SCOTUS Backs Detainees At Gitmo Against BushCo
Detainees at Guantanamo have the right to challenge their detention in US civilian courts. This is the third time the Bush administration has been admonished by the court in its efforts to deny rights.
The court has ruled twice previously that people held at Guantanamo without charges can go into civilian courts to ask that the government justify their continued detention. Each time, the administration and Congress, then controlled by Republicans, changed the law to try to close the courthouse doors to the detainees.
The court specifically struck down a provision of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that denies Guantanamo detainees the right to file petition of habeas corpus.
Habeas corpus is a centuries-old legal principle, enshrined in the Constitution, that allows courts to determine whether a prisoner is being held illegally.
I really don’t give a rat’s behind about these guys who have practically confessed to the 9-11 attack. They cannot get a fair trial in America because our patriotism stands in the way of justice for all. If they attacked this nation, they are in a special category for justice and Gitmo protects them from our revenge. It’s only a matter of time before their time runs out. I’m upset by the timing of these events. They seem to be trying to manipulate our feeling at election time again. We don’t know what Bush knew and when he knew it. I know doing nothing while under attack is cowardice. I know he was reading “My Pet Goat” like it was the “Daily Breifing.” I know the 9-11 Comission took President Bush out of the analysis loop and we haven’t been attacked since. It makes me wonder why we were ever hit on 9-11. Again, what did we know and when? Where were our defenses? Citizens can’t repel airplanes and you don’t play politics with national security. The Constitution wasn’t shattered by the terrorists; we did it.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Okay~ give them the right to go to court to have their detainment officially justified. But after it’s been established that they’re a terrorist and/or war criminal, and we’ve done our judicial duty, ship them back to Guantanomo.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Only about 85 of those 400+ detainees have any real justification for their detainment. The rest will, it’s reported, be sent home soon.
Several dozen have been released already.
June 12th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
“Several dozen have been released already.”
And a lot of them have gone back to their jihadist ways.
June 12th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Here is a simple solution to the problem. Send these terrorist back where they came from and let their goverment deal with them. We should not have to deal with other nations terrorists. If they do not want them too bad, we’ll drop them off anyway.
June 12th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Here’s the problem jackasses. The prisoners in Gitmo haven’t been charged because they don’t have evidence against them to move on with the court dates. That is the problem with the Bush Administration going against everything that makes this country great. The rule of law. I hope the Military Commisions Act is overturned before one of us is sent to Gitmo for commenting on this blog…
June 12th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Excellent news. Either bring forth the evidence and charge these prisioners or don’t and release them.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
The jackass part aside, breathe, FuRyUs, I agree with him and Epiphany.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
I apologize about the jackass comment…
June 12th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Not targeted to you Cheryl. Love ya back…
June 12th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Guess what, I not a guy either. I am a female, but I like guys with no preference of political party.
June 12th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
No worries, Fury. I know how worked up you get. :-)
I have NO PITY for terrorists, none whatsoever. I could care less about their rights. What I DO care about are the rights of the innocent. So I’ll agree that they need to have their “day in court”, but after that I want them back at Gauntanomo to suffer as much punishment as allowed under Geneva.
June 12th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Because our government has shrowded the capture and transfer of these detainees in secrecy, and even at first refused IRC visits, tortured them for confessions and treated them all as guilty without first even allowing them to hear charges or be presented with evidence, we really don’t know how many are creep jihadists who would do us in in a second if given the chance again, or simply folks gathered up by the locals in return for the dollars we put on anyone’s head near the scene. The strength of our great system is its fairness and openess built on a rock solid Constitution. The traitors are the Bushies including the DOD and VP lawyers who made up the President is absolute monarch bull sh_t! Now we pay the price…as any fair process won’t allow testimony gathered under torture! Bravo for the Supreme Court respecting our Constitution!
June 12th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Amerika is a terrible cuntree
June 12th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
If all the people in Gitmo are so terrible, why haven’t they been charged? Gitmo flies in the face of everything this country is about. A torturous place where the law doesn’t exist. All in the name of the Bush Administration’s contempt of the Constitution. Bush even said after he didn’t agree with the ruling, he would see what his legislative options are. Yet another example of his alternate reality at work. The Supreme Court ruled it was a constitutional right, not a legal right. Which takes it out of Congress’ hands. As if the Democrats would back Bush anyway. What an idiot…
June 12th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Unless the Congress makes an ammendment to allow torture…
June 12th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
So enemy combatants should get the same judicial privileges that citizens do?
Actually, I am surprisingly in some agreement with many of you libs that they should be tried faster and not just held down there. Although they’re treated pretty well considering some of these people would love to see all of us posting on this message board dead…and would not flinch if given the opportunity.
Watch some Youtube clips of people falling from the WTC and the clip of the 911 phone call guy who is killed by the falling building while he is talking to the dispatcher. Remember the type of carnage that these people want to cause. Yes, “these people” meaning enemy combatants/terrorists.
