Top Court Rejects Gitmo Detainees' Appeal

Supreme Court Won't Decide Legal Rights Of Prisoners At Guantanamo Bay

(CBS/AP)  The Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday from Guantanamo detainees who want challenge their five-year-long confinement in court, a victory for the Bush administration's legal strategy in its fight against terrorism.

The victory may be only temporary, however. The high court twice previously has extended legal protections to prisoners at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. These individuals were seized as potential terrorists following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and only 10 have been charged with a crime.

Despite the earlier rulings, none of the roughly 385 detainees has yet had a hearing in a civilian court challenging his detention because the administration has moved aggressively to limit the legal rights of prisoners it has labeled as enemy combatants.

"This is a huge setback for the detainees and a big boost for the administration," says CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen, "because it allows, for now, the tribunal process to go forward down in Cuba".

But, Cohen cautions, "What the justices did today in refusing to hear the case doesn't mean they won't ultimately hear and decide it. In fact, they probably will, but after the detainees go through their trials at Gitmo."

A federal appeals court in Washington in February upheld a key provision of a law enacted last year that strips federal courts of their ability to hear such challenges.

At issue is whether prisoners held at Guantanamo have a right to habeas corpus review, a basic tenet of the Constitution that protects people from unlawful imprisonment.

The detainees' core argument is that no matter where they are held by American authorities, they are entitled to access to U.S. courts. They want the court to strike down the new law as unconstitutional.

Former military officers, diplomats and federal judges joined the detainees in urging the court to take prompt action. The court "held in no uncertain terms that the Guantanamo detainees were entitled to habeas corpus review to challenge the lawfulness of their detention," they said in their supporting brief. "But since that decision in June 2004, the court's mandate has been frustrated and not a single detainee has had a habeas hearing in federal court."

But the administration said that because of changes in the law since 2004 there was no need for the justices to hurry. Congress has authorized military hearings to assess whether the prisoners are being properly detained as enemy combatants. Those decisions can be appealed in a limited fashion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the same court that ruled in the administration's favor in February.

"There is no need for this court to assess the adequacy of the...review before it has taken place," Solicitor General Paul Clement, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, wrote.

The court is likely to be faced with the same cases it rejected Monday once the appeals court begins conducting reviews.

Clement also argued that the appeals court was correct in holding that aliens outside the United States have no rights under the U.S. Constitution.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter voted to accept the appeals. "The questions presented are significant ones warranting our review," Breyer wrote. In addition, Breyer and Souter said they would have heard the case on a fast track, as the detainees requested.

And in a sign that the court has not had its final say on the matter, Justices Anthony Kennedy and John Paul Stevens made clear in a separate opinion that they were rejecting the appeals only on procedural grounds.

It takes four votes among the nine justices to accept a case.

Bipartisan proposals already have been introduced in the Democratic-led Congress to rewrite the 2006 law that swept away the detainees' access to U.S. courts. It was enacted by the then-GOP majority at the request of the White House.

The Supreme Court has twice thwarted the administration's efforts to keep the detainees out of the courts.

The Bush administration has reacted to each of the two previous rebuffs by undertaking remedial measures.

In 2004, the justices ruled that the courts can hear the detainees' cases, saying that prisoners under U.S. control have access to civilian courts, no matter where they are being held. remedial measures. "The courts of the United States have traditionally been open to nonresident aliens," Stevens wrote in Rasul V. Bush.

In 2006, the justices ruled that President Bush's plan for military war crimes trials, envisioned for a small number of Guantanamo Bay detainees, is illegal under U.S. and international law. The justices also said a law that Congress passed in 2005 to limit federal court lawsuits by Guantanamo detainees did not apply to pending cases.

After the Supreme Court ruling in 2004, the Pentagon set up panels that reviewed whether each of the detainees had been correctly categorized as an enemy combatant, and therefore not entitled to any legal rights.

After the justices' ruling in 2006, Congress at the urging of the White House enacted the law which blocked detainees from coming into U.S. courts and established new rules for the military trials.

