Supreme Court Rules Guantanamo Detainees Have Constitutional Rights To

[HuskyCaucasian]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/12/s...t_n_106718.html

 

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.

 

The justices handed the Bush administration its third setback at the high court since 2004 over its treatment of prisoners who are being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The vote was 5-4, with the court's liberal justices 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."

[kapkomet]

I just cannot justify applying the constitution to non-US citizens.

[BearSox]

that is pure garbage.

[HuskyCaucasian]

PS: the title is supposed to be "too", but it cut me off. OOPS!

[NorthSideSox72]

I just cannot justify applying the constitution to non-US citizens.

I agree, but I find the idea that they can just be held by our country in some sort of legal black hole equally reprehensible. It makes us look like buffoons, not to mention its morally wrong.

 

After weeks in detention, if they aren't charged with something (militarily or otherwise), then they are basically POW's. And we need to treat them with more respect than we do. Its one of those things that SHOULD seperate us from other, lesser nations. It makes me ill that we fell down to their level.

 

[lostfan]

I just cannot justify applying the constitution to non-US citizens.

No love lost for detainees on my end, but why?

 

At some point we have to charge them with something, anything. We can't just arbitrarily hold them forever because we want to.

Edited June 12, 2008 by lostfan

[HuskyCaucasian]

I agree, but I find the idea that they can just be held by our country in some sort of legal black hole equally reprehensible. It makes us look like buffoons, not to mention its morally wrong.

 

After weeks in detention, if they aren't charged with something (militarily or otherwise), then they are basically POW's. And we need to treat them with more respect than we do. Its one of those things that SHOULD seperate us from other, lesser nations. It makes me ill that we fell down to their level.

 

But Bush said they are not POWs, so they are not subject to the Geneva conventions.. but they are not privy to constitutional rights. Therefore, they must not be human and do not fall under any law. We can do to them as we please.

[Balta1701]

I just cannot justify applying the constitution to non-US citizens.

If an illegal immigrant is arrested in the U.S., do they have no protection under the U.S. constitution?

[StrangeSox]

Anyone in the US has the protection of the Constitution. It was ruled early this year or last year that Gitmo counts as US property, even though it is leased from Cuba.

[Balta1701]

Anyone in the US has the protection of the Constitution. It was ruled early this year or last year that Gitmo counts as US property, even though it is leased from Cuba.

I think the appropriate response to this is that the U.S. government must follow the constitution, whether or not it is acting against citizens. If the constitution specifies that some power granted to the government only is allowed for citizens, then it is limited to that group. The constitution says that it is applicable to the government, and that judicial power/judicial review is applicable to the cases of anyone, including citizens of other countries. The Habeas Corpus clause says;

 

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.

 

There is nothing in the constitution that limits this clause specifically to citizens, and I'd say the constitution, by applying judicial power to citizens of other countries, probably does imply that HC implies to anyone who is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government, unless the writ is officially suspended.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Anyone in the US has the protection of the Constitution. It was ruled early this year or last year that Gitmo counts as US property, even though it is leased from Cuba.

all else fails... fire the judge that wont rule in your favor...

 

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/05/29/judge-khadr.html

Kuebler, Khadr's U.S. military-appointed lawyer, said he learned Brownback had been fired in an email from the chief judge of the U.S. military commissions, Col. Ralph Kohlmann. Kuebler's news release also included an email sent Wednesday by lead prosecutor Maj. Jeff Groharing, which complained of numerous delays in trial proceedings.

 

Kuebler told CBCNews.ca he believes the prosecution hopes the change will "speed things up."

[EvilMonkey]

all else fails... fire the judge that wont rule in your favor...

 

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/05/29/judge-khadr.html

Well, you can't fire the people that DO rule in your favor.

[BigSqwert]

But Bush said they are not POWs, so they are not subject to the Geneva conventions.. but they are not privy to constitutional rights. Therefore, they must not be human and do not fall under any law. We can do to them as we please.

Turn them into hamburgers.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Turn them into hamburgers.

"Gitmo Detainees.. The Other Non-White Meat"

 

PS: "non-white" is the color of the meat.. NOT skin color.

[whitesoxfan101]

Things like this are why I'm glad I don't have to make important decisions, because I have no idea where I stand on this. National security is obviously a big deal, but holding people without charging them with anything is just not right, even if they are so called terrorists. The one thing I wonder is how can we prove they are terrorists if we don't even have enough dirt to charge them with a crime? Then again, if they had the connections that led them to Gitmo, they aren't good people obviously. Such a tough situation to gain an opinion on either way IMO.

Edited June 12, 2008 by whitesoxfan101

[HuskyCaucasian]

Bush is saying he is considering legislation to make sure these detainees are dealt with.

aka legislation that will make sure a supreme court ruling does NOT apply to anything he wants to happen.

 

el dictador del presidente!!

[whitesoxfan101]

Bush is saying he is considering legislation to make sure these detainees are dealt with.

aka legislation that will make sure a supreme court ruling does NOT apply to anything he wants to happen.

 

el dictador del presidente!!

