Supreme Court opens up Gitmo lawsuit floodgates; Scalia: “The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent.”
What’s that sound? The thunder of left-wing lawyers and Gitmo detainees jumping up and down for joy at the Supreme Court’s ruling this morning. Brace yourselves. Dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia warns that the ruling “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed” and concludes “The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent.”
Chief Justice John Roberts says the rule of law and the American people have lost out–and with this ruling, we “lose a bit more control over the conduct of this Nation’s foreign policy to unelected, politically unaccountable judges.”
The bottom line via SCOTUS blog:
In a stunning blow to the Bush Administration in its war-on-terrorism policies, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign nationals held at Guantanamo Bay have a right to pursue habeas challenges to their detention. The Court, dividing 5-4, ruled that Congress had not validly taken away habeas rights. If Congress wishes to suspend habeas, it must do so only as the Constitution allows — when the country faces rebellion or invasion.
The Court stressed that it was not ruling that the detainees are entitled to be released — that is, entitled to have writs issued to end their confinement. That issue, it said, is left to the District Court judges who will be hearing the challenges. The Court also said that “we do not address whether the President has authority to detain” individuals during the war on terrorism, and hold them at the U.S. Naval base in Cuba; that, too, it said, is to be considered first by the District judges.
The Court also declared that detainees do not have to go through the special civilian court review process that Congress created in 2005, since that is not an adequate substitute for habeas rights. The Court refused to interpret the Detainee Treatment Act — as the Bush Administration had suggested — to include enough legal protection to make it an adequate replacement for habeas. Congress, it concluded, unconstitutionally suspended the writ in enacting that Act.
I’m reminded of what one DHS source pointed out to me when the high court ruled in favor of habeas corpus rights four years ago: “Hmm, now that the Gitmo detainees are entitled to habeas challenges and hearings by American courts and American judges, I wonder how long before they and their lawyers claim that they are entitled to asylum hearings as well?”
Won’t be long now!
Howard Bashman has links to the ruling and oral argument transcript. Justice Scalia’s dissent says it all:
Both the Chief Justice and Justice Antonin Scalia issued dissenting opinions, and all four dissenters joined in both dissents. In his dissent, Justice Scalia writes, “The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.” Justice Scalia’s 25-page dissenting opinion concludes, “The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent.”
Jonathan Adler: “As I (super-quickly) skim Justice Kennedy’s opinion for the Court, it appears to hold that Guantanamo detainees have habeas rights, that these rights can only be denied through a valid suspension of habeas rights (under the Suspension Clause of the Constitution), that the procedures created by the Detainee Treatment Act were not an adequate substitute for habeas, and therefore Section 7 of the Military Commission Act is an unconstitutional suspension of the detainees’ habeas rights. I’m sure I (and others) will have more to say about this case in subsequent posts.”
While I am still reviewing the 5-4 decision written by Anthony Kennedy, apparently giving GITMO detainees access to our civilian courts, at the outset I am left to wonder whether all POWs will now have access to our civilian courts? After all, you would think lawful enemy combatants have a better claim in this regard than unlawful enemy combatants. And if POWs have access to our civilian courts, how do our courts plan to handle the thousands, if not tens of thousands of cases, that will be brought to them in future conflicts?
It has been the objective of the left-wing bar to fight aspects of this war in our courtrooms, where it knew it would have a decent chance at victory. So complete is the Court’s disregard for the Constitution and even its own precedent now that anything is possible. And what was once considered inconceivable is now compelled by the Constitution, or so five justices have ruled. I fear for my country. I really do. And AP, among others, reports this story as a defeat for “the Bush administration.” Really? I see it as a defeat for the nation.
UPDATE: The 5-4 GITMO decision brings to the front, yet again, John McCain’s position on judges versus his own policies. McCain undoubtedly supports the 5-4 decision, yet the justices who voted against it, and argued strenuously against it, are of the kind McCain claims to want on the bench. We have seen the same issue arise respecting campaign finance. This is not to say that McCain won’t nominate originalists to the bench. But if he does, he will be nominating to the Court individuals who are better adherents to the Constitution than he is.
I’m skimming through the ruling, too. Here’s the key passage of the majority’s ruling, pp. 41-42:
We hold that Art. I, §9, cl. 2, of the Constitution has full effect at Guantanamo Bay. If the privilege of habeas corpus is to be denied to the detainees now before us,
Congress must act in accordance with the requirements of the Suspension Clause. Cf. Hamdi, 542 U. S., at 564 (SCALIA, J., dissenting) (“[I]ndefinite imprisonment on reasonable suspicion is not an available option of treatment for those accused of aiding the enemy, absent a suspension of the writ”). This Court may not impose a de facto suspension by abstaining from these controversies.See Hamdan, 548 U. S., at 585, n. 16 (“[A]bstention is not appropriate in cases . . . in which the legal challenge ‘turn[s] on the status of the persons as to whom the military
asserted its power’ ” (quoting Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U. S. 738, 759 (1975))). The MCA does not purport to be a formal suspension of the writ; and the Government, in its submissions to us, has not argued that it is. Petitioners, therefore, are entitled to the privilege of habeas corpus to challenge the legality of their detention.
Here’s the conclusion of Chief Justice John Robert’s dissent, pp. 27-28.
So who has won? Not the detainees. The Court’s analysis leaves them with only the prospect of further litigation to determine the content of their new habeas right, followed by further litigation to resolve their particular cases,followed by further litigation before the D. C. Circuit— where they could have started had they invoked the DTA
procedure. Not Congress, whose attempt to “determine— through democratic means—how best” to balance the security of the American people with the detainees’ liberty
interests, see Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U. S. 557, 636 (2006) (BREYER, J., concurring), has been unceremoniously brushed aside. Not the Great Writ, whose majesty is
hardly enhanced by its extension to a jurisdictionally quirky outpost, with no tangible benefit to anyone. Not the rule of law, unless by that is meant the rule of lawyers,
who will now arguably have a greater role than military and intelligence officials in shaping policy for alien enemy combatants. And certainly not the American people, who today lose a bit more control over the conduct of this Nation’s foreign policy to unelected, politically unaccountable judges.I respectfully dissent.
***
Related: Who’s funding the Gitmo lawyers?
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- JammieWearingFool
- SCOTUS sides with Gitmo Detainees « Azman Family Politics
- SCOTUS: Foreign Unlawful Combatant Terrorists Protected by US Constitution | PAWaterCooler.com
- Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » “The Nation Will Live To Regret What The Court Has Done Today.”
- The Dan Lee Report » Blog Archive » Supreme Court Rules For Terrorists in one of the Darkest moments in U.S. History
- A brief note on the Supreme Court habeas corpus cases [Karl]
- Rhymes With Right
- The Thomas Chronicles » Supreme Court Rules on Gitmo
- Outside The Beltway | OTB
- SCOTUS Says that You and the Islamists are All the Same to the Constitution | The Sundries Shack
- baldilocks
- Top U.S. court says terrorism detainees have rights * | Jack’s Newswatch
- Supreme Court Creates Killing : Stop The ACLU
- The USSC has lost it’s collective mind | BitsBlog
- Supreme Court Issues Gitmo Ruling Favorable to Lawsuits | OpenMarket.org
- Supreme Court Issues Gitmo Ruling Favorable to Lawsuits | OpenMarket.org
- SCOTUS: You’d better go ahead and kill them, then. » Pursuing Holiness
- The Radio Patriot
- Gitmo Detainees Get Their Day in Court « Axis of Right
- Media Mythbusters Blog » Blog Archive » Media Bias Roundup - 06/12/08
- Democrat=Socialist
- The other side of the Supreme Court ruling « ReasonableCitizen
- Six Meat Buffet » Boon for Humvee Chasers
- Supreme Court Ruling on Illegal Enemy Combatants; US Will Live (or Die) to Regret « God Drinks Beer
- Blame Congress, Not The Judges « Tai-Chi Policy
- The Patriot Room
- June, 2008 Archive « Right Minded Online
- Guantnamo Detainee New Al Qaedas Chief - Page 2 - YardLimits.com
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Ally McBeal approach, Gitmo
Mudville Gazette
» The five-year plan
Riehl World View
» Dowd: Dem Elites Displeased With Obama As Palin RisesStop The ACLU
» SEALs Charged With Assault for Arresting Top TerroristGay Patriot
» The O So Hip ObamaLegal Insurrection
» Is "Finish the Job" the New "Peace With Honor"?JustOneMinute
» Getting Ready For The TurkeyRiehl World View
» Uncle Jimbo Re-deploys In War With AllahSister Toldjah
» WaPo and NYT to Obama: We love ya, you stylish deep thinker
Here is a glimpse of the McCain SCOTUS.
McCain will not appoint judges who disagree with his policies, i.e. conservative judges
I’m torn on this one, but given today’s ruling, I am now officially worried about the D.C. handgun ruling. Either way, this is what we’ll get with a McCain presidency.
Could have avoided all of this crap by just shooting these bastards on the battle field when they were first apprehended.
I might need a lawyer to qualify this, but…
I was under the impression that if you were not a citizen of the US, that you were not subject to protection under Constitutional law? Would that not stand to reason, as has been pointed out in NC when the DA said the illegals couldnt use our court systems to remedy issues because they werent citizens and thus had no ability to do so?
Going to need a clarification.
Shold have made them POW’s. You can keep them till the war is over.
If I was Bush Id immediately start sending the Gitmo people right to Washington DC and start civilian trials.
Let the entire circus go forward and when these terrorist turn the American Judical system into a mocery and make lawyers so dispised for standing up for our enemies it will have a profound effect.
The terrorists want a circus and give it to them let the American people see liberals stand up for terrorists rather than the American people.
The ACLU will be come so hated after standing next to Sheik Mohammed
Wont work because say some are Saudi or Egyptian citisens. Since we arent at war with either of those countries cant hold them.
The courts in this country are destructively sick . . . and the disease is spreading. At times I simply can’t believe what’s happening to us.
#3:
which would have put an end to vital sources of information
Some days you want limited government. Other days you want the President to have the power to lock people up for life and decide guilt or innocence on his say-so. Is that in the Constitution?
IS it in the US Constitution that non Ameicans have constitutional rights ?
John Jay -FIRST Chief Justice of the Supreme Court–left that position because…..
it did NOT have the Constitutional authority (NOT ENOUGH POWER) to advance the causes that he felt were necessary for the good of his state and the new nation!
NOW – because of lazy Senators and Representatives (the CYAs)…the Supreme Court… has been handed extreme power …..A LITTLE AT A TIME …over many years.
I fear for my children and my children’s children.
#10:
does that mean citizens of other countries can sue their governments for violating their U.S.-guaranteed constitutional rights?
Prisoner of War status implies that they are legitimate combatants, clearly marked uniforms and carrying arms openly. Terrorists are not that, they are what the Geneva Conventions refer to as “spies and saboteurs”, who can be executed upon capture on the battlefield. Somehow we have redefined the terrorists as “innocent goat herders” or some such nonsense.
As far as non-Americans and Constitutional rights, I did not think that the Constitution of the United States applied to every human being on the planet, even the ones who want to see America bloodied, burned and broken.
Maybe this will be a big issue for the Republican Presidential candidate! Oh, wait a minute……nevermind.
Damn, this country is getting weirder as we watch. God bless Justice Scalia’s 25-page dissenting opinion concludes, “The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent.”
I regret it now. Next the damn ragheads get bail and take flying lessons. Opps, there goes the Sears Tower.
When is the Course of Human Events…
Thier citizenship doesn’t matter. They were fighting in the enemy army. Worked this way during world war 2 as well.
All I can think of is a quote from ‘Breaker Morant’–when asked what rule of war were the men shot, Harry Morant shouted “We caught them, and we shot them under rule 303!”
I blame the scumbag repubs who let ginsburg on to the supreme court way back when.
As the United States swiftly proceeds with its suicide, I’m open to suggestions for a new country to live.
We will either elect a moderately liberal or extreme leftist as our next President. There is no desire to exploit our own natural resources. Five people can rework the Constitution to the disadvantage of our own citizens. The Treason Media won’t report the Truth and the New Media doesn’t command the readership necessary to overcome the brainwashed dolts the Left has in thrall.
RIP USA – 1776-2008. Dead by its own well-meaning hand.
No, wrong. They are not fighting in the “enemy army”. If they were, there would be a clearly marked military uniform designating them as soldiers in an army. They hide in civilian clothes among the civilian population, therefore they are not technically “soldiers”. They are “spies and saboteurs”. This makes no sense.