[firststate]

pwrslm has introduced a bit of Bushshit reasoning by saying "US courts dont (sic) have proper jurisdiction to try non-citizens for crimes that did not occur in our borders . . . We could, literally, be within our rights to shoot them as spys" only in bushworld, bubba.

If we lack jurisdiction to try someone, we da^mned well lack it to impose sentence. The U.S. can't designate an individual in another country a spy in order to execute him. Only the country where he's operating can do that.

By such illogic, another country may execute a US citizen in the US as a spy against their interests. I think not. If legitimate, when huge rewards are offered US citizens who point offenders out, I could name several. I'd then take my bounty of several years' income and consider others to nominate at my leisure. That's the process we used in Afghanistan to collect many of Gitmo's guests.

Maybe dumbya's dreams of ruling the world led him to presume authority not his, but it's just one more thing he got wrong. His actions precisely followed those of which he accused Saddam of planning. He's attacked one country to date who didn't, and actually couldn't attack the U.S. He actually DOES have WMD's, no twisted intel here. His reasoning proves that regime change is necessary for the US.

[lars008-2009]

15 BRITS ALIVE OR IRAN DEAD!!!

1904: 'Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead!'
http://www.capitalcentury.com/1904.html

[lars008-2009]

there is no peace with fascist nazi islam%u2026.. there never has been in it%u2019s 1400 year existence%u2026

dnc are like john adams and want to give the jihadist their lunch money hoping they will leave us alone....

gop are like thomas jefferson and want to spend their lunch money on weapons and go kick the jihadists in their arses.....

What Thomas Jefferson learned from the Muslim book of jihad

Thomas Jefferson knew about fascist nazi islam..... he killed plenty of them....

In 1786 Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves. Jefferson reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan07/jeff_quran.htm
http://www.khouse.org/articles/2007/691/
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2002_winter_spring/terrorism.htm

[pwrslm]

Under the (mis-named) Patriot Act the U.S. government has "extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over any Federal terrorism offense ... directed at U.S. security or interests" and further "(establishes) Federal jurisdiction over crimes committed at U.S. facilities abroad."
Posted by DefndLiberty

Dream on.

This doesnt touch combatants in a declaired war.

[pwrslm]

If these prisoners in Gitmo are accused of the crimes as the President claims, then submit them to the light of American justice.
Posted by DefndLiberty

No can do.

US courts dont have proper jurisdiction to try non-citizens for crimes that did not occur in our borders.

Thats why the Military keeps them.

Initially, they were called illegal combatants for the most part, because they were part of an organized AQ terror ring, and they were not assiciated with the military of any sovern nation.

Because of tree hugging right wingers, then are now formally considered as POW's, even though they technically were foreign insurgents, and not part of any formal military (as required by Geneva Convention).

We could, literally, be within our rights to shoot them as spys.

[grumpas]

It isn't surprising this Supreme Court voted the way they did! They all hold the same fascist principle's the current Republican Party holds! They have been hand picked to skew the law to a right wing idiology. Most of them voted to ignore Florida's voters and put who they choose into office! It's been a mess in this country since 2000! Until we weed the fascism that's taken over out of our government it's going to continue to be a mess!

[gkc99]

Is there any more spineless group than the U.S. Supreme Court? One expects Curious George Bushit and Neocondom to be fascists and promote their totalitarian views, but the Court is supposed to be the guardian of our liberties. These are the clowns who couldn't figure out that there was anything wrong with legally enforced race segregation until the late 1950s! *** near 100 years after the Civil War! Now their message is that Bushit and his Secret World Police can grab anybody, anywhere, and do anything they ****** well want to them. Ever wonder how Hitler came to power? Just watch the neocon Republicans and it's not too hard to figure out.

