Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees

[PokerGuy]

Good to see that the SCOTUS once again (even if by a narrow margin) makes the correct decision.

Text

To me, having anyone detained without ever having the right to challenge that detention in a court is a big injustice. If that person is really a danger or terrorist etc, then those things should be presented to justify the detention.

 

[Genx87]

I havent been following this too much. But does the court outlaw military tribunals? What I fear from this decision is any future conflict will flood our courts with POWs. Or does this only apply to people labeled as enemy combatants?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I havent been following this too much. But does the court outlaw military tribunals? What I fear from this decision is any future conflict will flood our courts with POWs. Or does this only apply to people labeled as enemy combatants?

IIRC, POWs don't get to challenge their detention b/c they are to be held and released "at the end of hostilities." You don't capture enemy soldiers and then release them prior to the end of a war so they can jump back onto the battlefield.

The problem with "enemy combatants" in the current WoT context is that there is no measure to define 'ongoing hostilities' resulting in essentially a permanent detainment.

I don't think anyone has to worry about some flood of POW's petitioning for hearings because POWs don't get hearings, since they automatically get set free at the end of a war. Enemy Combatant's must get some form of hearing else they will sit forever in a cell, since there is no triggerable end date at which they will be sent home.

 

[DealMonkey]

Waiting for the requisite, "Damn activist judges!" Wait for it ... wait for it ...

On a side-note, I wonder how long the Bush Administration will continue to operate in clearly illegal territory with their handling of Gitmo detainees? I know they believe themselves to be above the law, but when the SCOTUS rules against you, you know you're f'd.

 

[Throckmorton]

What did Scalia say?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Genx87
I havent been following this too much. But does the court outlaw military tribunals? What I fear from this decision is any future conflict will flood our courts with POWs. Or does this only apply to people labeled as enemy combatants?

IIRC, POWs don't get to challenge their detention b/c they are to be held and released "at the end of hostilities." You don't capture enemy soldiers and then release them prior to the end of a war so they can jump back onto the battlefield.

The problem with "enemy combatants" in the current WoT context is that there is no measure to define 'ongoing hostilities' resulting in essentially a permanent detainment.

I don't think anyone has to worry about some flood of POW's petitioning for hearings because POWs don't get hearings, since they automatically get set free at the end of a war. Enemy Combatant's must get some form of hearing else they will sit forever in a cell, since there is no triggerable end date at which they will be sent home.

The conundrum we face is that, like POW's released prior to the end of hostilities, enemy combatants who are released, at any point, will return to the battlefields to continue fighting against us.

So what then? How can we prevent them from returning to the fight AND eliminate their indefinite confinement, which I agree is unjust and inhumane?

 

[PokerGuy]

The fact that a relatively conservative court (by my estimation, it's a 5-4 or on occasion even 6-3 split on the court right now) has now ruled on three separate occasions against the administration's positions regarding the detainees speaks volumes.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
What did Scalia say?

Its not that Scalia's legal decisions are dubious, it's that he doesn't seem to understand his job description.

From the AP Story:

Scalia said the nation is "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Frankly, whether or not that's true or scary, it's not his job to even think about that. His job is to make legal rulings with regards to the U.S. Constitution, the laws passed by Congress and how the legal facts of a case deal with the first two. It's not his job to worry about the consequences of the rulings. If they are a problem the solution is not to alter his ruling, its to amend the Constitution or change the laws.

Isn't a judge superimposing personal opinions on his legal rulings what the "conservatives" mean when the cry activist?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Genx87
I havent been following this too much. But does the court outlaw military tribunals? What I fear from this decision is any future conflict will flood our courts with POWs. Or does this only apply to people labeled as enemy combatants?

IIRC, POWs don't get to challenge their detention b/c they are to be held and released "at the end of hostilities." You don't capture enemy soldiers and then release them prior to the end of a war so they can jump back onto the battlefield.

The problem with "enemy combatants" in the current WoT context is that there is no measure to define 'ongoing hostilities' resulting in essentially a permanent detainment.