Short answer:
Bill of Rights and 14th amendment due process and equal protection refer to “all persons” not just citizens of the U.S. — this has been interpreted to apply to non-citizens who reside in the U.S. (and now apparently, to Gitmo).
Okay, then you have to have trials. And some get away. As POWS all would remain till the war is over. After trials, some will get away to kill again.
If Bush had any guts at all he would say that he will not follow this order from the supreme court, Then order all the lawyers out of Gitmo. Then he would order the arrest on charges of treason the 5 “justices” who dreamed up this nightmare.
he won’t though. Bush is a political coward.
This will be remembered as the Dredd Scott decision of the 21st century.
This is another step in the libs plans to force the GWOT to be treated as a “law enforcement” problem instead of a “military” problem …
Imagine our troops in the middle of a firefight having to stop to read a captive their Miranda rights like a common criminal and then having to take time to proprely gather evidence like a CSI department … and that is just the start of this lunacy … soon they will be given bond hearings and be back on the streets just like all the illegals …
Having been in face to face combat I can assure you there is no time to worry about such BS … so I will guarantee there will be more enemy dying on the battlefields … thus fewer of these barbaric POS’s to tie up our already over-stretched court system …
BTW … chance we can release some of these bastards into the custody of San Fran Nan and Dingbat Reid … and I should think Murtha, Schumer and Durbin would be great hosts for some of them …
Maybe we can just reopen Alcatraz and put them all there …
For that matter I am sure that Sheriff Joe would put up some more tents in his jails for them … they would feel right at home in the desert …
Right now I am disgusted … put them all on an airplane and push them out the door at 30,000 feet without a parachute … end of problem …
As far as i’m concerned we are suffering from an invasion. What the he77 do you call an army of 20 million. What we really need is a rebellion.
We can only go against this supreme court decision if we are being …invaded….
That is only if our leaders recognize we are being invaded
Should we just go ahead and crown him king?
it’s like 9/11 never happened.
Do the detainees have to have their hearings on US soil? If not, I say send the judges, attorneys, paralegals, and other support staff to the hotzone if they want to have a US style court system afforded to these terrorists.
Without the protection of the US military, of course. They can use their own baliffs.
I find myself hoping for a mass escape of the detainees, one in which they all try to steal more anchor chain than they can swim away from Gitmo with.
If they want civilian trials, how about we do them in Berkley and Malibu? Since these are the fools who have been pushing so hard to have this done,let the trials take place in ththeir backyard, and let their local governments get bankrupted by having to provide security.
I don’t agree with Justice Scalia. This nation will not survive.
The suicidal Kamikaze pilots from the Imperial Japanese Navy were similar in some ways to AQ, in that they would give themselves to death if they could take an American ship down with them. However, they were “soldiers” because they were naval aviators recruited and trained by a professional military force under command of a nation.
AQ terrorists are not soldiers by design. They are in a seperate catagory in the Geneva Conventions the way I understand it. AN AQ operative wearing a bomb-vest, hidden under a burka is not a “soldier”.
Why don’t people get that?
taylork,
Lets release those who get released into berkley.
Every Gitmo detainee, indeed, every non-uniformed POW has a right to see a judge.
Just wait ’til some or the Carter and Clinton judges start springing terrorists left and right.
Let’s first see if Obama will relinquish that crown….
I’d really prefer not to be called a ‘McCain cheerleader’, but for the Obama Girl Moby, ‘Khan’, McCain couldn’t appoint real constitutionalist judges if he wanted to, as it is almost certain the Dems will control the Senate.
He’ll appoint judges like Kennedy, who, in this case ruled the wrong way. Kennedy rules correctly about half the time.
Obama will appoint more judges like Bader-Ginsburg, who will sail through the Senate, and who will always rule against the US.
Yup, going to hell in a hand basket, we are…
1) Calling them ‘ragheads’ can be perceived by critics of this forum as racist
2) They are actually little sheets. So, they aren’t “ragheads’ anyway, there are little sheet-heads.
Maybe the good that will come out of this is that a constitutional admendment which restricts Rights to US Citisens alone. The People can overcome the will of a few elitist judges
That’s funny!
