WASHINGTON, April 2, 2007
Top Court Rejects Gitmo Detainees' Appeal
Supreme Court Won't Decide Legal Rights Of Prisoners At Guantanamo Bay
-
Photo
A detainee – name, nationality, and facial identification not permitted – holds onto a fence as a U.S. military guard walks past at the maximum security prison at Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base, Cuba. (AP Photo/Brennan Linsley)
-
Interactive
Gitmo Tribunals
Detainees on trial, photos and a history of the naval base.
-
Interactive
The Supreme Court
History, traditions and key cases, plus what it takes to get on the bench.
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.
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Video and Galleries from Supreme Court
-
Video
Alito Discusses Abortion
-
Video
Questioning Of Alito Begins
-
Video
Challenging 1st Day For Alito
The foundation for the entire US governemnt is the US Constitution and it is by the authority of the US Constitution that all government agencies, including the White House, Congress, Supreme Court, Defense, et al operate.
Anyone in US custody has "constitutional rights." Otherwise, the person holding him has no legal right to hold him.
In neither case can they be legally detained without trial, tortured, sleep-deprived, denied council or the right to face their accusers, as is happening with these prisoners.
The terrorists have already won. They are on Capitol Hill.
Posted by cathaleen at 12:06 PM : Apr 02, 2007"
Cathaleen, if we pervert our own legal system in response to terror so that we hold people who have not even been charged, let alone found guilty, then the enemies of America have already won.
If we become a dictatorship (and the ability of the government to lock people away without evidence, trial or conviction is a huge step in that direction) then we are no longer a country worth defending.
No one has forgotten 9/11, at least in part because every time the Bush administration wants to do something horrible, they use it as an excuse. These prisoners have not even been charged with a crime, let alone convicted. 9/11 doesn't justify imprisoning them, and using it as a justification for illegal, un-American acts is an insult to the memory of those who died. Shame on you.
Posted by cathaleen at 12:06 PM : Apr 02, 2007
The events of 9/11/01 are irrelevant to the fact that anyone in US custody has constitutional rights.
And, anyone who refuses to defend the US Constitution and the rights it confers is refusing to defend the United States of America.
The USA is the US Constitution.
It amazes me how so many people seem to think their hysteria about the events of 9/11/01 justify converting the US into some lawless banana republic.
Posted by tuckerndfw at 11:49 AM : Apr 02, 2007
tuckerndfw,
where in the constitution does it state that non-citizens have the "same constitutional rights" afforded to citizens of the United States?
Absolutely, Tucker. I wish it amazed me, but it doesn't even surprise me, although it does make me sad. The simple fact is that a large number of people find it much easier to put their faith in "leaders" and parrot propaganda and fear than to think for themselves.
It's the same way the Nazis took power in Germany. Bush would love to be a dictator; he has publicly stated this on more than one occasion. "Things sure would be much easier if this were a dictatorship ... just so long as I'm the dictator." - GWB
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
GREAT QUESTION
Posted by theUSA1st at 12:35 PM : Apr 02, 2007
Don't you think the US should be ABOVE all other nations with morals and ethics instead of just ruling merely on the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law? The US Constitution was to guarantee rights to ALL people. It abhored the treatment that other nations gave their people, so instead, they said ALL men (people) are created equal. PERIOD. If we are holding others captive, then WE should be held to the constitution that governs US. The US constitution applies to the CAPTORs if not to the CAPTees! Habeus Corpus should be a guaranteed right throught ALL lands and ESPECIALLY if we are the occupying force. Merely locating them outside of US Territory should not evade our constitution.
Basically, what YOU are saying is we can do whatever we want to those prisoners because they're not in the US. That's BULL and you know it. We need to prove we are on a moral HIGH ground, not a lawyer-esque walking-the-line of the words of law. FOLLOW the spirit of the law and you'll be ok; but dance around it and you look like a hypocritical moron...
