[Winstonm]

Quote

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
16 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.

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.'"

[barmar]

This is the same administration that claims that they ousted Saddam Hussein to bring "the rule of law" to Iraq, right?

[mike777]

We seem to not have the tools to do anything with these guys. We cannot spend a million or billion bucks each giving them a true trial with so far 4-5 years of pretrial appeals and another ten years or so it seems.. This is money that could go to cure cancer or education. Of course we want to do what is fair and legal, but there is not unlimited amount of money and time here. We seem to have little evidence that is accceptable in a criminal case. Much if any of the evidence is so old, tainted or otherwise not acceptable.

Perhaps we can just let them all go and put then on plane to europe or someplace.

But in all seriousness we just do not seem to have the trial system to do anything with these guys. I wish those who think this ruling is good would come up with something that works. Again at this rate we will spend millions per person for a trial that seems hopeless.

Again my main point is we just do not seem to have the tools to bring the rule of law and the US court system to people captured out of a formal uniform on the battlefield in another nation. One huge issue is the rules and chain of evidence are hard to follow on the battlefield. I just wonder if we should treat them as POW's under the Geneva Convention or simply take no prisoners?

[Hanoi5]

More like Law 1- Lawlessness 9001...

[mike777]

"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."


BTW I have read 4 different articles so far this morning on this ruling. They all explain it differently from each other so I do not fully understand what the ruling actually says and means.

BTW2: I wonder how we could bring any charges. In other words I have my doubts anyone has committed a crime that we could have a trial on. In War Killing millions of people or setting off bombs, even atomic bombs or destroying cities is not a crime, it is war. Note we say we are in a war and these prisoners say they are at war with us so again I wonder where or what is the crime we are going to try them on?

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Jun 13 2008, 08:07 AM, said:

We seem to not have the tools to do anything with these guys. We cannot spend a  million or billion bucks each giving them a true trial with so far 4-5 years of pretrial appeals and another ten years or so it seems.. This is money that could go to cure cancer or education. Of course we want to do what is fair and legal, but there is not unlimited amount of money and time here. We seem to have little evidence that is accceptable in a criminal case. Much if any of the evidence is so old, tainted or otherwise not acceptable.

Perhaps we can just let them all go and put then on plane to europe or someplace.

But in all seriousness we just do not seem to have the trial system to do anything with these guys. I wish those who think this ruling is good would come up with something that works. Again at this rate we will spend millions per person for a trial that seems hopeless.

Again my  main point is we just do not seem to have the tools to bring the rule of law and the US court system to people captured out of a formal uniform on the battlefield in another nation. One huge issue is the rules and chain of evidence are hard to follow on the battlefield.  I just wonder if we should treat them as POW's under the Geneva Convention or simply take no prisoners?

Once again, Mike demonstrat the complete irresponsibility of his world view:

"Pay no attention to global warming. We'll GROW our way out of whatever problems that might present. And if I'm wrong and we can't, well I'll be dead and buried before its time to pay the piper"

"Oops, we mistakenly locked you up in Gitmo and spent 6 years torturing you without any evidence? Sorry, you don't get a trial. You don't get to prove your innocence. You don't get any kind of restitution. That would be too expensive. It might hurt the war on cancer. Instead, here's a one way ticket to Albania. With luck, you'll strave to death in the mountains before you get to tell your tale to anyone"

In all seriousness, the criminal trials aren't going to cost that much...
The civil trials and the war crimes trials that get launched after some of these folks get released... Thats going to be VERY ugly and (potentially) very expensive.

I don't expect to see many successful civil prosecutions launched through the US court systems. Internationally, thats a whole different kettle of fish.

[jtfanclub]

If I understand correctly, the real purpoe of the civillian courts is so that defendants can argue either for an immediate trial or argue that they shouldn't be considered unlawful combatants.

The second one seems obvious to me, and frightening if not the case. Otherwise, what's to keep the U.S. government from simply declaring anybody to be an unlawful combatant? And for the first, well, the right to ask for a speedy trial is pretty deeply ingrained into our Constitution. How can they be allowed to keep you forever without a trial or a review?

This is simply embarrassing. If they're guilty, try 'em. If they're not, release 'em. The people bringing the case were from Bosnia, and had been incarcerated for almost a decade. I mean, come on. Are we even still at war with Bosnia?

[mike777]

Your post seems logical. If we are going to arrest people then we need to charge and try them. If we are going to arrest them and not try them then we need to release them. This is the point I made at the beginning of this thread. I just go back to my main point, why are we arresting them? For what crime and how is an unlawful combatant even a crime or some sort of made up thing? What is it, how to do you prove it and who collects the evidence.