My only question is when they go to court how long will it take the liberal lawyers to claim that the terrorists rights were violated because the troops that captured them did not read them their miranda rights?
only the parts of the Constitution he likes.. other parts, like the 2nd amendment, and as null and void like most of his head..
#37:
If you don’t want to be labeled a McCain cheerleader, then quit coming out of the woodwork defending his honor whenever someone posts a legitimate concern and criticism. And here you are doing it again. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck…
NEXT.. they will take away our gun rights so we can’t even defend ourselves against these scum bags…We are doomed as a country…
I would be in favor of printing Miranda rights on the side of a .50cal round.
Sorry, but reading some of your comments is absolutely scary. First, most of you are assuming that every single person held at Guantanamo Bay engaged in hostilities against our armed forces. That conspicuously ignores the well-documented and provable accounts of foreign nationals held for years without charge because they were apprehended, sold, or turned over to U.S. forces by various parties based on bogus intelligence or accusations, corruption by the Pakistani ISI, etc. Two, you ignore the sheer inhumanity of holding human beings indefinitely without charge, or a right to challenge their detention, that’s what Hezbollah does and it has no place in U.S. security doctrine; furthermore, it puts U.S. troops in any theatre in compromising positions as the obvious riposte of the lunatics of the world will be, “the U.S. have disavowed the rules, so why shouldn’t we?” As an American, if any of you were picked up by the forces of a foreign nation, I would demand that country take every step to prove you detention was not arbitrary and, furthermore, give you a right to at least challenge your detention in court. Otherwise, just like in Iran, where American citizens have been apprehended on bogus charges of “subversive activities”, there would be no recourse. I understand the complexities of fighting, and detaining non-state actors by our armed forces. Still, don’t become the devil along with your enemy. Your thoughts and retorts are welcome. That’s what we’re here for to engage in civil discussion and debate.
you’re using a rather large brush with that statement. It IS possible to ask for the government to do certain things, while wanting restrictive government.
The overview of wartime activity is under the direct auspices of the President, as the Commander in Chief. Saying that we want the President to act on something would be asking him to serve his country in the compacity that his office is charged with.
There’s a difference here between that, and having more government, obviously.
Nice try.
Every day, the First Amendment rights of religious persons (ie, Christians) are lost thanks to liberals like you.
Terrorists, on the other hand, get all the rights they want.
Just wait. This will literally blow up in our faces. My only hope is that it’s not a nuclear weapon.
Either way, if Obama’s president, he’ll surrender and that’ll be the end of America. Then I’d like to see how lgm’s life is under Muslim rule…
Silly me I thought US Citizenship was something special, and although all humans have “human rights” only US Citizens get to enjoy US rights and privileges. What good is it being a US Citizen, then? Oh yeah I get to pay taxes to feed the never-satisfied government…
Better to shoot them on the battlefield.
This really makes me sick. I cannot believe that we are granting these terrorists access to our court system. THEY’RE NOT US CITIZENS AND WERE CAPTURED ON THE BATTLEFIELD!!! HOW DOES IT APPLY TO THEM???? Sheesh…my God, what next? What a sad day for this country…When the hell are we going to learn? It wasn’t even eight years ago when 3000 of our own were murdered in front of our very eyes by those same “enemy combatants” who we’re now letting into our court system, so they can indeed win their freedom in front of some lib judge and go back to plotting, and killing, Americans. Rights, indeed…what about the rights of those targeted by these terrorists, huh? When are we going to start worrying about THAT? After they’ve been murdered?
The courts in this country are disgustingly sick and the disease is spreading. Do these jackasses really comprehend what they have done. During the next major war will all of the combatants have recourse in the federal court system? The courts have given themselves a major new funding stream for wartime court challenges by every combatant we face.
This is the most ridicules garbage I’ve ever heard . . . it even surpasses the 9th Circuit porn judge. This country is going down the tube at record speed.
would this mean that every war would be a ‘Police Action’ now?
I have no clue as if this would mean that the military would have to read the Miranda anytime a POW is take..
Does the Apache have a PA system mounted below it’s 30 mm cannon?..