I don't think anyone has to worry about some flood of POW's petitioning for hearings because POWs don't get hearings, since they automatically get set free at the end of a war. Enemy Combatant's must get some form of hearing else they will sit forever in a cell, since there is no triggerable end date at which they will be sent home.

ok, I wasnt sure how it applied to POWs. And I agree that people being held like they are in Gitmo at least need a day in court of some type.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
What did Scalia say?

Its not that Scalia's legal decisions are dubious, it's that he doesn't seem to understand his job description.

From the AP Story:

Scalia said the nation is "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Frankly, whether or not that's true or scary, it's not his job to even think about that. His job is to make legal rulings with regards to the U.S. Constitution, the laws passed by Congress and how the legal facts of a case deal with the first two. It's not his job to worry about the consequences of the rulings. If they are a problem the solution is not to alter his ruling, its to amend the Constitution or change the laws.

Isn't a judge superimposing personal opinions on his legal rulings what the "conservatives" mean when the cry activist?

Seriously, we should just impeach him already.

 

[heyheybooboo]

I wonder how this will affect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed ???

Here is an article from a couple days ago on the arraignment.

While prosecutors want to start the trial in mid-September, defense attorneys counter that there's no way they can be prepared in that amount of time, suggesting that the Bush administration is trying to ram the cases through before the next president takes office.

Given the challenges this military commission will likely face, many legal observers here said they believed the defendants may never be tried by this court at Guantanamo.

As this trip came to a close, there was a sense of uncertainty over just when and how those accused of carrying out the worst terrorist attack in American history will ultimately face justice.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Genx87
I havent been following this too much. But does the court outlaw military tribunals? What I fear from this decision is any future conflict will flood our courts with POWs. Or does this only apply to people labeled as enemy combatants?

IIRC, POWs don't get to challenge their detention b/c they are to be held and released "at the end of hostilities." You don't capture enemy soldiers and then release them prior to the end of a war so they can jump back onto the battlefield.

The problem with "enemy combatants" in the current WoT context is that there is no measure to define 'ongoing hostilities' resulting in essentially a permanent detainment.

I don't think anyone has to worry about some flood of POW's petitioning for hearings because POWs don't get hearings, since they automatically get set free at the end of a war. Enemy Combatant's must get some form of hearing else they will sit forever in a cell, since there is no triggerable end date at which they will be sent home.

The conundrum we face is that, like POW's released prior to the end of hostilities, enemy combatants who are released, at any point, will return to the battlefields to continue fighting against us.

So what then? How can we prevent them from returning to the fight AND eliminate their indefinite confinement, which I agree is unjust and inhumane?

couldn't we just classify them as POW's (though then they'd be subject to the geneva conventions, which GWB & co seem to hate)

 

[maddogchen]

i like how as the current administration winds down the things they have imposed are being rolled back.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Waiting for the requisite, "Damn activist judges!" Wait for it ... wait for it ...

On a side-note, I wonder how long the Bush Administration will continue to operate in clearly illegal territory with their handling of Gitmo detainees? I know they believe themselves to be above the law, but when the SCOTUS rules against you, you know you're f'd.

That's a very simple problem to solve. So simple that it can be solved in a single word.....

Rendition.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse

The conundrum we face is that, like POW's released prior to the end of hostilities, enemy combatants who are released, at any point, will return to the battlefields to continue fighting against us.

So what then? How can we prevent them from returning to the fight AND eliminate their indefinite confinement, which I agree is unjust and inhumane?

By actually charging them with crimes. If you'll notice the supreme court's evolution on this matter it didn't have to be this way. They twice before instructed the Bush administration to give the detainees a viable way to challenge their detention. Every time they have done so the administration has set up these kangaroo courts designed to do nothing but manufacture guilty verdicts.

Another interesting part to notice is that in this ruling the Supreme Court has struck down a primary part of the military commissions act, the part that specifically denied habeas corpus to the prisoners there.

This ruling seems to show more then anything else that the Supreme Court is running out of patience with the administration. The slaps keep getting harder each time.

 

[PrinceofWands]

WOOOT! Not that it will help in the end, since the government will just move everything to classified locations. But still, good to see a little smackdown at least.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Genx87
I havent been following this too much. But does the court outlaw military tribunals? What I fear from this decision is any future conflict will flood our courts with POWs. Or does this only apply to people labeled as enemy combatants?

