid proQuo all the way, and, we WILL NOT like it!!!

It will be interesting to observe the next few years. Also, the U.S Congress and President cannot control foreign Nations Criminal Laws.

[ProfessorDuh]

"Detainees" is a funny term for life prisoners who have, up until now, been robbed of all legal rights and subjected to torture. The word makes them sound like people who might have been temporarily delayed by some pesky paperwork.

[kay]

Remember when they made it up?

It wasn't that long ago. Now it's part of the language.

[realityczech4u]

You mean kinda like illegal immigrants being passed off by their activists as "undocumented", eh?
I guess just plain 'prisoners' would suffice. They can't be termed 'prisoners OF WAR' because these subhumans are too cowardly to put on a uniform and fight honorably.

[partyofone]

As practiced by Bush "the war on terror" seems to be a war on the Constitution, international law, human rights and basic humanity. "The war on terror may never be the same." If true, thank heaven for that. What have we accomplished as a nation if we commit the crimes we accuse others of committing?

[scooperss]

I'm sure to be lambasted but I'm going to say it anyway.

Bush has enablers and some are in the dem party. They have to go.

Donate to http://www.actblue.com/page/fisa