NEWSFLASH:
The rules are circumvented from the beginning by the terrorists. They do not care about rules of war except how they can use our own rules against us. American troops captured by this enemy are not going to be the beneficiary of any modern rules of war no matter what we do. They will be detained without rights, they will be tortured(real torture) with blowtorches and power tools, not only for information, but just because they enjoy it.
They will be found dumped in some slum, decapitated and mutilated in horrible ways, like their manly parts being cut off and put in their mouths for us to find. These people are not an “army”. They are savages following a code that is from the 7th century. The Geneva conventions are a sign of our weakness to them. A joke. So spare me the sanctimony, please.
Under an Obama administration this kind of nonsense will be the norm. This happening today as the Irish vote as to weather or not Europe will be swallowed whole by the EUSSR. The next four years are going to be catastrophic.
Its about time Gitmo is closed up. The detainees have been abused for too long and deserve to be….
….returned to the exact site from which each was captured. Give ‘em a running head start before shooting.
The Iraqi and Afgan armies might appreciate some extra target practice.
No more prisoners.
Shoot them. Put them on a drone plane that disappears in the Bermuda Triangle (perhaps piloted by the idiots who voted for this decision). Just get rid of them as quickly as possible.
#52:
Just as a point of information…the British complained about the revolutionaries’ disregard for the rule of war in their guerrilla campaign. In war, there are no rules.
The terrorists know that they can’t win on the battlefield – but they can win in the US courts.
The Constitution has finally become a suicide pact.
Agreed…why bother capturing them at all? You know how they’d treat US prisoners…Bibles wouldn’t be handed out, certainly, and they’d only live until the video equipment was set up to record a beheading, to serve as propaganda for their terorrist siblings (and their enablers HERE).
But yeah, grant them rights by interpreting the Constitution in the most asinine way possible…this is nuts!
First off no one said they wouldnt get trials they were set to face a military tribunal. The same kind of justice our own soldiers face when charged with something.
second again why do we have to give terrorists the right to exploit our legal system and give them the same full rights as you or I ?
Thirdly how does forcing our troops to treat terrorists like criminals on a battlefeild make things better for them ? They would have to try and do due proocess while dodging IEDs. That isnt making things better for them its making it worse.
That kind of thinking is what is getting our troops killed.
haha, some run and gun, shall we?
Yup. McCain – Obama. Either way, our nation is doomed.
Remembering that day is the old Republican politics of fear. We now have the politics of hope and change and a much more insidious enemy, global warming, er, global climate change that is going to kill us all. Maybe the justices could legislate better weather from the bench.
#59:
I think with the court’s ruling, it is now “alleged” terrorists.
{sarcasm, people…sarcasm}
Before P C …….
Weren’t spies and UN-UNIFORMED enemy combatants SHOT on sight?
And when a combatant is caught engaged in warfare or covert activites without a national uniform, then they are regarded as spies and can be executed on the spot, without trial. That’s in the Geneva Conventions.
Call me selfish but I always look out for number 1. So this ruling, along with the other actions of our political leaders, tells me to denounce being an American, move to Mexico for a short spell, become a terrorist, Illegally sneak into America and I’ll have more rights than I have now, without having to pay taxes.
Amazing.
One way around this idiocy would be to load all these jihadists on a plane and fly them back to Iran. Take care of them there, once and for all. Or, even better, get halfway across the ocean and open the door, then invite them all to take a stroll.
This ruling has further endangered our troops and this country.
Did the S.C. Justices NOT review the number of Gitmo’s “visitors” who were released and then went on to strap bombs to their bodies and murder again..?
I meant Iraq. The half-way across door idea still holds, however. Excellent.
If the second post on a thread about a bad SCOTUS case is hysterical claims that McCain will appoint uber-libs to the court, well, Obama Girl Moby, you are walking and quacking.
I guess you expect people to believe Obama would pick better judges?
Hey #44, as Charlton Heston said – OUT OF MY COLD DEAD HAND.
I have a question does this ruling now mean that the thousands detained in Iraq and Afganistan currently have the right to appeal their deteniton in US courts ?
Yes! That is the point I’ve been trying to make. According to the Geneva Conventions original articles, “soldiers” must be openly armed and clearly designated with a national military insignia, and therefore subject to the rules of war in the Convention.
The Conventions also made a special exception for what they called “spies and saboteurs”, who it explicitly said should be executed upon capture. No trial, no lawyers, just a firing squad.
