Guantanamo Ruling

HungryJoe

Some people have already mentioned the rulings in Boumediene v. Bush and Munaf v. Geren in which the Supreme court extended habeas rights to prisoners at Guantanamo. Here is the the text of the decision.

This is good, because the U.S. is is holding many innocent people, some of whom are (or were) children, and justice isn't just if it's not for everyone. But, John McCain says it is one of the worst decisions evar even though he sharply criticized the indefinite detention of people at Guantanamo back in 2003. His pal, Newt Gingrich, says the decision will cost the U.S. a city. McCain wants to introduce legislation that will undermine the decision.

What do you think?

There are probably going to be as many as three vacancies on the Court in the next four years. McCain has said that Alito and Roberts are the type of judges he would nominate. Just another reason to vote for Obama.

ladyobsolete

Not that I was really going to vote McCain in the first place, but this doesn't help his case. The happenings at Guantanamo make me think of Animal Farm--where "all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."

GreatTeacherMacRoss

Maybe the republicans should change their symbol from an elephant to a pig, eh?

Luke Burrage

Reminds me of this:

N15PCA

This is one the worst rulings in U.S. Supreme Court history. This is why I voting for John McCain. We need more Supreme Court Justices on the bench like John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.

Andrew

This is one the worst rulings in U.S. Supreme Court history. This is why I voting for John McCain. We need more Supreme Court Justices on the bench like John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.

Wow, you are a very scary person. Pray tell, why do you think we should shred Constitutional rights for individuals?

Rym

This is one the worst rulings in U.S. Supreme Court history.

That's a fairly trollish thing to say. Have any backing?

Your Mom

This is one the worst rulings in U.S. Supreme Court history.

That's a fairly trollish thing to say. Have any backing?

Why, of course! He has the backing of John McCain! Who wants to set us back to the early 1900s in terms of Women's rights.

N15PCA, you sir, are full of FAIL!

TheWhaleShark

This is one the worst rulings in U.S. Supreme Court history.

That's a fairly trollish thing to say. Have any backing?

Why do you hate America? Are you a terrorist or something?

Remember, the true patriot knows when to shut up and take it.

HMTKSteve

I noticed in Scalia's dissent he mentions the POWs of WW2 being held on American soil and not being allowed access to the courts to contest their imprisonment. This is true. However, those persons were treated as POWs. The detainees in Gitmo are not even accorded the rights of POWs.

I have not read the full text of the decision so I will not comment any more than that.

N15PCA

I got this from the US Supreme Court case of JOHNSON V. EISENTRAGER on the University of Chicago Law School web site.



339 U.S. 763 (1950)

The United States Supreme Court held that the federal Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or immunity from military trial and punishment on alien enemies engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States. The "aliens" concerned were German Nationals who were confined in the custody of the United States Army in Germany following their conviction y a military commission of having engaged in military activity against the United States in China after the surrender of Germany. The Court stated that the military authorities have a jurisdiction, during or following "hostilities" to punish those guilty of offenses against the laws of war, and the German Nationals did not have the right to a writ of habeas corpus.

Your Mom

I am assuming from the fact that Joe wrote "innocent" that convictions have not been obtained on the detainees. I will review the articles once I am at home. That is where your comparison is wrong.

Sparkybuzzed

339 U.S. 763 (1950)
The United States Supreme Court held that the federal Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or immunity from military trial and punishment on alien enemies engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States. The "aliens" concerned were German Nationals who were confined in the custody of the United States Army in Germany following their conviction y a military commission of having engaged in military activity against the United States in China after the surrender of Germany. The Court stated that the military authorities have a jurisdiction, during or following "hostilities" to punish those guilty of offenses against the laws of war, and the German Nationals did not have the right to a writ of habeas corpus.

But this case is about combatants held on US soil. That is why the Constitution applies.

HungryJoe

I am assuming from the fact that Joe wrote "innocent" that convictions have not been obtained on the detainees.

Only one guy who was a Guantanamo detainee was ever convicted of anything.

Australian David Hicks -- has been convicted. He agreed to plead guilty to one count of providing material support to terrorism in exchange for a nine-month sentence, which he served in Australia.

Many people at Guantanamo have never even been charged with anything. Think about that. Imagine how you'd feel if you sat in jail for six years and didn't even know what your alleged crimes were supposed to be.

This is one the worst rulings in U.S. Supreme Court history.

That's a fairly trollish thing to say. Have any backing?

Yes, please enlighten us.

Schnevets

To anyone looking for more information, I recommend downloading the This American Life episode "Habeas Schmabeas" (actually, I just recommend the show in general). Although it is clearly anti-Gitmo, it tells some anecdotes about the "terrorists" sent to the camp, which includes two men sent to the facility for a Mad magazine-ish joke about Bill Clinton.

HungryJoe

Today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled that a particular Guantanamo detainee is not an enemy combatant. He's been held for six (6) years even though he never actually took up arms against the U.S.