« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gitmo Detainees
From the AP:
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."
Late Update: The court did not say that the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay should be released.
It did, however, say that they can take their individual cases -- or petitions of habeas corpus -- into federal court.
Plain, old federal court. So you can expect to see a sudden, steady stream of accused terrorists in orange jumpsuits appearing alongside drug dealers and kiddie-porn downloaders.
The ruling could resurrect many detainee lawsuits that federal judges put on hold pending the outcome of the high court case. The decision sent judges, law clerks and court administrators scrambling to read Kennedy's 70-page opinion and figure out how to proceed. Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth said he would call a special meeting of federal judges to address how to handle the cases.
Is this the end of secret prisons?
Josh
Zachary
Eh, Bush will just issue a signing statement
June 12, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can't issue a signings statement on something he does not get to sign!!!!
June 12, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
ReggaeBAss:
Re: Signing statement. Good point. He'll just have to issue a finger-painting expressing his intent to ignore the SCOTUS.
BTW, it's pretty disturbing that the vote was only 5-4. I continue to be stunned at how close we are to having the SCOTUS finish the job of converting the government into a police state.
Question for HRC supporters who are planning on voting for McCain: Which Federalist Society member do you think John McCain will place on the Supreme Court to finish the job of toppling our remaining civil liberties? I'm leaning toward one of the Limbaughs from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
June 12, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Question for Obama supporters who consistently and overwhelmingly called Clinton supporters stupid, ignorant, backwater racists who lack the ability to breathe and talk at the same time: Doesn't seem like such a good idea now, does it?
June 12, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
If your daughter dies in a back-alley abortion, you'll have only yourself to blame.
June 12, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dagnabit! This is going to throw of the whole danged schedule for the show-trials to coincide with the election. Now he'll HAVE to bomb Iran in October.
Maybe a nice signing statement will do the trick, especially if he signs with his traditional "Preznit Blue" crayon. When he concentrates real hard he can make a really nice "W".
June 12, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
just when you thought our government was irretreivably damaged by those sadistic nutjobs...
June 12, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh boy, is this great!
June 12, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your comment / avatar combo made my day.
June 12, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
"just when you thought our government was irretreivably damaged by those sadistic nutjobs..."
3rd setback... and how many of these prisoners have gone to trial?
June 12, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Poetic -- the Supreme's put hinm in office, now their kicking the props out from under him. Will this slow down the pre-election show trials?
June 12, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
There go those activists judges interpreting the plain meaning and intent of the Constitution and laws again. Who do they think they are? This is tyranny! In a black robe! It's black-robed tyranny!
June 12, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
THIS
June 12, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
IS
June 12, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
GREAT
June 12, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
NEWS!! FOR THE RULE OF LAW!!!
June 12, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a wonderful thing to hear! This is a good time to give money to the ACLU legal fund.
June 12, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll second that suggestion. The ACLU has been at the forefront of these efforts.
June 12, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, Bush's next move is to drumb up the charges? But before he leaves office he will open their cages and fire upon the "escapees".
June 12, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
A five to four split. While not uncommon, it's only one Justice away from the opposite opinion!
Need I remind anyone how incredibly important it is that a Democrat occupy the White House for the next several cycles? Ask yourself what you have done recently to insure that happens…
June 12, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
this is the most important point that can be made in reaction to today's holding. we need seats on the court for many many reasons, this being just one of them. one more bush/mccain appointment and this case goes the other way...
June 12, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why was it when we first starting filling Camp X-Ray with detainees, Rumsfeld was allowed to call them "the worst of the worst" without ever having to explain HOW THE FUCK HE KNEW THAT to be true.
June 12, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's interesting to note that the Supreme Court has thankfully run roughshod over the last Congress's attempt to run roughshod over the constitution. It is also interesting that among those voting to violate the constitution were John McCain and Joe Lieberman; among those voting to preserve the constitution was Barack Obama.
Source: Roll Call vote on Military Commissions Act in 109th Congress:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00259
June 12, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
the 4 dissenters are one scary bunch ... read Scalia's opinion, which basically endorses fascism ...
and please read the conclusion of Kennedy's: this is great stuff, and it is what we are fighting for in this election
8 years ago, a friend warned about the coming police state, and I pooh-poohed it as completely ridiculous. Boy was I wrong. And boy, how close we've come ...