In any case in these cases, the crime seems totally made up, unlawful combatant, tainted bogus evidence, no rules of evidence followed, no chain of evidence followed, torture, lack of speedy trial, the list is endless. I fail to see why everyone wants a bogus trial on a bogus charge with bogus evidence. So far I see no evidence has been presented that a crime has even been committed. I repeat why are we "arresting" warriors?

As to you other point, of course any country can take anyone for anyone crime they make up. That is the power of governments and always has been. I hope no one is naive enough to believe otherwise.

As to another point if the war is illegal of course any warriors taken are taken illegally. If the war is legal should we take, not arrest, warriors? Again my question is clearly never never arrest warriors they are not accused of any crime, take them or not is another issue. For how long?

I just go back to the point I first made, yes War is horrible, horrible and we all want to be fair and just but killing, bombing the enemy even civilians is not a crime in War.

I just add that it is common for those that have already been released to go back into the war and kill and kill again. Many who have not been released vow to continue the killing.

[helene_t]

Quote

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."

So Kennedy is legally motivated while Scalia is politically motivated. Even if Scalia is right (which seems absurd: how can an appeal case cause more Americans to get killed?) it is irrelevant since he is a judge and as such supposed to make legally motivated decisions.

I suppose the point about more Americans getting killed refers to the possibility that someone guilty gets released for lack of evidence and then continues to kill. Fair enough but that is not specific to terrorist suspects. Presumably Scalia and Bush want the burden of proof reversed in criminal trials. Bush is a politician so he is entitled to that viewpoint. Scalia is a judge and ought to follow the law.

[luke warm]

helene_t, on Jun 13 2008, 11:47 AM, said:

Quote

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."

So Kennedy is legally motivated while Scalia is politically motivated. Even if Scalia is right (which seems absurd: how can an appeal case cause more Americans to get killed?) it is irrelevant since he is a judge and as such supposed to make legally motivated decisions.

I suppose the point about more Americans getting killed refers to the possibility that someone guilty gets released for lack of evidence and then continues to kill. Fair enough but that is not specific to terrorist suspects. Presumably Scalia and Bush want the burden of proof reversed in criminal trials. Bush is a politician so he is entitled to that viewpoint. Scalia is a judge and ought to follow the law.

i think scalia is saying that without the ability to keep them indefinitely and use whatever means necessary to arrive at the "truth" there will be terrorist attacks that go undetected... that's probably true, but imo it's irrelevant... i agree with mike that the first step is determining if we're at war; if so, against whom? then decide if the prisoners you have fit the definition of prisoners of war or any other definition

there are laws/treaties governing POWs... there are laws governing illegal activities... there are no laws, as far as i know, governing stealth governmental actions against either citizens or non-citizens

either declare war on somebody and kill/destroy the enemy or don't... security isn't worth the cost we're paying in liberty, imo... of course i can say that (and believe it) because i'm not in charge

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Jun 13 2008, 02:43 PM, said:

"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."


BTW I have read 4 different articles so far this morning on this ruling. They all explain it differently from each other so I do not fully understand what the ruling actually says and means.

BTW2: I wonder how we could bring any charges. In other words I have my doubts anyone has committed a crime that we could have a trial on. In War Killing millions of people or setting off bombs, even atomic bombs or destroying cities is not a crime, it is war. Note we say we are in a war and these prisoners say they are at war with us so again I wonder where or what is the crime we are going to try them on?

I've always liked Glen Greenwald's blog.

I readily admit that he is a strong critic of the Bush administration. However, he's a lawyer and he writes well. Here's a link to his discussion about the Boumediene ruling

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...iene/index.html

[PassedOut]

hrothgar, on Jun 13 2008, 02:15 PM, said:

mike777, on Jun 13 2008, 02:43 PM, said:

"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."


BTW I have read 4 different articles so far this morning on this ruling. They all explain it differently from each other so I do not fully understand what the ruling actually says and means.

BTW2: I wonder how we could bring any charges. In other words I have my doubts anyone has committed a crime that we could have a trial on. In War Killing millions of people or setting off bombs, even atomic bombs or destroying cities is not a crime, it is war. Note we say we are in a war and these prisoners say they are at war with us so again I wonder where or what is the crime we are going to try them on?

I've always liked Glen Greenwald's blog.

I readily admit that he is a strong critic of the Bush administration. However, he's a lawyer and he writes well. Here's a link to his discussion about the Boumediene ruling

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...iene/index.html

Thanks for the link. Quite remarkable that Senator Spector would vote for a bill that he publicly acknowledged was "unconstitutional on its face." Good to see, thought, that Barack Obama fought against it.

