News – The Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday from Guantanamo detainees who want challenge their five-year-long confinement in court, a victory for the Bush administration's legal strategy in its fight against terrorism.
The court did not rule on the merits of the case.
From the article, it only requires 4 judges' votes for a case to be reviewed, three judges voted outright to accept the case for their review and two (Kennedy and Stevens) made it "clear in a separate opinion that they were rejecting the appeals only on procedural grounds."
Don't trumpet your "victory" too loud or too long, it may be fleeting.
It's really no victory at all--for anyone. It's a defeat for the Constitution. As I have said before, if we reach the point where the courts "recognize" that anyone who is labeled an "enemy combatant" or "terrorist" may be held without access to the courts, so long as he or she is held at a US facility outside the country, we are all in danger. All the President--or a minor administrator in the Departments of Defense or Homeland Security--will have to do to imprison anyone, and I mean ANYONE (even a native-born citizen like me, with roots in this country going back to the Revolution), is to administratively declare them an "enemy combatant" and make sure that they are transported out of the US to Guantanamo (or wherever)before they have a chance to file any court papers. Then they will NEVER be afforded the opportunity to prove their citizenship--and their right to due process--until the eternal war on terrorism ends.
Wake up, people!
(( ...will have to do to imprison anyone, and I mean ANYONE..is to administratively declare them an "enemy combatant" and make sure that they are transported out of the US to Guantanamo (or wherever)before they have a chance to file any court papers. ))
The way I read The 2006 MCA is that only non-US citizens can be held without charge[which I don't agree with either]
I am no lawyer, but if your scenario is possible, and the MCA could be used and abused on US citizens, they why hasn't it been, and why haven't we heard about it? Are there clandestine abductions and sweepings away to out of the US detention facilities, so its happening and we don't know about it? Do they want to use it but fear bad publicity?
I was worried about the MCA and read it when it passed, and I think its a poorly written piece of crap that goes against american principles of fairness, but I don't see where it is being used on US citizens to sweep them away in the night to the gulags.
Or even that it could be.
Padilla is the only case I know of. But hey, I'm here to learn
Ahh I love how the democrats love to spin this one.. IM laughing so hard I almost coughed up my starbucks coffee!! Im glad to see our judicial system is doing the RIGHT THING!! Yes Pun intended.. Not much else to say except Im very pleased with the results... btw.. Earthlover, who gets the call when other countries need help... Ill give you a clue, its not the United Nations.....
please explain about how holding someone without trial or appeal is right? 10 detainees in gitmo are uk citizens and have not been charged with anything. one of them was released yesterday without being charged with anything after 4 and a half years in gitmo. if that is your version of justice then i pity you. if it was britain holding usa citizens the usa would very loudly be singing a different tune
One citizen who was held for quite some time was from Australia and is finally being sent down under only after a kangaroo court (aka military tribunal) determined his guilt. Some court it was. He lacked access to his defense attorney for years and had been kept at Gitmo without charge for way too long. Again, another case of the US isolating itself from our allies while flaunting our position in the world.
david hicks was the aussie and i really have to wonder exactly how dangerous he was when the military tribunal sentenced him to less than a yr left to serve...that doesnt sound to me like someone dangerous enough to torture and withhold justice from
"that doesnt sound to me like someone dangerous enough to torture and withhold justice from"
Interesting that there has not been a uproar in the news about Hicks being tortured. Perhaps you have a scoop! Also, since his case was adjudicated, justice was not withheld.
the scoop about detainees being tortured was couple yrs ago....because lil time has passed and nothing was done in ur mind that means it didnt happen? justice delayed is justice denied,and the case being tried in the kangroo court conditions doesnt change that....address the point of them only sentencing him to 9 monthes as long as he didnt talk about his confinement for a yr?
does a less than yr sentence sound like he was all that dangerous?
""Justice was not withheld""
but it sure as shootin wasn't swift either, now was it?
A year or two isn't a long time in the can, unless its YOUR can in the can.
Is empathy such a difficult concept, to imagine being tossed in jail, not knowing what will be done with you because there is no charge against you. A kind of Limbo, serving time for unspecified sins.