June 12, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pleased to see that justice still exists in the USA, if barely.
June 12, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
AMEN! There is hope for this country yet.
I second ADad's reminder at how easily this could have gone the other way had another conservative judge been appointed. No matter your feelings for Obama, McCain cannot under any circumstances be allowed to appoint the next SC Justice.
June 12, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you think that Bush will actually obey this ruling, I've got real estate just outside the Green Zone to sell ya.
June 12, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why all the excitement? Everybody knows that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the fourth branch of government. No one will even get a hearing. Dick Cheney can keep torturing Pakistani cabdrivers with no fear.
Seriously - does anyone think that the administration will do anything different? Feh.
June 12, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The great thing about this decision is that the administration has no say in the matter. The detainees will have their habeas petitions heard in Washington District Court, and the military will finally have to make their case for why these people are being held.
June 12, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"the fourth branch of government"? What might that be -- the press?
Last I checked the Constitution established 3 branches: legislative, executive and judicial.
June 12, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Common sense still exists somewhere in Washington. It just takes five years to reveal itself.
I'd love to read Clarence Thomas' take on this case:
"Kill em all, and let God sort em out"
Or, alternatively:
"A Republican president is doing it, so it's okay"
June 12, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"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." (Scalia, J., dissenting)
Let's not be too dramatic Nino. You should read his whole opinion... it's the 21st century equivilent of waving the bloody shirt.
"The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent."
June 12, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Scalia is the most transparent politician playing a judge that I've ever seen. He knows his opinion on every issue before he hears the case. I'm surprised he bothers to show up in court to go through the motions.
That four men sitting on the Supreme Court can't see how Guantanamo violates the spirit of the Constitution and our country scares the crap out of me.
June 12, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
As Lederman points out, sure, the prisoners can file for a hearing. And in due course it will be granted, and then a decision will be made, and the Defense or the Justice Dept will or won't appeal up the ladder (less likely after January if things go well for democracy). And maybe eventually some prisoners will be ordered freed. Oh, except for the ones who might face persecution in their home countries, who will have to be kept in protective custody indefinitely...
June 12, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
WHY don't those 4 Justice ever rule in favor of the law INSTEAD of in favor of George Bush and Dick Cheney? What did they do, take a Repug loyality oath before being seated at the high court?
It would just seem to me that these 4 opposing Justices would be partial to strict constructionists type of law if indeed it was conservative law they were truly interested in representing but they ARE NOT doing that, NOPE, they just rule in Bush's favor, whatever it happens to be?
Is this where we get the preceding the lecture of “activist” judges from Bush?
This is why we need Dem presidents without questions, to make Chief Justice Roberts irrelevant for all time since he seems only interested in the titled and clearly NOT leadership of court. These four don't seem to be to worried about destroying the US Constitution anymore than Bush is worried about it.
June 12, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't let them kid you. Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito aren't "strict constructionists." They are conservative activists. They will do what it takes to advance the corporatist agenda.
June 12, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Answer: because their is a God and God is good....
June 12, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't read the whole thing, but it seems that they have overturned the MCA completely. In fact they say, "Because the DTA’s procedures for reviewing detainees’ status
are not an adequate and effective substitute for the habeas writ, MCA §7 operates as an unconstitutional suspension of the writ."
So does that mean that the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be halted immediately? I get the impression that the military prosecutors and judges would be happy to be out of it. Or will the Bush administration find a way to interpret this ruling (as they did the last one) as a mere suggestion that they go back to congress and try to tweak their parallel judicial system? It does seem that the Bush admin has no ability anymore to prevent the habeas petitions from going forward in civilian court.
Thank God Kennedy decided to side with the rational members of the court. Given his history, he could have easily gone the other way.
June 12, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't close Gitmo! We may need it to lock up the soon-to-be-former administration.
Hey, a guy can dream....
June 12, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
CGAG: I'm with you. empty the god damn place and keep it warm with a nice assortment of orange jump suits then in January line em up and put em on planes without seats tied in stress positions after a shot of tranquilizer. Put em in cages and let the lawyers and supreme court argue about what kind of representation and charges they deserve. Hell it might take 6 years before they even get to the kangaroo court. Meantime we can use some of those John Yee approved interrogation methods to get some juicy confessions out of em.
June 12, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
If your daughter dies in a back-alley abortion, you'll have only yourself to blame.
June 12, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink