Supremes Say No To Guantanamo

[Dr Dave]

just in from Reuters: (Don't miss Clarence Thomas's position!)

High Court Deals Blow to Bush's War on Terror

By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court placed the first limits on President Bush's war on terrorism on Monday and ruled that terror suspects can use the American judicial system to challenge their confinement.

The historic moves on the day before the end of the high court's term marked a bitter defeat for Bush's assertion of sweeping presidential powers to indefinitely hold "enemy combatants" after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. It was the court's first rulings on Bush's terrorism policies.

In one ruling, the court said the nearly 600 foreign terror suspects held for two years at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba could turn to American courts to challenge their confinement. In another ruling, it said an American terror suspect held in his nation is entitled to a chance to contest the government's decision.

"Today's historic rulings are a strong repudiation of the administration's argument that its actions in the war on terrorism are beyond the rule of law and unreviewable by American courts," Steven Shapiro of the American Civil Liberties Union said.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices ruled American courts can consider the claims of Guantanamo Bay prisoners -- suspected al Qaeda members or Taliban fighters -- who said in their lawsuits they were being held illegally in violation of their rights.

"What is presently at stake is only whether the federal courts have jurisdiction to determine the legality of the executive's potentially indefinite detention of individuals who claim to be wholly innocent of wrongdoing," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

The ruling did not address the merits of the claims, and the detainees still could face a long legal battle to win their release or major changes in the conditions of their confinement.

But families of some Guantanamo Bay detainees and their lawyers said in London the ruling could mean the beginning of the end of the prison camp.

And lawyers from the Center for Constitutional Rights, which brought the case to the high court, said they would seek access to their clients within the week.

In the second ruling, the court divided by a 5-4 vote to rule that Bush has the power to detain American citizen Yaser Hamdi, who was captured in Afghanistan as a suspected Taliban fighter and who has been held in a U.S. military jail. It said the U.S. Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged in the case.

FAIR CHANCE TO REBUT GOVERNMENT

But in the more important part of the ruling, the justices by an 8-1 vote ruled he should get a fair opportunity to rebut the government's case for detaining him.

Four court members would have released Hamdi, saying his detention was unauthorized. Two of them -- Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- joined the main opinion by four other justices who said Hamdi should have a meaningful opportunity to offer evidence that he is not an enemy combatant.

The opinion written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said constitutional due process rights demand that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant must be given "a meaningful opportunity" to contest the detention before a neutral party.

"History and common sense teach us that an unchecked system of detention carries the potential to become a means for oppression and abuse of others," O'Connor wrote.

She left open the possibility the standards set out in the ruling could be met by military tribunals.

In the Hamdi case, only Justice Clarence Thomas of the nine court members totally supported the Bush administration's position.

In a third ruling, the court decided the case of terror suspect Jose Padilla on narrow procedural grounds, ruling he should have brought the challenge in South Carolina instead of New York, a decision that sidestepped whether Bush has the power to detain him. The high court allows him to bring his case again.

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry hailed the rulings. "I would have wished this administration would have done what made sense several years ago and what was in keeping with the values and spirit of our country," he said.

[jesus marion joseph]

You're still behind GG for the "Best Post FH2004" title, but that was a good effort.


"Hey, hey, ho, ho, let them go from Guantanamo................." (weak, I know).

[Pete C]

[Dr Dave]

You always said, Pete, that you post first and think about it later.

[Gary Sisco]

Finally.

Now, I'm waiting for them to remember the obvious in American and international law. An American military base or embassy anywhere in the world -- and the same with any other country's -- is American territory, where American law and only American law apply. I can't believe how many appeals judges have ruled that the Constitution and American law don't apply in Guantanamo because it's not in the United States. DUH!? What law applies? Cuban? Not likely. If it did, there'd be no Guantanamo base at all. Frickin' nitwits.

[Gary Sisco]

Hey hey, ho ho,
this rhyming scheme has got to go.


I mean, really. For how many decades can people have such limited imaginations? When I was in Nicaragua, the Nicas came up with new -- and often very clever -- chants nearly every week. Sometimes every day. All we get here is the same old hey hey ho ho whatever bullshit floats your boat. No wonder it sounds so tired and passionless every time it gets dragged out, which is at every demonstration, regardless of its cause, going back 25 years or more, now.

The only one sillier (and more tiresome) was the insistence of gringos in the US using "El pueblo unido...." during the 80s ... in Spanish, in places where nearly no one spoke Spanish and hadn't a clue what in the world they were chanting or why.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

What amazes me is that Thomas didn't follow Scalia's lead this time. I thought Clarence had his head firmly planted up Antonin's butt.

What planet did this brother come from? Is there some right-wing ideologue text book he consults with every ruling? At least with Scalia there seems to be some intellect at work. With Thomas I don't know (hope he's not a relative, both our families are from Georgia, aww crap...)

[Dr Dave]

I doubt seriously whether you share a single gene with Clarence Thomas. The man is a piece of work, isn't he?

I think his head is up Bush Sr.'s butt, actually.

[stonemonkts]

Ach! I missed Pete's post before posting this...oh well, not a bad pic anyway.

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

You always said, Pete, that you post first and think about it later.

That was in the old days. I've streamlined the process now. I've jettisoned the thinking.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Pete C

That was in the old days. I've streamlined the process now. I've jettisoned the thinking.

I'd say you were well-prepared now to clerk for Justice Thomas.

[Sergio Zamora]

Let's not be so hasty...

http://www.counterpunch.org/cassel06292004.html