IIRC, POWs don't get to challenge their detention b/c they are to be held and released "at the end of hostilities." You don't capture enemy soldiers and then release them prior to the end of a war so they can jump back onto the battlefield.

The problem with "enemy combatants" in the current WoT context is that there is no measure to define 'ongoing hostilities' resulting in essentially a permanent detainment.

I don't think anyone has to worry about some flood of POW's petitioning for hearings because POWs don't get hearings, since they automatically get set free at the end of a war. Enemy Combatant's must get some form of hearing else they will sit forever in a cell, since there is no triggerable end date at which they will be sent home.

The conundrum we face is that, like POW's released prior to the end of hostilities, enemy combatants who are released, at any point, will return to the battlefields to continue fighting against us.

So what then? How can we prevent them from returning to the fight AND eliminate their indefinite confinement, which I agree is unjust and inhumane?

couldn't we just classify them as POW's (though then they'd be subject to the geneva conventions, which GWB & co seem to hate)

The Geneva convention is still applied to the treatment of enemy combatants -- just less so. That said, they cannot be given true "POW Status" because they do not represent any nation-state that we have a declared war with, or by the definition of such in the GC's themselves. Also, even as POW's, since they do not represent any specific nation-state, how will we determine when "hostilities are ended"?

They are more criminal than POW, but the evidence used to detain and prosecute them is too highly classified and "loose" for normal trials and systems. That said, they're also much too dangerous to simply let go after X number of years.

So, once again, we're right back where we started... now what?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse

The Geneva convention is still applied to the treatment of enemy combatants -- just less so. That said, they cannot be given true "POW Status" because they do not represent any nation-state that we have a declared war with, or by the definition of such in the GC's themselves. Also, even as POW's, since they do not represent any specific nation-state, how will we determine when "hostilities are ended"?

They are more criminal than POW, but the evidence used to detain and prosecute them is too highly classified and "loose" for normal trials and systems. That said, they're also much too dangerous to simply let go after X number of years.

So, once again, we're right back where we started... now what?

We could give them POW status tomorrow, the reason why we don't is that our government has decided it doesn't want to. The Geneva convention is NOT applied in a whole load of ways to these people. Specifically one of the reasons they aren't afforded POW status is so we can torture them for information.

Unfortunately since we've been getting information from a lot of these jokers by illegal means for awhile, it's tough for us to now prosecute them. Basically our government screwed itself by breaking the law and now they don't know what to do. They don't want to let these guys go, but they now don't have any legal means by which to prove their case.

There can be no argument here, they have to be tried on the evidence we're willing to present or let go. These people have already been held for 6 years without trial or hearing of any kind, and as Americans we can't let that stand. We have 3 choices, none of them good. We can let some dangerous people go (along with a lot of not-dangerous people), we can divulge some classified evidence to keep them prisoner, or we can shred the Constitution our country is based on. I'm not willing to shred the Constitution any more for temporary political or law enforcement expedience and neither should anyone else.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Genx87
I havent been following this too much. But does the court outlaw military tribunals? What I fear from this decision is any future conflict will flood our courts with POWs. Or does this only apply to people labeled as enemy combatants?

IIRC, POWs don't get to challenge their detention b/c they are to be held and released "at the end of hostilities." You don't capture enemy soldiers and then release them prior to the end of a war so they can jump back onto the battlefield.

The problem with "enemy combatants" in the current WoT context is that there is no measure to define 'ongoing hostilities' resulting in essentially a permanent detainment.

I don't think anyone has to worry about some flood of POW's petitioning for hearings because POWs don't get hearings, since they automatically get set free at the end of a war. Enemy Combatant's must get some form of hearing else they will sit forever in a cell, since there is no triggerable end date at which they will be sent home.

The conundrum we face is that, like POW's released prior to the end of hostilities, enemy combatants who are released, at any point, will return to the battlefields to continue fighting against us.

So what then? How can we prevent them from returning to the fight AND eliminate their indefinite confinement, which I agree is unjust and inhumane?

couldn't we just classify them as POW's (though then they'd be subject to the geneva conventions, which GWB & co seem to hate)

The Geneva convention is still applied to the treatment of enemy combatants -- just less so. That said, they cannot be given true "POW Status" because they do not represent any nation-state that we have a declared war with, or by the definition of such in the GC's themselves. Also, even as POW's, since they do not represent any specific nation-state, how will we determine when "hostilities are ended"?

