SCOTUS Finally settles the Guantanamo Bay Argument

[applesanity]

Justices: Gitmo detainees can challenge detention in U.S. courts

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Suspected terrorists and foreign fighters held by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have the right to challenge their detention in federal court, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The decision marks another legal blow to the Bush administration's war on terrorism policies.

The 5-4 vote reflects the divide over how much legal autonomy the U.S. military should have to prosecute about 270 prisoners, some of whom have been held for more than six years without charges. Fourteen of them are alleged to be top al Qaeda figures.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said, "the laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system reconciled within the framework of the law."

Kennedy, the court's swing vote, was supported by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, generally considered the liberal contingent.

At issue was the rights of detainees to contest their imprisonment and challenge the rules set up to try them.

A congressional law passed in 2006 would limit court jurisdiction to hear so-called habeas corpus challenges to detention. It is a legal question the justices have tackled three times since 2004, including Thursday's ruling.

Each time, the justices have ruled against the government's claim that it has the authority to hold people it considers "enemy combatants."

Preliminary hearings have begun in Guantanamo for some of the accused. A military panel this month arraigned five suspected senior al Qaeda detainees, including the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was transferred to the prison camp in 2006.

The Bush administration has urged the high court not to get involved in the broader appeals, saying the federal judiciary has no authority to hear such matters.

Four justices agreed. In a sharp dissent, read in part from the bench, Justice Antonin Scalia said the majority "warps our Constitution."

The "nation will live to regret what the court has done today," Scalia said.

He was supported by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

[...]

(It continues, but we get the point.)

Obviously I don't know as much when compared to some of the legal minds at TFL, but I think I agree with the majority ruling. My gut feeling is that if these "enemy combantants" are given a trial, the evidence presented could and probably will threaten national security to some extent. Who or where the informants are, the intelligence gathering methods (it'll be a laugh if they're really, really unethical/illegal methods), what future intelligence is known, the extent of anti-terrorism movements, and so on..

So what. But of course, if I put on my "Bush Hater" hat on I could say... there is no evidence. At all. That'll be a real laugh.

Oooohh all the liberal Justices and the one swing Justice ruled against Bush. Them crazy latte-sipping, Prius-driving pinko libbies! Seems to me like that the majority opinion is saying, "the interests of national security is not an excuse to trump the Constitution." (do the "enemy" combatants even have Constitutional rights? I don't know.)

That's one aspect of this ruling. The other aspect is how Bush's administration will comply. Will the trials start next week? Most likely not. In a few months? Ehhhh maybe. Let president #44 inherit the mess? hmmmm.... Or maybe they'll pull an Andrew Jackon!

The Daily Kos has already jumped on the Andrew Jackson analogy too.
Anthony Kennedy has made his decision; now let him enforce it!
Some blog or website or whatever called RedStateNetwork gave a rebuttal of sorts I think.

I don't want this thread to be about the treatment of the prisoners. We can argue that in another thread.

 

[divemedic]

do the "enemy" combatants even have Constitutional rights? I don't know

That all depends on whether or not you really believe in the Constitution, or merely use it to further your own goals. All men are born with certain rights, rights that they have merely by being born. The Constitution does not grant these rights, it is merely there to protect them and to define them.

If you believe this, then a person has Constitutional rights, even though he may be a combatant against us.

That is the theoretical view. From a practical view, the President is not our king. Do you really want to grant that kind of power to the President? The power to declare anyone to be an "enemy combatant" without even so much as a right to a trial?

If you do, does that mean that you have set the stage for some future president to declare all gun owners to be "enemy combatants"? Or perhaps declare anyone who wishes to vote for anyone except him to be a combatant?

This ruling was spot on, as far as I am concerned.

 

[Old Timer]

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding regarding the much publicized but little expounded decision of the SCOTUS.

The decision does not apply to any person presently being held who has been charged with a crime. The decision simply says that those being held without charges (some for as long as six years) have the right to either have charges filed against them, and thus face their accusers before a trier of fact, or be released.

All in all I tend to agree with the majority on this one. It may cost us if those we release return to their groups and bear arms against us, but holding a person without charging them is just wrong. If they can do it to them they will, sooner or later, be able to do it to us. We are better than that.

 

[buzz_knox]

If you believe this, then a person has Constitutional rights, even though he may be a combatant against us.

Are you suggesting that the Constitution has universal application?

 

[Musketeer]

That all depends on whether or not you really believe in the Constitution, or merely use it to further your own goals. All men are born with certain rights, rights that they have merely by being born. The Constitution does not grant these rights, it is merely there to protect them and to define them.

