Supreme Court Backs Gitmo Detainees

[ThoughtCriminal]

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

In its third rebuke of the Bush administration's treatment of prisoners, the court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The court's liberal justices were in the majority.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

Full Article Here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25117953/

[righteousbarbarian]

good news, imo.

[awkx]

Official Opinion of the Court: www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1195.pdf

As HTML: www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1195.ZS.html

Article One, Section 9 of the Constitution: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."

From the syllabus:

A brief account of the writ’s history and origins shows that protection for the habeas privilege was one of the few safeguards of liberty specified in a Constitution that, at the outset, had no Bill of Rights; in the system the Framers conceived, the writ has a centrality that must inform proper interpretation of the Suspension Clause. That the Framers considered the writ a vital instrument for the protection of individual liberty is evident from the care taken in the Suspension Clause to specify the limited grounds for its suspension: The writ may be suspended only when public safety requires it in times of rebellion or invasion. The Clause is designed to protect against cyclical abuses of the writ by the Executive and Legislative Branches. It protects detainee rights by a means consistent with the Constitution’s essential design, ensuring that, except during periods of formal suspension, the Judiciary will have a time-tested device, the writ, to maintain the “delicate balance of governance.” Hamdi, supra, at 536. Separation-of-powers principles, and the history that influenced their design, inform the Clause’s reach and purpose. Pp. 8–15.

[rev214]

http://howappealing.law.com/061208.html#029142

Both the Chief Justice and Justice Antonin Scalia issued dissenting opinions, and all four dissenters joined in both dissents. In his dissent, Justice Scalia writes, "The game of bait-and-switch that today's opinion plays upon the Nation's Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." Justice Scalia's 25-page dissenting opinion concludes, "The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent."

[PocketProtector]

Agree with Scalia.....but the lawyers will make out. Detainees lawyers bought and paid for by the Ameriican Taxpayer ........ Just Beautiful

[pex]

Agree with Scalia.....but the lawyers will make out. Detainees lawyers bought and paid for by the Ameriican Taxpayer ........ Just Beautiful

So is the war.

[CarolinaGuy]

good news, imo.

+1

If these guys are so bad [which I believe most are], then charge them with a crime and fry 'em or let them rot.

But there have been too many instances where they got the wrong guy, kept him for years with no charges, then release him. Sounds a little warped to me.

[sjl127]

Yep. That's the way our law works. We're not a third world dictatorship, like some tend to think it is...

[LittleRedToyota]

i haven't read the entire text of the majority or dissenting opinions, but it is interesting to note that in the quoted parts, the majority opinion speaks of what the constitution says and the dissenting opinion speaks of things other than what the constitution says (which implies "weighing" the constitution against something else at best and completely disregarding it at worst).

what is even more interesting to note is that those who seem to want to elevate other concerns above the constitution are those who are supposed to be the "conservative" strict constructionalists on the court.

i have to say i am disappointed in them at this point at least (i.e., before reading the entire text of the opinions). i expected scalia, alito, thomas, and roberts to believe more strongly in (and simply apply) the constitution.

[rev214]

The conclusion of Chief Justice John Robert’s dissent:

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 . . . 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.