<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Justices: Gitmo detainees can challenge detention in U.S. courts Story Highlights NEW: President Bush says he disagrees with ruling but he'll abide by it NEW: Court says separately it won't rule on case of U.S. citizens convicted in Iraq Justice Scalia: U.S. "will live to regret what the court has done today" Justice Kennedy: Constitution should "remain in force, in extraordinary times" From Bill Mears CNN Supreme Court Producer WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Suspected terrorists and foreign fighters held by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have the right to challenge their detention in federal court, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday. The decision marks another legal blow to the Bush administration's war on terrorism policies. The 5-4 vote reflects the divide over how much legal autonomy the U.S. military should have to prosecute about 270 prisoners, some of whom have been held for more than six years without charges. Fourteen of them are alleged to be top al Qaeda figures. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system reconciled within the framework of the law." Kennedy, the court's swing vote, was supported by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer -- generally considered the liberal contingent. At issue was the rights of detainees to contest their imprisonment and challenge the rules set up to try them. Watch how the 5-4 ruling is a major blow for the Bush administration » A congressional law passed in 2006 would limit court jurisdiction to hear so-called habeas corpus challenges to detention. It is a legal question the justices have tackled three times since 2004, including Thursday's ruling. Each time, the justices have ruled against the government's claim that it has the authority to hold people it considers "enemy combatants." Preliminary hearings have begun in Guantanamo for some of the accused, and a military panel this month arraigned five suspected senior al Qaeda detainees, including the alleged mastermind of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was transferred to the prison camp in 2006. The Bush administration has urged the high court not to get involved in the broader appeals, saying the federal judiciary has no authority to hear such matters. Four justices agreed. In a sharp dissent, read in part from the bench, Justice Antonin Scalia said the majority "warps our Constitution." The "nation will live to regret what the court has done today," Scalia said. He was supported by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. President Bush, who is traveling in Europe, said he disagreed with the Guantanamo ruling but promised to abide by it. "Congress and the administration worked very carefully on a piece of legislation that set the appropriate procedures in place as to how to deal with the detainees," he said. "We'll study this opinion, and we'll do so with this in mind to determine whether or not additional legislation might be appropriate so that we can safely say, truly say to the American people. 'We are doing everything we can to protect you.' " The Pentagon declined to comment, and the Justice Department said it was reviewing the decision and was expected to comment later Thursday. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, welcomed the ruling, saying the Supreme Court upheld the Constitution. "I have long been an advocate of closing Guantanamo so I would hope this is in furtherance of taking that action," Pelosi said. The appeals involve noncitizens. Sixteen lawsuits filed on behalf of about 200 prisoners were put on hold pending a ruling last year by a federal appeals court upholding the government's right to detain and prosecute suspected terrorists and war criminals. An attorney for one of the detainees, Salim Ahmed Hamdan -- Osama bin Laden's alleged driver and bodyguard -- said he would file an appeal asking that charges be dropped against the Yemeni native. "The clearest immediate impact of this ruling is to remove the remaining barriers for closing Guantanamo Bay. It means, in legal terms, Guantanamo Bay is no different than Kansas," attorney Charles Swift said. Now the ruling has been issued, a flood of similar appeals can be expected. The lead plaintiffs are Lakhdar Boumediene, a Bosnian, and Fawzi al-Odah of Kuwait. They question the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act, passed by Congress in October 2006. The law addresses how suspected foreign terrorists and fighters can be tried and sentenced under U.S. military law. Under the system, those facing trial would have a limited right to appeal any conviction, reducing the jurisdiction of federal courts. The suspects also must prove to a three-person panel of military officers they are not a terror risk. But defendants would have access to evidence normally given to a jury, and CIA agents were given more guidance in how far they can go in interrogating prisoners. The law was a direct response to a June 2006 Supreme Court ruling striking down the Bush administration's plan to try detainees before military commissions. In 2004, the justices also affirmed the right of prisoners to challenge their detention in federal court. Congress and the administration have sought to restrict such access. The Justice Department wanted the high court to pass on these appeals, at least until the first wave of tribunals had a chance to work. Administration officials also argued the prisoners have plenty of legal safeguards. The White House has said it is considering whether to close the Guantanamo prison, suggesting some high-level al Qaeda detainees could be transferred to the federal prison in Leavenworth, Kansas, and to a military brig in North Charleston, South Carolina. Most of the dozens of pending cases have been handled in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, which in February 2007 upheld the Military Commissions Act's provision stripping courts of jurisdiction to hear "habeas" challenges to the prisoners' confinement. But a three-judge panel of the same circuit expressed concern about why the U.S. military continues to limit attorney access to the Guantanamo men. The detainees' legal team alleges the government is unfairly restricting access to potentially exculpatory evidence, including documents they may not know exist before pretrial hearings. Legal and terrorism analysts said the issues presented in these latest sets of appeals are unlike those the justices have delved into previously. "The difference in this case is that they have a congressional enactment cutting back on habeas corpus that they have to wrestle with," said Edward Lazarus, a leading appellate attorney and author of a book on the high court, "Closed Chambers: The Rise, Fall, and Future of the Modern Supreme Court." "And that, from a constitutional point of view, is really a different question." In a separate decision, the court refused to intervene in the case of two American citizens convicted in Iraqi courts but held by the U.S. military. The high court rejected lawyers' arguments that Mohammad Munaf and Shawqi Ahmad Omar should be released, saying that U.S. courts are not allowed to intervene in foreign courts.</div> Link I was always under the impression that if you had what they call "property or presence" in the United States, then you have the right to habeas corpus. Now this extends to everyone in Gitmo, and because the Bush administration used torture techniques, any evidence gathered here is going to be overturned in federal courts. This is devastating for the Bush administration.