No, it's not boo-hoo-hoo liberal sympathy, just a simple exercise in empathy. I am far from a sympathetic sort, more of a who gives a f*** sort, but I have enough imagination to think about what it would be like to be thrown into prison, no 'rough questioning' or no waterboarding, with no charge and therefore no idea what will be done with me.
But then why shouldn't the future of detainees be so vague? Vaguary is this administrations hallmark: vague ethics, vague goals for wars, vague insinuations, vague new laws for people to argue over, vague firings, etc.
Vaguary - room to work - responsibility harder to track - benchmarks harder to find thru the mist.
A nice example is, is it 'mission accomplished'? Is it a war, or an occupation? Didn't we already win the war? Or is it the 'war on terror' so we haven't won yet? but how will we know when we win the WOT? When no one blows up s*** anymore?
The fact that no one can seem to get a fix and agree on these things-not even 'experts'- is just a symptom of the political fog this administration uses as a safety net.
A deliciously nebulous cup of obfuscation-filled delight all around! The tabs on everybody!
Not a member? Sign-up today!
304)
While it is a victory for the Bush Administration, we need to keep two things in mind: (1) this result comes only after the arrogant George Bush was compelled, by the Court, in the previous case, to recognize the constitutional role of the Congress in formulating the laws in this country, and (2) when the Supreme Court denies review, it is expressing no opinion on the merits of the case. It merely denied review.
Generally, when this court denies review, it is because the case has no substantial merit or value. Similar to your comment, this had no point.
I disagree wholeheartedly GoldRush. The sole reason the case was not put on a fast track for appeal is that Bush I and Bush Jr. packed the court with political hacks and steamrolled them through the Senate confirmation process with a former Republican majority.
Every time the US Supreme Court or the US Congress strikes a blow at habeas corpus review it damages the credibility of the US as a nation founded on the Rule of Law. We all lose. The court simply said that the time is not ready for review. However, the stinging rebuke from Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter would have swung the other way had O'Connor still been a member of the Court.
The case does have merit and should have been heard. The attorneys need to keep pressing this case. Congress needs to introduce legislation reinstating legal review at the district court level.
Perhaps you would care to expound on exactly how the methods the two Presidents Bush employed for their Supreme Court nominees differed from other presidents.
Considering the latest sentence to come out of our court system, about the Australian man who they captured, trying to flee into Pakistan, who was with the terrorists. The jerk received 9 months in prison and will be transferred back to Australia to serve his sentence. Egad...a travesty of any justice system. If he were an Arab I could see him being a POW, and after it's all over being sent home, but this jerk was a traitor to his own country, let alone the U.S. We might as well turn them all lose, give them weapons and kill them in battle or never attempt to take them prisoner. Of course the Walker family who sold our nations secrets and the FBI agent who they discovered was a Russian spy. They are still alive too... Makes me want to go outside and talk to Ralph, who usually lives in the bottom of the commode.
We seem to have a failure to identify who the enemy is, and I believe it is us, our justice system has done gone insane!
If you do not do what we want we will blow up a bus, train, airplane? We will kill as many of the infidels as we can. We will declare Jihad on all of western society? That is the justice you feel is most appropriate? What are people thinking when they defend this type of behavior!? The Australian man who they captured worked with, funded, supported, and waged war on western society using tactics as described above. Spain withdrew from Iraq yet 100s of innocent people were murdered in cold blood. How can you justify the utilization of these horrific acts of violence to further a political point of view. How is that rightous or correct? Blow up oneself and murder people in a most painful way (BBs, Nails, glass shards imbedded in your eyes and skin and bleeding to death from the inflicted wounds) who are trying to etch out a life on this planet. I don't know about you but it does not sound like a position I could defend.
ithink the point is that if they are the terrorists you describe then they should be charged as such and tried. the issue here is that they HAVE NOT even been accused of the behaiour you so eloquently outline.
you can not hold someone without accusing them of a crime, as i knwo the law. i, and most americans i think, would have no problem with a cage and bread and water diet for these trash, if they were accused, tried, and convicted of the crimes that you like to bring up and scare people with.