FDR went one better with the Nazi saboteurs, captured on our East coast beaches. They got a military trial, then were hanged. The one who cooperated was allowed to live in our custody until the mid ’50’s when he was deported to West Germany.
Can I please state the obvious that not everyone at Gitmo is a terrorist. They are suspected terrorists. This ruling has NOTHING to do whether terrorists get the punishment they deserve; it has to do with whether the innocent can challenge their detention.
The number of innocent Muslims who have been detained — and tortured — by the US since 9/11, only to later be cleared, is an enormous blemish on our great country, and one that conservatives and liberals alike should be eager to correct.
(I’m drawing a blank. What’s the name of the Canadian Muslim who was wrongly apprehended in New York and deported to Syria, only to spend months being tortured in solitary confinement, until we realized we got the wrong guy, and who the US still will not compensate for his misery?)
At this rate there is going to be a 2nd American revolution … it appears more and more every day that it is the only way our country and way of life will be able to survive …
Impeachment immediately for these 5 “justices” who just voted “against justice” for the American people …
The America I fought for, and almost died for, is being defesated by the assinine libs and their judges who are writing law from the bench …
Scalia’s dissent is the understatement of the millennium. We might have whacked a lot of bad guys in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the enemy is winning at home.
My solution is the Kill ‘Em All, Let Allah Sort ‘Em Out policy with future terrorists but even that might get our troops into more Haditha-style trials.
We’re doomed.
I find it extremely amusing that the left decries calling terrorists “Guilty” without a trial yet runs willingly and without facts to point fingers at their detainers and scream “But the terrorists said you torture them it must be true !”
So the moral of the left’s story is that o US soldiers are always guilty and terrorists are never guilty ?
AIN’T IT THE TRUTH !!
Second post? Refer to the first post in the thread. Refer to Levin’s post quoted by Michelle.
This is (one of) your problems: you cannot recognize legitimate concerns and criticisms about McCain. You have to distort it and misrepresent it as “hysteria” (among other things). You, sir, are intellectually bankrupt.
ha·be·as cor·pus (h!Æb” Ãs kôrÆpÃs):
a writ requiring a person to be brought before a judge or court, esp. for investigation of a restraint of the person’s liberty, used as a protection against illegal imprisonment.
Some how I think this might be a moot point if Bush and his gang of evil doer warriors were adherents of the law.
I wonder if this ruling now gives Terrorists the constitutional right to wear suicide vests into court ? If so I want to argue that any judge who wants to give terrorists rights ALSO has to give them the right to do that.
Lets see what Judges have the balls to make that ruling.
Bush has the “gang of evil doer warriors”?
Give me a break!
REMEMBER 9-11!!
So much for utilizing the Law of Armed Conflict to deal with these unlawful combatants and I thought the liberal ass hats on the SCOTUS were all about quoting International Law in all their arguments. The last couple of days have not been good news days. This really makes me nervous on what their ruling is going to be the 2nd Amendment as an individual or collective right. First they take away freedom of speech, then they allow the government to steal your property for commercial gain, and now they are doing away with the equal protection clause given rights to those that have none. This court is doing one hell of a job on whittling away on the Bill of Rights.
There is still a majority of Americans that believe we are fighting a few extremists here and there they don’t understand the threads that bind together the overall ideology. They have been deliberately misinformed by the leftard media regarding the threat we face. We have a rebellion going on right now and invasion is occurring right under the noses and with the assistance of judges. The islamists already told us that their goal is to nuke American cities, is yours on the list? Well, everyone in the country identifies certain places as terrorist sympathizing leftist bastions when the day comes that Americans wake up to that unfolding on TV there will not be enough law enforcement to stop them from descending on these places and burning them to the ground. There’s nothing I you or anyone else will be able to do to stop it.
Americans are rightly going to blame the leftards for the murder of their families, friends and countrymen. The nukes are and have been financed through democrat obstruction and their policies of, foreign oil dependence first and foremost! Americans know who has done these things who the enablers are and have been over the last several decades, the left wont be able to lie its way out of that one. They can blame anyone they want but it wont be easy, being in hiding and on the run for their lives, hmmm, sounds a lot like, islamist terrorists, imagine that. The left has decided to feed us all to the islamist crocodile hoping it will eat them last. Remember this when you leftards are crapping your pants waiting your turn on the video, you asked for it, you deserve it.