This should help defibrillate Kucinich's impeachment resolution I'd guess. Of course I doubt that, since when would a Democratic Congress ever do their job?
In his dissent, Chief Justice Roberts makes a very good point that certiorari should never have been given in this case, since defendants/appellants refused to exhaust their remedies, and chose instead to bring a highly political case to the Supreme Court. His concluding paragraph is certainly quotable: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>So who has won? Not the detainees. The Court’s analysis leaves them with only the prospect of further litigation to determine the content of their new habeas right, followed by further litigation to resolve their particular cases, followed by further litigation before the D. C. Circuit—where they could have started had they invoked the DTA procedure. Not Congress, whose attempt to “determine— through democratic means—how best” to balance the security of the American people with the detainees’ liberty interests, see Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U. S. 557, 636 (2006) (BREYER, J., concurring), has been unceremoniously brushed aside. Not the Great Writ, whose majesty is hardly enhanced by its extension to a jurisdictionally quirky outpost, with no tangible benefit to anyone. Not the rule of law, unless by that is meant the rule of lawyers,who will now arguably have a greater role than military and intelligence officials in shaping policy for alien enemy combatants. And certainly not the American people, who today lose a bit more control over the conduct of this Nation’s foreign policy to unelected, politically unaccountable judges. I respectfully dissent.</div>
Despite the foregoing, Justice Scalia points out the key issue in a few lines: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>My problem with today’s opinion is more fundamental still: The writ of habeas corpus does not, and never has, run in favor of aliens abroad; the Suspension Clause thus has no application, and the Court’s intervention in this military matter is entirely ultra vires.</div>
I always liked Scalia....If theres one thing to note about the Supreme Court of this country, they are not always correct in their concensus....
The other habeas case handed down today, <u>Munaf v. Geren</u>, will prove much more useful in the long run. From CJ Roberts' unanimous Opinion: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>We conclude that the habeas statute extends to American citizens held overseas by American forces operating subject to an American chain of command, even when those forces are acting as part of a multinational coalition. Under circumstances such as those presented here, however, habeas corpus provides petitioners with no relief.</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jun 12 2008, 04:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I always liked Scalia....If theres one thing to note about the Supreme Court of this country, they are not always correct in their concensus....</div> A problem with it is that it consists of two ideological blocs, each consisting of four justices. So the critical swing vote goes to the justice who doesn't have a clear-cut jurisprudence, whether that justice is named O'Connor or Kennedy. That's troubling for any number of reasons...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 12 2008, 03:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jun 12 2008, 04:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I always liked Scalia....If theres one thing to note about the Supreme Court of this country, they are not always correct in their concensus....</div> A problem with it is that it consists of two ideological blocs, each consisting of four justices. So the critical swing vote goes to the justice who doesn't have a clear-cut jurisprudence, whether that justice is named O'Connor or Kennedy. That's troubling for any number of reasons... </div> ....and the real reason this Presidential election is important....Ginsberg isnt likely to last 8 more years and the next sitting President will be choosing atleast 1, maybe more Justices....