Posted by cathaleen at 12:06 PM : Apr 02, 2007
Question for you then, WHY is it that your leader, George Bush, no longer is searching for Bin Laden? You'd think that if 09/11 events were so horrible and justice is required, then why haven't we continued to hunt this monster down? What's he afraid of? That he'll actually CATCH him? BTW, when Clinton was going after Bin Laden, it was the REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS that ripped him several times for wanting to go after him.. it was the republiCONs who prevented it. Go read up on history. Something is not right here, the CONs want Bin Laden free; do you know why? I do... it's so they can refer to him all the time to SCARE the country into doing what the CONs want. GO AFTER BIN LADEN and bring that ANIMAL TO JUSTICE!!
So when Somolia, or Japan, or Sweden, or any country at all decides that all Americans in its country are spies, they can just lock them up in prison w/out charges as they wish?
If you are fine with this, then support this policy. PS, if you support this, then I probably would not travel abroad much.
Yet all might have been well had the Saaudi fulfilled their side of the agreement. In the event, they were neither able nor willing to restrain their subjects within Al Ghazna. Only when Dumus the Younger first learned of the attacks on his capitols (A. J. 6715, 23 Lo:os,), did he realize that his longstanding allies had betrayed him. Retaliation was prevented by an agreement documented in various incontrovertible forms (J-B. E. Roppe, op. cit., p. 361). Were the pact published, it would be clear to all that the order for deliberate inattention enabled the success of attacks that would otherwise have been thwarted through the customary operations of the Hegemon agents. The world would know that the greatest atrocity yet perpetrated on the Continent Hesperides was made possible by the gullibility, by the incompetence, and by the alien loyalties of the Dumus administration.
It is said that a second pact quickly followed. The lieutenants of ibn Shaitan, his family and friends (all proximate to the Saaud throne) were in possession of the documentation above mentioned. They vowed to publish if ibn Shaitan were ever killed or captured or if any of their number were detained for questioning. The House of Dumus capitulated, undertaking to immediately evacuate ibn Shaitan associates still on the Continent, prevent the death or capture of ibn Shaitan himself and deflect public attention from him.
When the appointment of Stultus Dumus the Younger appeared inevitable, it is said the House of Saaud complained to the House of Dumus that, in their view, the security agencies of the Hegemon were harassing Saaud subjects. The Saaudi asserted that in view of the intimate friendship between the two Houses and the anticipated electoral victory for which the Saaudi had furnished a weighty contribution, the House of Dumus should undertake, once the office of Chief Magistrate was secured, to discourage the attentions of the Hegemon intelligence services toward Saaudi subjects belonging to Al Ghazna. In return, the Saaudi pledged to moderate the fanaticism of their subjects, particularly the acolytes of ibn Shaitan. Journandes reports the agreement was memorialized by several forms of documentation to ensure the continuing fidelity of both parties. When Dumus assumed office, the agreement on the side of the Hegemon was facilitated by the practice of compartmentalism. Each group within an intelligence agency assigned a specific task was alone permitted information relevant to its mission and was forbidden to share knowledge, including the bare facts of its own actions, with any other group. The House of Dumus had but to direct a handful of overseers to practice deliberate inattention where Saaud subjects were involved. These servitors performed admirably in deflecting enquiries into the activities of Saaudi Al Ghazni in the Northern Continents.
Posted by canyoutellme at 01:20 PM : Apr 02, 2007
Basically YOU have no idea what I am thinking so do not assume you do. They should be treated decently and they are..they certainly are not getting their heads cut off as other cowards have done. My question is still unanswered. Yes, all men are created equal...but OUR laws are for OUR citizens. The constitution should be followed as it is written with the founding fathers original intent. It should not be stretched and pulled so judges can legislate from the bench. Judges need to follow the rule of law...not make laws. These individuals should be given a proper trial but NOT a trial in our civil courts.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posted by DefndLiberty
Dream on.
This doesnt touch combatants in a declaired war.
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
1904: 'Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead!'
http://www.capitalcentury.com/1904.html
-
by firststate
April 3, 2007 6:46 PM EDT
- 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.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 38 CommentsIf 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.