[gunnerv1]

THESE COLORS NEVER RUN (unless you're a liberal)

[gunnerv1]

Maybe they don't have high enough CO2 emissions for the Supreams to deal with. LOL

[grazinggoat]

But the obscenity here is not founded on this comparison. The obscenity that this administration has perpetrated is upon the foundation of the country- in the administration of fair justice. If these prisoners in Gitmo are accused of the crimes as the President claims, then submit them to the light of American justice. If they are guilty the punish them. But do not throw away the Constitution in the process. It is what makes our system shine.
Posted by DefndLiberty at 02:18 AM : Apr 03, 2007

-Thanks for the self-evident truth that most Americans feel about, but don't know how to word it. Finding the right word is a blessing.

-The right-wingers are cowards. They hide behind their walking-liar president, who is controlled by a lobby afraid of seeing the truth shining from anywhere in the world. The exchange of freedom principles between peoples and Nations is a devine gift and a devine obligation on every Liberty Seeker. This liberty quest is beyond their capacity of thinking, because they have been casted into servitude. America needs to be freed from this servitude casts. It needs more of you DefndLiberty.

-More of you, more of the freedom fighters such as Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, Marx, Castro and the Chavez of this world, who fought to get the world rid of rigid CASTS, rigid unlawful, filthy laws and off injustice.

[firststate]

Many of our biggest flag-wavers are such cowards that they're willing to give up any rights and freedoms as long as the coward-in-chief tells them then he'll keep them safe.

Iraqis are used to a dictator, he should go there and declare himself king, because he won't get away with it here. Before saying he'd need to speak arabic, remember he's been here and can't speak english. His sycophants (loyal bushies) could join him as executive servants without having to remove their heads from his southern hemisphere.

Dumbya was wrong, the Constitution is not, as he said, "just a godd^amned old piece of paper." It's odd that he would say that, since he swore to preserve, protect and defend it, but then his word isn't worth much. His oath of office was just the first his lies.

The only thing we know about the people at Gitmo is that someone has accused them of something. With the white house truth record, an accusation by some political hack doesn't make it true and they've gotten much bigger accusations wrong. Their obsession with secrecy is another problem. They might just write up the accusation, the report of a trial, the guilty verdict, and the execution, all when they're captured and schedule the dates each to release each item. It worked in the USSR, it saved time and since the conclusion was foregone, why not? Secret trials smell like so-called "trials" in the old-south, followed immediately by the black defendant's hanging outside the courthouse.

[tuckerndfw]

And you morons saying "These colors don't run ..."

Posted by jimibear at 05:28 PM : Apr 02, 2007

I wasn't going to reply to the troll who made that remark, but I'll reply to you.

I was the (acting) Operations Sergeant for my MP company in 1972.

As the AOS, I was responsible for maintaining our battle plans. And, ensuring they were carried out as applicable.

Those (secret) plans called for our company to "run" (disband and become "terrorists") if we were overrun by enemy forces.

Morons who claim "these colors don't run" have never served in the military. If they have, they never served in an operational capacity. "Running" or "tactical retreat" is always a contingency plan for any unit.

No soldier or unit is expected or required to "fight to the death" unless it is entirely unavoidable.

I agree with both of your remarks. I consider myself an independent, but I usually vote "conservative" or for the GOP candidate.

But, George Bush and his GOP rubber stamp congress aren't "conservatives," they are fascists who are looting the US Treasury into bankruptcy on behalf of their fascist corporate cronies.

Not to mention shredding the US Constitution as if it were toilet paper, and destroying any sense of dignity or honor this nation might have had.

Bottom line is that I agree with most of your remarks.

Keep up the good fight.

[jimibear]

As I read back through these posts, it strikes me (for about the one thousandth time) that people who support Bush and the Iraq war do not base their opinions on anything other than fear, hate and stupidity.

All they can do is scratch their balls (if they can find them) and grunt "Lib! Lib! Duh! Real men kill! Ug!"

Vomitous, retarded, backward turds. Thank God no sane woman would *** you. Perhaps you won't breed.

[jimibear]

Oh and by the way, superchez - double-posting your idiocy only draw further attention to how stupid what you have to say is.