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 12 2008, 03:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Despite the foregoing, Justice Scalia points out the key issue in a few lines: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>My problem with today’s opinion is more fundamental still: The writ of habeas corpus does not, and never has, run in favor of aliens abroad; the Suspension Clause thus has no application, and the Court’s intervention in this military matter is entirely ultra vires.</div> </div> I agree with his statement. The constitution of the United States does not protect those from which it does not draw it's powers from, namely non-citizens.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jun 12 2008, 04:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 12 2008, 03:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jun 12 2008, 04:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I always liked Scalia....If theres one thing to note about the Supreme Court of this country, they are not always correct in their concensus....</div> A problem with it is that it consists of two ideological blocs, each consisting of four justices. So the critical swing vote goes to the justice who doesn't have a clear-cut jurisprudence, whether that justice is named O'Connor or Kennedy. That's troubling for any number of reasons... </div> ....and the real reason this Presidential election is important....Ginsberg isnt likely to last 8 more years and the next sitting President will be choosing atleast 1, maybe more Justices.... </div> True, although Congress has increasingly overstepped its Constitutional bounds regarding what constitutes Advice and Consent.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jun 12 2008, 03:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 12 2008, 03:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jun 12 2008, 04:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I always liked Scalia....If theres one thing to note about the Supreme Court of this country, they are not always correct in their concensus....</div> A problem with it is that it consists of two ideological blocs, each consisting of four justices. So the critical swing vote goes to the justice who doesn't have a clear-cut jurisprudence, whether that justice is named O'Connor or Kennedy. That's troubling for any number of reasons... </div> ....and the real reason this Presidential election is important....Ginsberg isnt likely to last 8 more years and the next sitting President will be choosing atleast 1, maybe more Justices.... </div> The way I see it, Stevens is 88 years old. He will assuredly step down within the next eight years. That creats one spot. The rest is a toss up. Souter (1939), Kennedy (1936), Ginsburg (1933), Scalia (1936), and Breyer (1938) are all within five or six years of eachother. Three of those (Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer) are considered the liberal vote. Kennedy is the swing vote, and Scalia is the conservative out of that group. Clarence Thomas just turned 60 this year, and Samuel Alito and John Roberts are young, so they will definetly be around. If McCain gets elected, he will appoint a conservative judge, and the Court will have a conservative majority of Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and McCain's judge, even if Ginsberg, Souter, and Breyer stay on the court. If that happens, I would guess that Roe v. Wade would be overturned, among other things. If Obama gets elected, and he appoints a judge like a Ginsburg, then the Court as it is today will probably be the same set-up (four liberal, four conservative, one swing) during Obama's term.
^ Don't forget, though, that appointees don't always turn out the way the President intends. Stevens and Souter were appointed by Ford and Bush (I) after all. Reagan, of course, gave us swingers O'Connor and Kennedy.
I believe it would go like this: If McCain is elected, he appoints a moderate judge and theres another swing vote....if Obama gets elected, he appoints a radical lunitic and this country continues down our current path to hell....
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 12 2008, 03:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^ Don't forget, though, that appointees don't always turn out the way the President intends. Stevens and Souter were appointed by Ford and Bush (I) after all. Reagan, of course, gave us swingers O'Connor and Kennedy.</div> Absolutely true. But for what it's worth, McCain has stated he will only appoint judges that have an absolute proven and clear, conservative record.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jun 12 2008, 04:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 12 2008, 03:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^ Don't forget, though, that appointees don't always turn out the way the President intends. Stevens and Souter were appointed by Ford and Bush (I) after all. Reagan, of course, gave us swingers O'Connor and Kennedy.</div> Absolutely true. But for what it's worth, McCain has stated he will only appoint judges that have an absolute proven and clear, conservative record. </div> Just another election year promise
This isn't a slam dunk case, either way. We just as easily could be using Gitmo to allow Cuban dissidents a place to seek asylum, and under those circumstances, those dissidents would absolutely be granted habeus corpus. The issue that the court had to deal with is that anywhere the US sets up official operations of any kind is considered US soil, and thus all Persons are due all proper protections of our laws. Scalia tries to make a distinction in that these Persons were brought to Gitmo as prisoners (of war), which is what makes the case interesting. While I think Scalia is generally brilliant and right about the law, I'm not so sure in this case. The Bush administration is not damaged by this ruling in the least. The law wasn't clear, they did their best (and were effective) to protect WE the people and prosecute a war against an army who doesn't wear uniforms or belong to a specific country. If they made a mistake it was in not keeping the POW camps at the battlefield (in Iraq, in Afghanistan), though it was probably safer for the prisoners and our troops to not tempt the enemy to try and free the POWs. Though I'm not sure the court would have seen this distinction. Who is damaged by this ruling is US, and the military. One day we'll have a big war like WW II again, perhaps, and every POW we take will have to be given habeus corpus (how ridiculous is that?!!!). The incentive for the military is to take no prisoners, or to haul a captive out of sight and beat any information out of them. Or the military won't be able to protect their own or US.
^ A key point that's being completely overlooked this time around is that Gitmo is NOT at all like military bases resting on captured soil. The US presence there is based on a lease executed with Cuba, which specifically and unequivocally states that Gitmo remains Cuban territory. That's a further twist that a later court could use as a basis for distinguishing this lousy decision.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Jun 12 2008, 03:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jun 12 2008, 04:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 12 2008, 03:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^ Don't forget, though, that appointees don't always turn out the way the President intends. Stevens and Souter were appointed by Ford and Bush (I) after all. Reagan, of course, gave us swingers O'Connor and Kennedy.</div> Absolutely true. But for what it's worth, McCain has stated he will only appoint judges that have an absolute proven and clear, conservative record. </div> Just another election year promise </div> It's still worth noting that we could be seeing the direction of the Supreme Court change dramatically if McCain is elected President, pandering or no pandering.