 

Yahoo disagrees with you, well sort of:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/bush_europe

 

We'll abide by the court's decision," Bush said during a news conference in Rome. "That doesn't mean I have to agree with it." The court's decision was sure to be popular in Europe, where many leaders have called for the closing of Guantanamo.

 

Bush said his administration will study the ruling. "We'll do this with this in mind — to determine whether or not additional legislation might be appropriate so we can safely say to the American people, 'We're doing everything we can to protect you.'"

 

I'm not really sure what he can do, it's the Supreme Court. However, he does say he'll abide by it, so I'm not sure if the dictator tag applies here like it often does with Mr. Bush.

[HuskyCaucasian]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/bush_europe

thanks for the link. I hadn't seen a story on it yet.

[Balta1701]

Things like this are why I'm glad I don't have to make important decisions, because I have no idea where I stand on this. National security is obviously a big deal, but holding people without charging them with anything is just not right, even if they are so called terrorists. The one thing I wonder is how can we prove they are terrorists if we don't even have enough dirt to charge them with a crime? Then again, if they had the connections that led them to Gitmo, they aren't good people obviously. Such a tough situation to gain an opinion on either way IMO.

The problems here in Gitmo especially are many-fold.

 

First and foremost, one of the biggest reasons why we haven't been able to charge a lot of these people in a fair courtroom is that for a lot of them, there's nothing to charge them with. In the early months in Afghanistan, the U.S. basically offered up big rewards for people who turned in anyone connected with the Taliban, and so some of the rival warlords got smart and started turning in members of opposing factions, simultaneously getting themselves the rewards and weakening their opponents. So for the first couple years, we spent our time "Interrogating" a lot of people who really hadn't done anything but just got caught up in too wide of a net. Hundreds of people have already been released from Gitmo because eventually, usually their lawyers were able to establish, with about a year or two of DOD stonewalling, that they really hadn't done anything. And at this point, we've held these guys without charges for so long, and "Interrogated" them so much, that even if we establish that they haven't done anything or they were just hired help or something like that...there's no country in the world that will take them back, because their long detainment and "Interrogation" has probably radicalized them.

 

Secondly, another big reason why we can't bring charges in a fair courtroom against these people is that, quite frankly, we've tortured them. In more than a few cases, the evidence we'd be presenting against them would be invalid in any fair court in this world because it would have been obtained under duress (and is therefore oftentimes simply false). And even if specific evidence against them had been built up other ways, say against a guy like KSM, the fact that he's also been tortured by the party bringing the charges would dramatically complicate the proceedings, to the point that a conviction might well be impossible because of how he's been treated regardless of what he did.

[lostfan]

If KSM was allowed to go free because he was "tortured" I would seriously consider killing him myself, if I ever had that opportunity. Consequences be damned.

 

Then again I can always just claim I was tortured if I got arrested.

[mr_genius]

i think the court made the right decision. we can't just lock people up in some base in Cuba without a trial

[Soxbadger]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...n.overview.html

 

If you notice provisions that are explicitly limited to "citizens" specifically say such.

 

Amendment XXVI

 

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

 

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

 

All rights not expressly granted to citizens are deemed to be granted to all those in US territory (imo).

 

Thus I believe that anyone detained by the US, should be given the same rights regardless of citizenship or not, as long as the constitution does not expressly limit that right to citizens.

[Balta1701]

If KSM was allowed to go free because he was "tortured" I would seriously consider killing him myself, if I ever had that opportunity. Consequences be damned.

 

Then again I can always just claim I was tortured if I got arrested.

I think we all would. But that's the problem with the system we've set up. The people running this country decided that the laws didn't need to be followed in certain circumstances and tried to set up a system where they could do those things. But when the courts decided they didn't agree with the memos written by the guys in the DOJ, suddenly all the work by the people who wanted detainees tortured in the name of America wound up not only serving to humiliate the country and inflame the world against us, it also served to make trying them fairly nearly impossible, so we keep going through this sideshow dance with the military tribunals trying desperately to set up a system that isn't directly in contravention of the U.S. constitution but also doesn't force us to let go of the genuinely bad people that we tortured.

 

It wasn't just because of morality that torturing these detainees was a bad idea. There were quite a few practical reasons why it was a terrible idea, and these court losses for the administration are a direct result of them.

[Rex Kickass]

If these people are bad news for us, we should have a reason to keep them imprisoned. That would mean a charge of some sort that can be prosecuted in a court of law. Holding someone, anyone, prisoner for years upon years without a stated reason or charge is just not acceptable.

 

If an American citizen ended up caught up in some sort of civil unrest in say China, and was treated this way, I get the feeling many of the people who support the Supreme Court's dissenters would have a different view.

[kapkomet]

If these people are bad news for us, we should have a reason to keep them imprisoned. That would mean a charge of some sort that can be prosecuted in a court of law. Holding someone, anyone, prisoner for years upon years without a stated reason or charge is just not acceptable.

 

If an American citizen ended up caught up in some sort of civil unrest in say China, and was treated this way, I get the feeling many of the people who support the Supreme Court's dissenters would have a different view.

I agree with the fact that they need to be charged or let go, but I also have problems with non-citizens being covered by the constitution, even with Soxbadger's post.