Of course, if you believe that killing tens of thousands of Arabs who had nothing to do with 9/11 or any other terrorist action is somehow going to reduce hatred of Americans, you are clearly so stupid that posting correctly is beyond you.

I wonder how many of your bloodthirsty fascist pseudo-patriots either a) ever served in the armed forces b) could name 10 US presidents c) know who your senators are or d) could list all 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights?

No fair Googling, either.

You people make me ill. Your idea of patriotism comes from John Wayne movies, and lacks even their charmingly naive sincerity. Are you so anxious that your country should have someone to kill that you'll drag the actual humans in this country down with you, you pathetic knuckle-draggers?

[jimibear]

superchez -

I am not a liberal or a wimp. Nor am I, like you, a moron who does not know the difference between the accused and the convicted. None of the people held at GitMo have even been officially charged with a crime, let alone convicted, so neither you nor anyone else here knows who they are or what they may have done.

Since you are too stupid to get it yourself, the issue here is that for all we know these people are simply political opponents of the president whom it was convenient to make disappear. As longstanding conservative, I am appalled that this administration exercises these fascist policies of imprisonment before trial.

If you were not yourself a rank coward who has allowed your fear to smother whatever intelligence you may once have had, or perhaps a bully who just likes the idea that people are suffering, you would realize that this wrong is a stain on our national character deeper than red, white or blue.

And you morons saying "These colors don't run ..." What about when those colors should never have been where they are in the first place?

Furthermore, superchez, if you were not totally ignorant you would know that Israeli intelligence has told us that the war in Iraq has generated at least 10,000 new recruits for Al Qaeda alone, and around the world 5 times more people are now actively involved in terrorism against the US.

Now tell me again how this is keeping us safe? You cretin. You're an embarrassment to this country.

[tuckerndfw]

Apparently the Supreme Court of the U.S. doesn't understand all those big words either.

Posted by mbcsmith at 04:49 PM : Apr 02, 2007

On the contrary, the US Supreme Court has consistently ruled detainees have constitutional rights.

Perhaps you should read the story. Or ask someone to read it for you.

[mbcsmith]

It's obvious that no one in the Bush administration has ever read the US Constitution. And, if he did, he didn't understand all those big words, such as "person."
Posted by tuckerndfw at 04:26 PM : Apr 02, 2007

More LIB drivel. Apparently the Supreme Court of the U.S. doesn't understand all those big words either. Your LIB ELITIST viewpoint should be thrown in the garbage along with your HATRED of this President.

[tuckerndfw]

Why can't the Iranians claim that the 15 British soldiers are "enemy combatants"?

Posted by JohnShaft4 at 01:54 PM : Apr 02, 2007

According to the "Bush doctrine," supported by Tony Blair, laws do not apply during these times of "war on terror."

It is unnecessary for Iran to even acknowledge holding them if Iran was acting in accordance with the "Bush doctrine."

It is amazing how these bozos can simultaneously argue the US & UK are totally exempt from any known laws or rules while at the same time claiming other nations must comply with whatever rules Boso Bush & Blair make up as they go along.

If the "Bush doctrine" is valid for the US & UK, it is valid for all, including Iran.

Which means these British detainees can be tortured, raped, humiliated, forced to confess and confined indefinitely.

All in accordance with the "Bush doctrine," and all without penalty under any known laws or rules.

[tuckerndfw]

tuckerndfw,

where in the constitution does it state that non-citizens have the "same constitutional rights" afforded to citizens of the United States?

Posted by theUSA1st at 12:35 PM : Apr 02, 2007

The Constitution refers to "persons" not "citizens."

Where did you get the idea that the US Constitution only applies to "citizens?"

Does that mean tourists or immigrants have no Constitutional rights?

Obviously, those who claim the Constitution only applies to "citizens" have never read the Constitution. Or, used their common sense before proposing such an idea.

It's obvious that no one in the Bush administration has ever read the US Constitution. And, if he did, he didn't understand all those big words, such as "person."

[gunnerv1]

These Colors Never Run! (unless you're a liberal).