Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Court says detainees have rights, bucking Bush

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer 44 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - In a stinging rebuke to President Bush's anti-terror policies, a deeply divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign detainees held for years at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have the right to appeal to U.S. civilian courts to challenge their indefinite imprisonment without charges.
ADVERTISEMENT

Bush said he strongly disagreed with the decision ? the third time the court has repudiated him on the detainees ? and suggested he might seek yet another law to keep terror suspects locked up at the prison camp, even as his presidency winds down.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the 5-4 high court majority, acknowledged the terrorism threat the U.S. faces ? the administration's justification for the detentions ? but he declared, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

In a blistering dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Bush has argued the detentions are needed to protect the nation in a time of unprecedented threats from al-Qaida and other foreign terrorist groups. The president, in Rome, said Thursday, "It was a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented." He said he would consider whether to seek new laws in light of the ruling "so we can safely say to the American people, 'We're doing everything we can to protect you.'"

Kennedy said federal judges could ultimately order some detainees to be released, but he also said such orders would depend on security concerns and other circumstances. The ruling itself won't result in any immediate releases.

The decision also cast doubt on the future of the military war crimes trials that 19 detainees, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other alleged Sept. 11 plotters, are facing so far. The Pentagon has said it plans to try as many as 80 men held at Guantanamo.

Lawyers for detainees differed over whether the ruling, unlike the first two, would lead to prompt hearings for those who have not been charged. Roughly 270 men remain at the prison at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. Most are classed as enemy combatants and held on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaida and the Taliban.

Some detainee lawyers said hearings could take place within a few months. But James Cohen, a Fordham University law professor who has two clients at Guantanamo, predicted Bush would continue seeking ways to resist the ruling. "Nothing is going to happen between June 12 and Jan. 20," when the next president takes office, Cohen said.

Roughly 200 detainees have lawsuits on hold in federal court in Washington. Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth said he would call a special meeting of federal judges to address how to handle the cases.

Detainees already facing trial are in a different category.

The lawyer for Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's one-time driver, said he will seek dismissal of the charges against Hamdan based on the new ruling. A military judge had already delayed the trial's start to await the high court ruling.

It was unclear whether a hearing at Guantanamo for Canadian Omar Khadr, charged with killing a U.S. Special Forces soldier in Afghanistan, would go forward next week as planned.

Charles Swift, the former Navy lawyer who used to represent Hamdan, said he believes the court removed any legal basis for keeping the Guantanamo facility open and that the military tribunals are "doomed."

Guantanamo generally and the tribunals were conceived on the idea that "constitutional protections wouldn't apply," Swift said. "The court said the Constitution applies. They're in big trouble."

Human rights groups and many Democratic members of Congress celebrated the ruling as affirming the nation's commitment to the rule of law. Several Republican lawmakers called it a decision that put foreign terrorists' rights above the safety of the American people.

The administration opened the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to hold enemy combatants, people suspected of ties to al-Qaida or the Taliban.

The prison has been harshly criticized at home and abroad for the detentions themselves and the aggressive interrogations that were conducted there.

At its heart, the 70-page ruling says that the detainees have the same rights as anyone else in custody in the United States to contest their detention before a judge. Kennedy also said the system the administration has put in place to classify detainees as enemy combatants and review those decisions is not an adequate substitute for the right to go before a civilian judge.

The administration had argued first that the detainees have no rights. But it also contended that the classification and review process was sufficient.

Chief Justice John Roberts, in his own dissent to Thursday's ruling, criticized the majority for striking down what he called "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants."

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas also dissented.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens ? the court's more liberal members ? joined Kennedy to form the majority.

Souter wrote a separate opinion in which he emphasized the length of the detentions.

"A second fact insufficiently appreciated by the dissents is the length of the disputed imprisonments; some of the prisoners represented here today having been locked up for six years," Souter said. "Hence the hollow ring when the dissenters suggest that the court is somehow precipitating the judiciary into reviewing claims that the military ... could handle within some reasonable period of time."

Scalia, citing a report by Senate Republicans, said at least 30 prisoners have returned to the battlefield following their release from Guantanamo.

The court has ruled twice previously that people held at Guantanamo without charges can go into civilian courts to ask that the government justify their continued detention. Each time, the administration and Congress, then controlled by Republicans, changed the law to try to close the courthouse doors to the detainees.

The court specifically struck down a provision of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that denies Guantanamo detainees the right to file petitions of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is a centuries-old legal principle, enshrined in the Constitution, that allows courts to determine whether a prisoner is being held illegally.

The head of the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents dozens of prisoners at Guantanamo, welcomed the ruling.

"The Supreme Court has finally brought an end to one of our nation's most egregious injustices," said CCR Executive Director Vincent Warren. "By granting the writ of habeas corpus, the Supreme Court recognizes a rule of law established hundreds of years ago and essential to American jurisprudence since our nation's founding."

