SCOTUS Finally settles the Guantanamo Bay Argument

[gc70]

From the Supreme Court decision:

The only law we identify as unconstitutional is MCA [Military Commissions Act of 2006] §7,28 U. S. C. A. §2241(e) (Supp. 2007). Accordingly, both the DTA [Detainee Treatment Act of 2005] and the CSRT [Combatant Status Review Tribunals] process remain intact.

One section of one law was struck down.

As amended by the terms of the MCA, 28 U. S. C. A.§2241(e) (Supp. 2007) now provides:

(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ ofhabeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

The Court did not even seem to be in total disagreement with that section.

Our holding with regard to exhaustion should not be read to imply that a habeas court should intervene the moment an enemy combatant steps foot in a territory where the writ runs. The Executive is entitled to a reasonable period of time to determine a detainee’s status before a court entertains that detainee’s habeas corpus petition. The CSRT process is the mechanism Congress and the President set up to deal with these issues.

The Court appears to be saying "you have a process, use it."

Except in cases of undue delay, federal courts should refrain from entertaining an enemy combatant’s habeas corpus petition at least until after the Department, acting via the CSRT, has had a chance to review his status.

In short, the government can't let someone rot forever in Gitmo without going through the CSRT process "Congress and the President set up to deal with these issues."

 

[SecDef]

In short, the government can't let someone rot forever in Gitmo without going through the CSRT process "Congress and the President set up to deal with these issues."

Hardly an unreasonable read on the decision.

 

[divemedic]

That is where I disagree here. Just because a situation has not been addressed by the Legislature or Executive to the populace's satisfaction does not mean the SCOTUS gets defacto jurisdiction over it.

Marbury v Madison would disagree with you. The subject of judicial review was settled more than 200 years ago.