If we err a little on the side of protecting US and it impinges a little on THEM, like enemy combatants, I say too bad. Maybe that’s wrong, maybe I should be more concerned, but I care about the rights and wellbeing of my fellow citizens much more than these clowns.
June 12th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Oh, FuRyUs, you’re probably the type of person who, when a dirty nuke exploded in NYC would blame Bush but never would have wanted him to do anything about it in the first place OR would have complained about what was being done to protect from something like that.
“Protect me from those evil men but you have no right to infringe on their rights to try to hurt me.”
June 12th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
You got it, fuckhead.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
This goes into the old argument about whether or not the Constitution is a suicide pact. Well, to be fair, I am of two minds on this. While I agree with Fury in his principle on the matter, I also believe my willingness to allow for those detainees to be released does make me partially culpable for what they do. I could claim the fault for any terrorist activities by released detainees lies solely with the government, for not having enough evidence, and so on, to keep and convict them, but the cause and effect argument isn’t valid unless there’s no evidence of prior intent before the incarceration, and being angry over unlawful detainment isn’t a justification for murder.
Still, I can’t support indefinitely holding people based on a theoretical consequence and not on a conviction.
June 12th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Basically, I am aware of the consequences, and don’t agree with claiming I bear no responsibility for them. Same thing with guns. I’m pro gun, but don’t rule out that crime rates may be exacerbated by their increased availability. The point is, a right is a right is a right.
June 12th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
You know how we stop kids from fighting regardless of “who started it” ?
The same principle applies here. WE are supposedly the more civilized country: we should act like it. Hasn’t anyone heard of being honorable?
These people should be treated well, and they should be tried. Maybe they’ll be found guilty, you know? Why are they so afraid to try this in court? It’s like they have no evidence at all.
June 12th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
They might not at that.
June 12th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
I don’t understand how any American can be against the judicial branch. Uncy George doesn’t own the country or get to cherry pick the constitution. The other two branches of government tried to make this travesty happen and the third branch stopped them. That is how our government works. How, in the fuck, is it making our country less safe by trying detainees? Oh right, I forgot, we still got torture…
June 12th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
*sigh*
Can we try “our” guys for war crimes for the torture stuff?
(note the quotation marks: I don’t want those guys on my side)
June 12th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
(and I mean Rumsfeld (sp?) et al)
June 12th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
I’m sorry, Sky. Rumsfeld worked in the Bush Administration, he’s immune from punishment. Ya know because the DOJ has been perverted by Bush. Isn’t Rove supposed to go to Congress for something? Gitmo is just one of the symbols for this Administration’s “frustration” with our Constitution…
June 12th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
what up, sky?! how’s the family and all that? guess what- I got cable this week. :-) i missed law and order too much, lol.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Karl Rove suppose to go visit Congress? Hm…he was on The O’Reilly Factor tonight. He has conveniently been too busy chatting and ignoring Congress.
Can we send Dick Morris with Rove while we’re at it. He gets annoying sometimes.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Why the hell is Dick Morris on TV giving his opinion? Fox News sure is the dregs of media. With the exception of Alan of course…
June 12th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
hey, cheryl: we got a digital thingy this week so we can still watch free tv… turns out it’s a lot more fun than moving rabbit ears all the time: we can actually SEE the shows we’re watching.
Family good. :)
June 13th, 2008 at 12:30 am
Hey, Fury, glad to know you’re such a douchebag. Namecalling must mean you’re right…so I’ll do it, too.
How the hell can you like Alan if Fox is such an evil right-wing organization? Isn’t Alan then by definition a sellout? How can you respect him? You’re an idiot.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:01 am
Now you’ve hurt my feelings, poophead…
June 13th, 2008 at 1:03 am
Pundits are not mentioning the fact that the recent Supreme Court ruling concerning the due process rights of government detainees is not so much about foreign enemy combatants; rather it is about all possible enemy combatants. What the American public does not realize nor have they been told is that any American Citizen can be designated an enemy combatant by the White House on nothing more than mere suspicion. So the issue is can the right of the due process of law that is guaranteed by the constitution be denied. Can an American have their right to hear the evidence against them, the right to a speedy trial by a jury of their peers, the right to access to legal council, and all the other due process aspects afforded them? We had better have those rights. But before the Supreme Court ruling foreign suspected enemy combatants and suspected American enemy combatants had no right to constitutional equal protection of law. The President had thrown out the right to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and replaced it with guilty by suspicion without due process. As well anyone American or foreigner could be held forever with out first being proven guilty of being an enemy combatant. The treatment of all potential enemy combatants meant that all American Citizens had lost the equal protection of the law and the protection of the principle of due process of law. That is what is so conveniently left out of the conversation. What a shame that pundits are leaving out the important details which would allow Americans the ability to decide why the Court ruled the way they did.
June 14th, 2008 at 2:41 pm