Bush has said he wants to close the facility once countries can be found to take the prisoners who are there.

Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama also support shutting down the prison.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080612/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guantanamo

Iraq war: $100 per household per month.

"Tax dollars at work" ?

So does this bother you? That our Supreme Court is interested in upholding the law for a change? Unlike Bushfuck?

How dare those sons a bitches:

    

The Declaration of Independence:

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

    He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
    He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
    He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
    He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
    He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
    He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
    He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
    He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
    He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
    He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
    He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
    He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
    He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
    For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
    For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
    For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
    For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
    For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
    For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
    For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
    For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
    For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
    He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
    He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
    He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
    He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
    He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signa

Terrorists who want to bring down this country and kill americans are not the people who's rights the founding fathers were concerned about. Why should terrorists have the same rights as an American Citizen?

You sound like a fucking fascist.

Our founding fathers created laws just so guys like you couldn't do what Bush did. One of the many reasons his sorry ass should be impeached and thrown in jail for treason.

Well, there is something in that instrument about ALL men being created equal, but what do I know.

He's also assuming all dudes with funny names picked up under sketchy circumstances are guilty until years later when they are eventually charged, and then finally proven guilty in a mock court.

If the Feds caught these guys red-handed, as the right wing propaganda blowhards would like us to believe, then why are they so apprehensive to try them under the full sunlight of our conventional American judicial system? Not held indefinitely without being charged or given council.

Exactly!!!

The "right of man" only applies to 'merikans. :hihi:

Guys like me? Here we go again **

I love the way you try to stereotype me. You are so narrow minded.  If it isn't left, it must be right?










 **(You hate Bush, we get it.)

The Declaration of Independence was written to establish this country, it was sent to the King of England. It has nothing to do with the rights of enemy combatants.

If you are referring to the constitution, the founding fathers weren't thinking of their foreign enemies when writing the bill of rights.

Yes all men are created equal, then the become radical crazy fucks that want to blow us up.  That is where the equal shit is thrown out of the window. Bush took too long to get these men to trial.  These guys are still there for a reason. 

Whatever it is that makes it so obvious to you that a detainee is an "enemy combatant" or "terrorist" would be evidence at a trial which would then be used to justify their detention.  So what's the harm?

Dumbing it down is all you got.

I'm stereotyping you?

You seem upset that our Supreme Court told Bushie that he can't break the fucking law. Is that your stance? If so, then you're "one of those guys", you bet.

Listen knucklehead, you can't just pick men up off the street, haul them off to torture camps, and not charge them or provide them the legal means to defend themselves. You're assuming that whoever we pick up is automatically guilty, which isn't true. This is the kind of shit dictators do.

Edit: Anyway, I think it's great somebody finally stepped up to the plate said this was wrong and unAmerican. It's this kind of shit that fuels the antiAmerican sentiment in the Muslim world.

Yeah, that's what I find weird about this whole thing too. Benjamin Franklin understood the point:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

Unfortunately it seems that a lot of people think that terrorism is the baddest, worstest, scariest thing that has ever, ever, ever happened....and stranger still, a lot of those people seem to live in Nowheresville which will never, ever be affected by terrorism.

don't bother aruging with them....they will hide behind the constitution, declaration of indepedence or any other ANCIENT document they can find to twist the meaning in order to defend terrorists....at the same time they ALL know that if the founding fathers were around today they would be making some alterations to those documents....

Some of these detainees are more than likely not terrorists, yet they were still locked up and tortured under the mere assumption that they were terrorists.

That doesn't sound rather sick and twisted to you?

How would you feel if you or your loved ones were held without evidence, and tortured?

^Don't you get it axlsmainman?  The folks who are for that shit are always those that would be least likely confused with terrorists.  Hey, if it aint me why should I worry?  Gotta love that mindset.   ::)

How would you feel if you or your loved ones was on one of the flights that crashed into the twin towers?

Again, THESE ARE NOT US CITIZENS. How many suits will we have in the courts concerning terrorists every wish? They have killed or tried to kill americans. Giving them the rights of the americans they have hurt or killed is asenine.

So how do you know who's a terrorist? Without, you know, evidence and a trial?

If you already know somebody is guilty, why have a trial at all? If you trust these guys so much, why not let them be the judge in all criminal cases? Sure would save a lot of money.

Did McVeigh deserve a trial?

Guantanamo prisoners are/were getting  military tribunals.

McVeigh was an American citizen, therefore he had a right to the US Court system.

"Bluto," I got this from Foxnews, because I figured you wouldn't trust it from anything "less."  :hihi:
Evidence Ignored, German Man Detained  http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Dec05/0,4670,GuantanamoGermanDetainee,00.html

but I guess that's all cool though...how much is 4 years of your life worth?  More than this guy's?  Add to that the torture he endured at the hands of our military. Wha? Huh? Wha?  Yeah, torturing innocents.  Don't you get it yet?  :confused:

Are you more concerned for your enemy's rights rather than your own?