The COTUS does not say god gave you any rights. With respect to any mythical creatures the COTUS is rather silent except saying you can believe as you will and the gov't establishes no religion. It is the long debated and well thought out document of some of the most forward thinking men of the age and the contract binding the gov't to the people and vice versa.

I am not entirely certain I agree with the decision. That the justices who tend to be constructionists do not agree with the decision reinforces my position.

As enemy combatants, who are not US citizens and not in the US they are not entitled to any protection under the COTUS. You do not have to agree that the treatment they have received is correct from a moral standpoint but that has nothing to do with the COTUS. If they are enemy combatants who are acting out of uniform I say immediately shoot them as spies and saboteurs and be done with it. To me it seems a perfect response from the administration as it is fully legal if some justices acting out from a sense of morality without regards to their oaths to uphold the COTUS choose to extend the benefits of citizenship to those who are not in violation of their oaths.

 

[Musketeer]

Are you suggesting that the Constitution has universal application?

If some of you believe that then shouldn't the world be allowed to vote for US presidents? If not the world then certainly those held by US forces as enemy combatants.

 

[Musketeer]

All in all I tend to agree with the majority on this one. It may cost us if those we release return to their groups and bear arms against us, but holding a person without charging them is just wrong. If they can do it to them they will, sooner or later, be able to do it to us. We are better than that.

Believing that is fine. Supporting an abuse of power by the SCOTUS is another matter. The COTUS clearly does not apply to these individuals and precedent, so holy to the liberals when they agree with it, supports this. There was a case regarding German soldiers and war criminals captured by American forces in China at the end of WWII. There case went tot he SCOTUS which was asked to give them protections and trials under the COTUS. They were denied.

If you do not like the way things are being done approach the issue through your elected officials, not by getting the SCOTUS to turn the COTUS into play-doh. You don't like how Bush is doing things, vote him out. You really hate the policies in place, change the legislature to one which can deadlock the situation or WRITE LEGISLATION TO CHANGE IT. I believe the Federal Gov't could write legislation governing the handling of such situations if they had the intestinal fortitude to do it. THAT would be the legal way.

 

[AlabamaFamilyMan]

Suits...

Seems like, if they can(must?) be tried under the laws of the US, they can also
be sued under the US system, as well, maybe with a can't leave until they pay off?

Just a thought. Not that any injured party could get anything, probably.

 

[MedicineBow]

If some of you believe that then shouldn't the world be allowed to vote for US presidents? If not the world then certainly those held by US forces as enemy combatants.

Now this would be your classic straw man argument.

 

[Musketeer]

Now this would be your classic straw man argument.

When you use the SCOTUS to make subjective moral instead of legal decisions you invite such arguments and outlandish cases to follow.

The court most likely should NOT have decided as it did and the people should have exerted their will through the ballot box for legislators and an executive which would enact their will legally if so wished.

 

[buzz_knox]

The Constitution applies to those who fall within its intended coverage, namely those on US boundaries and/or under civil/criminal (excluding those covered by the UCMJ) law. Those outside the US or who fall within military jurisdiction (even if American citizens) don't necessarily receive the protections of the Constitution.

 

[radshop]

I disagree with the way several posters are even framing the discussion - as "to whom does the constitution apply" - meaning whether it includes non-citizens, people outside the US, etc.
The consititution describes the allowed and disallowed activities and scope of authority of the federal government. The rights of people are referred to in the Constitution, but that's not its main point. The restrictions and proscriptions of the Constitution apply to the federal government all the time, everywhere. Therefore, for example, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" is not about who has the right to free speech, but a limitation on what the government can do - all the time, anywhere. It's not addressing the abstraction of who has the right to free speech.

 

[MedicineBow]

When you use the SCOTUS to make subjective moral instead of legal decisions

Um, they made a closely-reasoned legal decision. Study it.

I know that the style of the day is that when any court makes a decision one doesn't agree with, one attacks the judges, claims the decision was "activism," not based on law, etc.

But simply because that is the style of the day doesn't make it correct.

In any event, read the opinion and find exactly where you disagree with the majority's opinion. Let us know, and then we can discuss that point.

 

[nate45]

Alien combatants abroad do not have constitutional rights. Guantanamo Bay is not part of the United States, it is land leased from Cuba.

War and enemy combatants held overseas is not within the purview of the SCOTUS.

There is no law or precedent for the courts decision, it was made up of whole cloth. In fact it flies in the face of law and precedent.

Once again five people have held sway over the entire nation.

Judicial activism at its worst.:barf:

 

[Musketeer]

The restrictions and proscriptions of the Constitution apply to the federal government all the time, everywhere. Therefore, for example, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" is not about who has the right to free speech, but a limitation on what the government can do - all the time, anywhere. It's not addressing the abstraction of who has the right to free speech.