They are more criminal than POW, but the evidence used to detain and prosecute them is too highly classified and "loose" for normal trials and systems. That said, they're also much too dangerous to simply let go after X number of years.

So, once again, we're right back where we started... now what?

Depends rather a lot on your definition of what constitutes "an act of war". Certainly setting off bombs in an 'enemy's' home territory or assassinating public figures or private citizens is an act of aggression; but are you "at war" with the bombers if they serve only themselves and/or belong to a non-state entity or network? Who are you "at war" with?

This is yet another example of applying wartime rationale to the "War on Terror," a fallacy which should have been vigorously challenged from the beginning. The phrase "War on Terror" is a contradiction on its face, as you cannot declare war on a feeling or, in the case of "Terrorism," a tactic or strategy.

Even with today's decision affirming habeas corpus as a right that even the Bush Administration and its allies in Congress cannot abolish, this administration and succeeding ones can continue to claim the U.S. is in a perpetual state of war on "terror" unless Congress affirmatively acts to protect the Constitution and our fundamental liberties.

Because our Nation?s past military conflicts have been of limited duration, it has been possible to leave the outer boundaries of war powers undefined.

The next Congress and President should promptly enact a law to clarify the legal nature of our fight against the use of mass terror tactics. That law should clarify that our intelligence and, when necessary, military commitments to avoid and punish the use of terror attacks against Americans - and all civilized people - consists of the pursuit of international criminals outside the protection of any state.

This is not a war but is the same as efforts to obtain protection from and justice against terrorists ranging from the Barbary pirates to the Baader-Meinhof gang. If any state, like Afghanistan before 9/11 or arguably Pakistan currently, sponsors or assists groups planning or using mass terror, the traditional notion of war against that specific state may be appropriate.

What we should have learned from this reckless administration is that the 1984-like use of perpetual war is as much a risk from a radical right-wing government, manipulating a panicked and accommodationist Congress, as from any radical left-wing one. And we might ask ourselves why the lesson of Germany from 1933 to 1945 wasn't sufficiently instructive.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
What did Scalia say?

Its not that Scalia's legal decisions are dubious, it's that he doesn't seem to understand his job description.

From the AP Story:

Scalia said the nation is "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Frankly, whether or not that's true or scary, it's not his job to even think about that. His job is to make legal rulings with regards to the U.S. Constitution, the laws passed by Congress and how the legal facts of a case deal with the first two. It's not his job to worry about the consequences of the rulings. If they are a problem the solution is not to alter his ruling, its to amend the Constitution or change the laws.

Isn't a judge superimposing personal opinions on his legal rulings what the "conservatives" mean when the cry activist?

You actually ought to read Scalia's dissent if you're interested in what he said. As usual, you can't trust legal reporters (who frequently have no formal legal training) to properly read lengthy and complicated legal decisions and report them accurately. I just read Scalia's dissent (as well as Roberts), and I take Scalia's objection to be this: The SC, in granting Constitutional protections to non-citizens located outside the U.S., is overstepping its authority. And he's got a point. The SC has not previously found habeas corpus applied in such circumstances, and in its holding today, throws out significant precedent. I, like a lot of Americans, am troubled by my country holding foreigners indefinitely without trial, but I'm also troubled by the SC now assuming worldwide jurisdiction.

 

[jpeyton]

Thank God. Our justice system can try these people just as well as military tribunals. There's no reason to hide behind a cloud of secrecy.

Charge them with a crime or release them. Indefinitely holding them in a military prison is bullshit.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: palehorse

The conundrum we face is that, like POW's released prior to the end of hostilities, enemy combatants who are released, at any point, will return to the battlefields to continue fighting against us.

So what then? How can we prevent them from returning to the fight AND eliminate their indefinite confinement, which I agree is unjust and inhumane?

By actually charging them with crimes. If you'll notice the supreme court's evolution on this matter it didn't have to be this way. They twice before instructed the Bush administration to give the detainees a viable way to challenge their detention. Every time they have done so the administration has set up these kangaroo courts designed to do nothing but manufacture guilty verdicts.