Well if I was a CIA agent or other Intel agent, I would be changing my name, my families name our appearance, and going into hiding. The use of Civilian courts will make the US have to divulge the names and identities of intel agents and have access to all the intell….thus shortly after, Goat-raping Muslim extremist will be fanning out to “Ensure” they can’t testify…and I don’t think “Pretty legal Words” will be on the menu to make sure they can’t testify.
So it’s OK for us to water-board our own military personnel to acquaint them with the kind of treatment they’ll get if they ever fall into enemy hands, but it’s not OK to waterboard enemy unlawful combatants?
And said unlawful combatants are now entitled to what enemy POWs in the classic sense have never been entitled to – habeas corpus proceedings in civilian courts?
Those who have observed that the laws of war do not afford any protection to unlawful combatants are correct (sorry, the ski-mask does not qualify as a “uniform”). What we have here, however, is a case of “Give a monster a cookie, and it wants a glass of milk.”
In other words, in an attempt to placate the terrorist-hugging sob-sisters of the Left, the administration foolishly extended legal status and protections to bandits and brigands. But instead of mollifying them, it only emboldened its political enemies to demand — and get — more.
The Road to Hell is indeed paved with good intentions.
It would seem at this point that the only way to preclude turning our courts into O.J. Simpson-style circuses, replete with “Dream Team” ACLU and NLG lawyers and Greta Van Susteren-style 24/7, wall-to-wall media hoopla will be for our troops to adopt an unofficial “no prisoners” policy — or to turn over all captured bandits and brigands to the tender mercies of their host governments (that’d probably more effectively get them to talk than the prospect of captivity in our hands at this point).
Slowly yet steadily, we are returning to a 9/10 mindset: treating our murderous, sworn enemies like a “law enforcement” issue instead of taking them seriously. And we’ll pay the same price as we did on 9/11 for that lack of judgment.
It only took the “greatest generation” one Pearl Harbor to wake up. It seems that this “stupidest generation” will require repeat applications. How sad.
So your saying if we catch Bin Laden it will be illegal because he has the same rights as you or I ?
#74 These are TERRORIST that were fighting in combat against our military! Therefore under MCA they are enemey combatants. Under Geneva Convention they’re not covered because they don’t have a country nor are they uniformed defending a country.
You also, don’t know how many if any innocent muslims have been detained unless the msm tells ya so!
Up until the Clinton administration, I had never minded paying taxes. But then my hard earned money began more and more to be given to people who do not deserve to be taken care of from cradle to grave. People who don’t work or contribute to society. I’m so discouraged today about the path our country is taking that I am actually crying.
God Help Us, He is our last hope.
I didn’t know 9/11 had the ability to change the Constitution.
This is a great ruling since we have no business indefinitely keeping people who may not have done anything wrong. This is a question of fundamental human rights.
Red State, you’re thinking of Maher Arar. Just one example of many as America tries it hardest to whittle away any moral superiority we have over regimes that don’t care about human rights.
The bad guys aren’t getting released here. Hopefully, the people we’ve wrongly interrogated and whose lives we’ve ruined will finally have the opportunity they’ve deserved since the beginning.
Does this mean when they are let off by a liberal jury will they be released into the US to find jobs and live next door while they plan their next attack?
We can only hope that a couple of the liberals on the court leave, one way or another, before Bush leaves office.
We the sheeple are to blame for our government. And to think that the Democrats are favored to pick up more seats in Congress in November. We the sheeple are stupid!
What the stupid supreme court has done is it set the worst of the worst free.
The ACLU and others have said that any detainee “Tortured” can not get a fair trial and must be set free.
We have to now release all of the people at gitmo because the left will now argue that their entire detention was incorrect and “Illegal”
Tell me, why should the Geneva convention apply to convention non-signatories? Seems rather one sided. Wasn’t the idea to make sure of humane treatment of prisoners between only those nations that signed and agreed to the terms as a precaution for future hostilities with each other? They must have known a good chance existed that there would be fighting between them again.
Not that some signatories followed the rules to the letter anyway.
That is from the Geneva Conventions.