I see that as an entirely valid argument. Thank you for bringing it up. I am not certain if my mind is changed but I certainly will be thinking more on the issue and would give any argument along your lines just consideration.

 

[nate45]

Here is the precedent the unanimous decision by the SCOTUS in 1950.


U.S. Supreme Court
JOHNSON V. EISENTRAGER, 339 U.S. 763 (1950)


Respondents, who are nonresident enemy aliens, were captured in China by the United States Army and tried and convicted in China by an American military commission for violations of the laws of war committed in China prior to their capture. They were transported to the American-occupied part of Germany and imprisoned there in the custody of the Army. At no time were they within the territorial jurisdiction of any American civil court. Claiming that their trial, conviction and imprisonment violated Articles I and III, the Fifth Amendment, and other provisions of our Constitution, laws of the United States and provisions of the Geneva Convention, they petitioned the District Court for the District of Columbia for a writ of habeas corpus directed to the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, and several officers of the Army having directive power over their custodian. Held:

1. A nonresident enemy alien has no access to our courts in wartime. Pp. 768-777.
(a) Our law does not abolish inherent distinctions recognized throughout the civilized world between citizens and aliens, nor between aliens of friendly and enemy allegiance, nor between resident enemy aliens who have submitted themselves to our laws and nonresident enemy aliens who at all times have remained with, and adhered to, enemy governments. P. 769.
(b) In extending certain constitutional protections to resident aliens, this Court has been careful to point out that it was the aliens' presence within its territorial jurisdiction that gave the Judiciary power to act. P. 771.
(c) Executive power over enemy aliens, undelayed and unhampered by litigation, has been deemed, throughout our history, essential to wartime security. P. 774.

Now where are your SCOTUS cases that support the five Marxist justices?

 

[zukiphile]

I disagree with the way several posters are even framing the discussion - as "to whom does the constitution apply" - meaning whether it includes non-citizens, people outside the US, etc.
The consititution describes the allowed and disallowed activities and scope of authority of the federal government.

That is one of the things the COTUS does.

The rights of people are referred to in the Constitution, but that's not its main point. The restrictions and proscriptions of the Constitution apply to the federal government all the time, everywhere.

While you are free to hold that view, it is not mainstream constitutional jurisprudence. The SCOTUS didn't even go that far in this decision.

Therefore, for example, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" is not about who has the right to free speech, but a limitation on what the government can do - all the time, anywhere. It's not addressing the abstraction of who has the right to free speech.

You don't need to address who has a right in a provision that prohibits congress from making any law on the topic, so the example is inapposite.

On the other hand, whether on has a right to vote under the COTUS is very much a matter that depends on place and citizenship. The COTUS is not merely a government limiting document, or a universal declaration of the rights of man.

 

[radshop]

Zukiphile - good points, and I totally agree. Tough to get all the thoughts expressed clearly on an internet forum while on a break from the day job. My point was a response to generalities in earlier posts about whom COTUS applies to, but I likewise fell into generalities.

 

[divemedic]

Instead, I will fully intend to bring this thread back up when the Bush apologists start crying "But Obama CAN'T do that!!!"

The COTUS does not say god gave you any rights. With respect to any mythical creatures the COTUS is rather silent except saying you can believe as you will and the gov't establishes no religion. It is the long debated and well thought out document of some of the most forward thinking men of the age and the contract binding the gov't to the people and vice versa.

One of the basic principles of the Constitution, and of the Founding of this nation is the concept of natural rights. "They are endowed by their creator..." and all of that. Since the COTUS is the basis of all government power in this country, it is there to protect those natural rights. Read up on John Locke for more information.

I find it funny that people here will quote decisions of the SCOTUS that they agree with, but ones that you do not like are "judicial activism" and the Judges are called Marxist.

Under the COTUS, Art I, Sec 9:

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.

Remember that none of the Guantanamo detainees in this case are citizens of a country that is at war with the United States. Where does the COTUS say that it does not apply to non citizens? If that is true, can we torture tourists? Can we prohibit non citizens from free speech, or from attending church?

If some of you believe that then shouldn't the world be allowed to vote for US presidents?

Oh, by the way- since some you were asleep in class that day, the electoral college votes for president, not the people.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

If a state wants to choose a foreign national as an elector, there is not a prohibition in the COTUS against that.

Have you even read the decision, or are you simply taking the position that the President is always right, because he has an (R) after his name?

 

[nate45]

divemedic

Did you not read the Eisentrager case?

Are you contending that because we are not at war with the home countries of the detainees that they are not enemy aliens?

Are we at war with al Qaeda or not?

What laws do al Qaeda members abide by?