And you know this how? It's hard to predict the outcome of trials which haven't taken place yet.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

You actually ought to read Scalia's dissent if you're interested in what he said. As usual, you can't trust legal reporters (who frequently have no formal legal training) to properly read lengthy and complicated legal decisions and report them accurately. I just read Scalia's dissent (as well as Roberts), and I take Scalia's objection to be this: The SC, in granting Constitutional protections to non-citizens located outside the U.S., is overstepping its authority. And he's got a point. The SC has not previously found habeas corpus applied in such circumstances, and in its holding today, throws out significant precedent. I, like a lot of Americans, am troubled by my country holding foreigners indefinitely without trial, but I'm also troubled by the SC now assuming worldwide jurisdiction.

The USSC is not assuming worldwide jurisdiction that I'm aware of. They are assuming jurisdiction in Guantanamo Bay, you know the place that by treaty we exercise "complete jurisdiction and control" over. If the US Constitution doesn't apply in Guantanamo Bay, what legal document does?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Depends rather a lot on your definition of what constitutes "an act of war". Certainly setting off bombs in an 'enemy's' home territory or assassinating public figures or private citizens is an act of aggression; but are you "at war" with the bombers if they serve only themselves and/or belong to a non-state entity or network? Who are you "at war" with?

This is yet another example of applying wartime rationale to the "War on Terror," a fallacy which should have been vigorously challenged from the beginning. The phrase "War on Terror" is a contradiction on its face, as you cannot declare war on a feeling or, in the case of "Terrorism," a tactic or strategy.

Even with today's decision affirming habeas corpus as a right that even the Bush Administration and its allies in Congress cannot abolish, this administration and succeeding ones can continue to claim the U.S. is in a perpetual state of war on "terror" unless Congress affirmatively acts to protect the Constitution and our fundamental liberties.

Because our Nation?s past military conflicts have been of limited duration, it has been possible to leave the outer boundaries of war powers undefined.

The next Congress and President should promptly enact a law to clarify the legal nature of our fight against the use of mass terror tactics. That law should clarify that our intelligence and, when necessary, military commitments to avoid and punish the use of terror attacks against Americans - and all civilized people - consists of the pursuit of international criminals outside the protection of any state.

This is not a war but is the same as efforts to obtain protection from and justice against terrorists ranging from the Barbary pirates to the Baader-Meinhof gang. If any state, like Afghanistan before 9/11 or arguably Pakistan currently, sponsors or assists groups planning or using mass terror, the traditional notion of war against that specific state may be appropriate.

What we should have learned from this reckless administration is that the 1984-like use of perpetual war is as much a risk from a radical right-wing government, manipulating a panicked and accommodationist Congress, as from any radical left-wing one. And we might ask ourselves why the lesson of Germany from 1933 to 1945 wasn't sufficiently instructive.

Some good points here. It reminds me of a saying from law school - bad facts make bad precedent. The administration attempting to apply war-time powers in this amorphous, unending 'war on terror' has lead to a bunch of bad results.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: palehorse

The conundrum we face is that, like POW's released prior to the end of hostilities, enemy combatants who are released, at any point, will return to the battlefields to continue fighting against us.

So what then? How can we prevent them from returning to the fight AND eliminate their indefinite confinement, which I agree is unjust and inhumane?

By actually charging them with crimes. If you'll notice the supreme court's evolution on this matter it didn't have to be this way. They twice before instructed the Bush administration to give the detainees a viable way to challenge their detention. Every time they have done so the administration has set up these kangaroo courts designed to do nothing but manufacture guilty verdicts.

And you know this how? It's hard to predict the outcome of trials which haven't taken place yet.

Statements of the Chief Pentagon official in charge of overseeing the military commissions as reported by the chief prosecutor:

"I said to (Haynes) that if we come up short and there are some acquittals in our cases, it will at least validate the process," Davis was quoted as saying about an August 2005 meeting the two men had.

"At which point, his eyes got wide and he said, 'Wait a minute, we can't have acquittals. If we've been holding these guys for so long, how can we explain letting them get off? . . . We've got to have convictions.'"

Well that sounds awfully fair to me.