Now im not saying that the detainees in question are not guilty of these things. im simply saying that to uphold the law of this land, and secure our continieing place in history as the bastion of freedom, we need to make good on our laws, and try these people before we punish them. innocent until proven guilty. so lets prove the bastards guilty already.
Aren't these people innocent? They haven't been convicted or even charged with any crimes, right? Actually, charging them with crimes would be a violation of the Geneva Conventions, if the detainees were actually prisoners of war. The idea of that provision was to prevent downed American airmen from being charged with murder after bombing German cities.
And, under what law, could these detainees be charged? If they are not U.S. citizens (and they are not) and the offenses occurred outside U.S. territory, what is the legal basis for charging them? Virtually all of the prisoners have made violent attacks on the guards, cheer the 9-11 attacks, and support "martyrdom operations" to kill Americans.
As for the idea that some are just random farmers scooped up in some American dragnet, forget it. These guys were captured on the battlefield, gun in hand. Many were captured with bomb making manuals, al Qaeda record books, large sums of cash (one had over $1 million in his backpack), and other tell-tale items. Remember, Gitmo is the last place they go. Prisoners go through interrogation and evaluation for release at several different stops in Afghanistan before being shipped to Cuba. No Iraqi prisoners have ever been shipped to Cuba.
Finally, in what war did the U.S. military release enemy combatants prior to end of the conflict? Hundreds of thousands of Germans were made involuntary residents of Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona until 1946 (more than six months after the war ended in Europe).
If that seems harsh, the jihadis of the Earth have a simple out: Don't take up arms against the United States.
I'm afraid you're wrong here:
A lot of them had NO weapons and where taken prisoner, because they were
either denounced by other people (some time neighbours), but with no proof what so ever, just because of personal foes and/or vengeance.
either because they had the same name of a known terrorist.
For those with weapons:
In those countries having a weapon doesn't prove anything: most people there receive a weapon for their 16th birthday, as a sign of arriving into "manhood".
Others might have had/carried weapons, because they considered (rightly or wrongly) that they were attacked by a foreign country . I think you might do the same if the UN attacked the USA. That doesn't make you a terrorist yet.
From: William J. Haynes II, General Counsel of the Department of Defense
Subject: Enemy Combatants
There is no doubt that the attacks of September 11, 2001 constituted acts of war. They possessed the intensity and scale of war. They involved at least one military target, the Pentagon, and they came on the heels of a decade of attacks by al Qaida on U.S. military and civilian targets. Congress on September 18, 2001 authorized the President to use force in response to the attacks. And both the United Nations and NATO recognized that the attacks were "armed attacks" within the meaning of the UN Charter and NATO treaty. Since September 11th (and perhaps before then), we have been at war - both legally and in fact.
War implicates legal powers and rules that are not available during peacetime. Among other things, the war context gives the President the authority to detain enemy combatants at least until hostilities cease.
Enemy Combatant
An "enemy combatant" is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban. In applying this definition, the United States government has acted consistently with the observation of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37-38 (1942): "Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war."
Authority to Detain
The President has unquestioned authority to detain enemy combatants, including those who are U.S. citizens, during wartime. See, e.g., Quirin, 317 U.S. at 31, 37 (1942); Colepaugh v. Looney, 235 F. 2d 429, 432 (10th Cir. 1956); In re Territo, 156 F. 2d 142, 145 (9th Cir. 1946). The Fourth Circuit recently reaffirmed this proposition. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 296 F.3d 278, 281, 283 (4th Cir. 2002). The authority to detain enemy combatants flows primarily from Article II of the Constitution. In the current conflict, the President's authority is bolstered by Congress's Joint Resolution of September 18, 2001, which authorized "the President . . .
to use all necessary and appropriate force" against al Qaida and against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines" committed or aided in the September 11 attacks." Pub. L. No. 107-40, § 2(a), 115 Stat. 224 (2001) (emphasis added). This congressional action clearly triggers (if any trigger were necessary) the President's traditional authority to detain enemy combatants as Commander in Chief.
Apparently I agree with three of the justices who would have heard this case. Furthermore, it seems that at least one of the other justices will hear the case soon enough. It was not dismissed due to its merits, it was put off for now.