[Winstonm]

The problem with Gitmo is and has always been that it is not bound by the rule of law but by the rule of men.

Gitmo prisoners are no more than suspects - but as suspects they are deprived of all due process of law - this puts them at the mercy of the rule of man.

It is the very thing we claim to fight to prevent.

[Winstonm]

Quote

But in all seriousness we just do not seem to have the trial system to do anything with these guys.

Most of "these guys" were turned in as "terrorists" by those wishing to collect the $25,000 per "terrorist" head bounty the U.S. was paying.

[Winstonm]

If you don't think elections matter, consider the choices this year.

Quote

John McCain said Friday that the Supreme Court ruling on Guantanamo Bay detainees is “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”

The presumptive GOP nominee said the decision, a 5-4 ruling Thursday that determined Guantanamo detainees have the right to seek release in civilian courts, would lead to a wave of frivolous challenges.

“We are now going to have the courts flooded with so-called … habeas corpus suits against the government..."

Quote

Barack Obama released a statement Thursday saying the Supreme Court decision “ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice while also protecting our core values.”

“The Court’s decision is a rejection of the Bush administration’s attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain,” he said. “This is an important step toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus.”

[kenberg]

luke warm, on Jun 13 2008, 12:20 PM, said:

either declare war on somebody and kill/destroy the enemy or don't... security isn't worth the cost we're paying in liberty, imo... of course i can say that (and believe it) because i'm not in charge

The last time we declared was on anyone was, I believe, December 8, 1941. I think a thorough discussion of exactly how this country goes to war is long overdue.

Sample question to the candidates: In the event that you feel the US military should be used, how do you plan to seek authorization for that use? Or do you feel that the inherent powers of the presidency make such authorization unnecessary? Of course if the candidate feels confident that he is so blessed that during his term in office it will never be necessary to use military force he could explain the basis for that belief.

[jtfanclub]

Winstonm, on Jun 13 2008, 06:08 PM, said:

Quote

But in all seriousness we just do not seem to have the trial system to do anything with these guys.

Most of "these guys" were turned in as "terrorists" by those wishing to collect the $25,000 per "terrorist" head bounty the U.S. was paying.

I'd break it down into thirds...

1/3 people turned in for the bounty.
1/3 people who had information we might want, or some loose association with actual terrorists (such as taxi drivers, or Osama's chauffeur).
1/3 were people too dangerous to keep in local jails. Some of them were actual terrorists (such as the Bosnians who were the folks who brought the suit), some pissed off the local honchos, and some are just really nasty people (like drug lords and heads of street gangs) that the local authorities were afraid to prosecute.

Of course, some of these thirds ARE terrorists, and some of the ones who are NOT terrorists have been let go. Still, I'd wager that 2/3 of the people still in Gitmo we have no actual evidence that they've been terrorists. Of course, that doesn't make them nice people....

[Winstonm]

Jlall, on Jun 13 2008, 07:26 PM, said:

One of the greatest tragedies possible is when people have their life taken away from and are sent to prison for a crime they did not commit. I think it's terrible to contemplate it happening, and I know that it does happen with our current court system. I recognize it as a necessary evil, only because (presumably) a very very low percentage of people who go to prison are innocent. This is because they get a trial, a very high burden of proof is put on finding them guilty, and they get to appeal possibly several times. Because of our system, the ratio of innocent:guilty is tolerably low, and it is necessary because we have to be able to punish actual offenders and sometimes don't have 100 % proof.

To me when you just put people in jail without a trial, and without sufficient evidence to win a trial, there is now a MUCH HIGHER possibility that we have taken someone out of society who has done nothing wrong. Taken them away from their families, attached a stigma to them, put them in horrible conditions (in this case truly horrible, including possible torture). The ratio of innocent:guilty CANNOT POSSIBLY BE anywhere close to what it is with the trial system, and that is just NOT acceptable to me because of how horrible the things happening to the innocent people are. Without the right amount of evidence, it is a certainty that we have done this to many many many people who have done nothing wrong. It totally outrages me to think about.

It also outrages me that mike777 thinks that this law is bad because we will have to RELEASE people who we don't have enough evidence to hold. There is a reason they should be released if we don't have enough evidence to hold them: we don't know if they're guilty! Without enough evidence, how can we know?

Well stated, Justin. This concept of not allowing the government (or a single ruler) to jail persons arbitrarily was part of the Magna Carta. The argument really isn't about keeping people or the nation safe - that is misdirecton - those who argue we need this ability really only want us to accept for our "safety" the tyrannical powers that this very nation was founded to avoid.

Thanks, but no thanks.