An enemy that if you were in his custody would kill you, without any concern for being humane? Maybe cut your head off and film it for propaganda purposes?

How can anyone bash anyone on this issue.  There are obviously two very credible schools of thought on this issue.  The country is divided on it and more importantly the Supreme Court is divided down the middle on it.  There is no need to bash people with the opposite view.  Especially on this issue where it has two legitimate points of view.

What will all those crying for these guys say when one si released and comits an act of terrorism?  I trust those holding these guys to make the determination that they are dangerous more than anyone on this board and even more than the supreme court.  There is no substitute for hands on experience.

That being said, all they won was a right to ask if their incarceration was legal.  If it is deemed illegal (and its on a case by case basis), they will stand trial and most will lose.

1st, what part of, "there are innocent people being held against their will and tortured," don't you understand?

2nd, why do you feel it necessary to lower yourself to the level of these terrorist thugs?  You live in the civilized world.
Nobody here is putting terrorists' rights "ahead" of our own.  Treating people like animals isn't right in any situation.  What's that old saying?  2 wrongs don't make a right...yeah, that's it.   ;)

So the rights of American citizens should be extended to everyone in the world......maybe we should give them govt assistance for college as well.....free health care.....etc etc

^ Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying!  Damn you're good! 

btw, Blutarsky, please answer my question.  How much is 4 years of your life worth?  Include being tortured...thanks.

I don't answer loaded questions thank you very much. You can play gotcha with someone else.

The constitution does not just apply to US citizens, in fact it doesn't really apply to people at all - it's restrictions on what the federal government can do. I would think you'd know that as a self-proclaimed libertarian.

Edit: The 14th amendment guarantees due process to anyone on US soil, which is why they aren't being held in the US of course.

Exactly, yet this is being spun as they are all going to be let out tomorrow.

Wow, you really hate America. Better to be hiding behind Cheney's chickenhawk tail feathers I suppose.


We certainly don't know that. The founding father weren't cowards unlike the neocons. They framed those documents in the shadow of war with the world's major military power of the time.

It's irrelevant anyway. The the message of the SCOTUS was clear: Bush's actions were unconstitutional, which I've been saying for years now.

The posters who call themselves "conservative" here are nothing of the sort btw. What they are advocating is not conservative, but a complete and utter disregard for our Constitution. They don't care about the right to a fair trial, they don't care about habeas corpus, they don't care if men have been held for years, tortured and finally released without being charged (and in some cases after our government  knowing they were not terrorists, being held for years.) It's all irrelevant to these guys. They want to have carte blanche to act like a group of thugs and torture freaks under the guise of "war on terror" and shit all over what makes America so great. Take your fascists ideals and go fuck yourself.

With this ruling we have hope for America again. We've still got a lot of work to do, but we're headed in the right direction.

Interesting article on some of the 'terrorists' held at Gitmo

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38773.html

Nice try Senator Strawman

But TAP, I believe his screen name is Senator Blu...oh, wait a minute, I get it!   :hihi:
 
PS: TAP, great article posted.   :beer:

Was that lifted from an Obama speech? :hihi:

Yes, I went outside and read my Obama sign before I posted it.

Chump.


That's a great article, and 60 minutes did a piece about a guy from Germany, totally innocent, held for years without being charged, or allowed council all while enduring torture.

The bottom line is that these guys don't give a shit. That's why they never will comment on these cases. If they do nut up enough to be honest, they'll simply tell you they don't give shit if innocents get caught in the net. Psychopathic if you ask me.



See, this is where Senator Strawman will say "All you can do is call me names, because you don't have anything intelligent to say." Or coil up into the Randall Flagg "Victim" mode: "I just come here to read about GnR and am interested in politics, why do you feel it necessary to attack me personally?"

Conveniently forgetting that he just put up some bullshit strawman argument, or lied again.

The founding fathers were aware that people held views such as those of Sen. Blutarsky, smoking guns, and Plitt-Mania ... they were called Tories then, and that is one of the reasons the documents, and correspondense is so clear on these matters.

This (http://books.google.com/books?id=WSzKOORzyQ4C&dq=the+federalist+papers&pg=PP1&ots=KZYNQQaI1Z&sig=_HcH1_v82OEBFjDD6THkR1r-EOs&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fq%3Dthe%2Bfederalist%2Bpapers%26sourceid%3Dnavclient-ff%26ie%3DUTF-8%26rlz%3D1B2RNFA_enUS251&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPA5,M1)is something all Neocons should read, and learn from ... though, I have a feeling that they might think that Publius was dangerous to American freedom. :hihi:

And to the idiot that referenced "ANCIENT" documents, those documents are gives us our rights and laws.