Eventually, the court will hear the arguments and your victory will be short lived. I do not recall the Constitution being written solely for citizens. Last I checked it applied equally to all who legally cross our borders. These people at Gitmo were brought to our land because we took them from foreign shores and brought them there.
So, yes, I am right, the attorneys should press on. In the interim, libssuck, would you do us all a favor and pipe down so the adults can talk amongst themselves? Thanks so much.
it does apply to all who legally cross our borders as they were detainees they did not legally cross our borden. in fact tehy have yet to cross our border they are military prisoners in another country. we did not provide constitutional rights to german pow's held in america during the second world war they are held according to geneva convention only those rules apply. and all of you're local courts can make all the decisions they want they have no legal right to pass judgement on federal issues outside thier state.
Correct about the State Courts. They are on a US military installation in US custody, which means, technically, yes they did cross our borders either willingly or not. The Federal Courts should not have their authority stripped just because of a power hungry president. The Writ of Habeas Corpus is an essential component to our freedoms. Remember, any of us could be deemed an enemy combatant at any time and stripped of our citizenship. How do you accept that proposal?
No...not "any of us"....
No one in GITMO was picked up simply going about their daily business...they were either captured on the battle field...wanted for known crimes...or where engaged in activity that made them highly suspect...
Why is it the only people who can picture themselves ending up in GITMO "for doing nothing" are liberals?
y were either captured on the battle field...wanted for known crimes...or where engaged in activity that made them highly suspect...>>>>
Actually, when we went into Afghanistan, we PAID for informants. Easy way to get rid of someone you don't like, whether they were al qaeda or not.
Hello!
http://green-seo.ru/
military bases are US soil. everyone knows that.
don't search for loopholes in the constitution. it applies to everyone. if we have enough authority over them to try them for US crimes, then we have enough authority over them for the US constitution to apply to them. its not a hard concept. and its not a hard process. and it doesnt mean you have to let them go. just try them. thats all. try them, convict them, then you can play dungeon master all you want.
Gitmo is in Cuba and is still Cuban territory. As per The Cuban-American Treaty of 1903, Cuba will perpetually lease to the US the Guantanamo Bay area for the purpose of naval stations and in return the US will recognize the Republic of Cuba's ultimate sovereignty over the area. The long-term lease of Guantánamo Bay still continues, and according to the treaty that right can only be revoked by the consent of both parties.
Beginning in the 1890s, with In re Ross, the Supreme Court began a broad agenda of limiting the reach of the Constitution outside the territorial boundaries of the US. In Ross, the Court held that the Constitution had no reach beyond US borders, even in regard to an American citizen. In the following two decades the Court expanded this holding through a series of cases known as The Insular Cases. In these cases, the Court adopted the Territorial Incorporation Doctrine, which stated that the full Bill of Rights did not apply to non US territories.
no the us constitution applies to everyone.
Everyone in the world?
Really?
Wouldn't that make it the "global" constitution?
And if so....wouldnt the bill of rights apply as a whole also?
the bill of rights is part of the constitution, stupid. and it applies to everyone that is int eh US or US custody... as any base or embassy where the US might hold someone is US soil.
clever though how you investigate a simple sentence and take out precisely what you know it doesnt mean. very good points you make.
much like if i were to point out to you that yes, the bill of rights would in fact apply as a whole... and not as a part. it will be the entire bill of rights that applies to someone, lest certain amendments be respected and others not.
The US Supreme Court has disagreed with you on that for parts of 3 centuries now....
Beginning in the 1890s, with In re Ross, the Supreme Court began a broad agenda of limiting the reach of the Constitution outside the territorial boundaries of the US. In Ross, the Court held that the Constitution had no reach beyond US borders, even in regard to an American citizen. In the following two decades the Court expanded this holding through a series of cases known as The Insular Cases. In these cases, the Court adopted the Territorial Incorporation Doctrine, which stated that the full Bill of Rights did not apply to non US territories.
"The Constitution applies to U.S. Citizens and not foreigners. We need to keep it that way."
That's about the most ignorant thing I have seen you post, which is going some.
The fifth amendment to the constitution states
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
NOTE - this applies to PERSONS, not just CITIZENS. Read it until you have it figured out.
wah wah wah
funny how america and britain have different rules than iraq and iran..