High Court Will Review Gitmo Cases

(CBS/AP)  Rejecting Bush administration arguments, the Supreme Court reversed course and agreed Friday to review whether Guantanamo Bay detainees can use the civilian court system to challenge their indefinite confinement.

The administration argues that a new law strips courts of their jurisdiction to hear detainee cases.

"In other words," says CBS News correspondent Wyatt Andrews, "the two other branches of government have told the court to lay off Guantanamo and today the Supreme Court said 'No.'"

The justices took the action without comment along with other end-of-term orders. In April, the court turned down an identical request, although several justices indicated they could be persuaded otherwise.

The move is highly unusual.

"Just because the justices have agreed to hear the cases doesn't mean they will automatically rule against the government and for the detainees," CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen says, though he adds the news will leave the White House "concerned."

The court did not indicate what changed the justices' minds about considering the issue. But last week, lawyers for the detainees filed a statement from a military officer in which he described the inadequacy of the process the administration has put forward as an alternative to a full-blown review by civilian courts.

"This is a stunning victory for the detainees," said Eric M. Freedman, professor of constitutional law at Hofstra Law School, who has been advising the detainees. "It goes well beyond what we asked for, and clearly indicates the unease up there" at the Supreme Court.

Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said that "we did not think that court review at this time was necessary, but we are confident in our legal position."

The Justice Department issued a similar statement: "We are disappointed with the decision, but are confident in our legal arguments and look forward to presenting them before the Court."

Tom Wilner, an attorney for Guantanamo detainees, says the court is finally confronting the legal black hole of Guantanamo, reports Andrews. Of the 375 detainees, only 10 have been charged with a crime, and the evidence against the rest, Wilner says, can be farcical.

"The government has admitted that most of the evidence is simply second- or third-hand hearsay ... but for many people, there is no evidence," says Wilner.

Five of the nine justices must agree to take a case that previously has been denied a hearing, according to an authoritative text on the Supreme Court.

The case is expected to be heard in the fall.

"I would not be surprised if five or more justices were willing again to tell the White House and Congress to try yet again to get it right," Cohen says.

In February, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld a key provision of a law the Bush administration pushed through Congress last year stripping federal courts of their ability to hear the detainees' challenges to their confinement.

On April 2, the Supreme denied the detainees' request to review the February appeals court ruling.

The detainees then petitioned the court to reconsider its denial.

Dismissing the petitions would be "a profound deprivation" of the prisoners' right to speedy court review, lawyers for the detainees said.

The administration asked that the detainees' Supreme Court petitions be thrown out.

Many of the 375 detainees have been held at Guantanamo for five years.

In recent months, the main arena in the legal battle over the detainees has been the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

The appeals court is considering how to handle the detainees' challenges to tribunals that found them to be enemy combatants, leaving them without any of the legal rights accorded prisoners of war.

The detainees' attorneys want the appeals court to allow a broad inquiry questioning the accuracy and completeness of the evidence the Combatant Status Review Tribunals gathered about the detainees, most of it classified.

The Justice Department has been seeking a limited review, saying that the findings of the military tribunals are "entitled to the highest level of deference."

An Army reserve officer and lawyer who played a key role in the enemy combatant hearings at Guantanamo Bay says tribunal members relied on vague and incomplete intelligence while being pressured to rule against detainees, often without any specific evidence. The officer's affidavit, submitted to the Supreme Court last Friday, is the first public criticism by a member of the military panels that determine whether detainees will continue to be held.

"I suspect that the disclosure about the corrupted CSRT proceedings and the very restrictive government view of what the detainees can do in the lower courts led the justices to conclude that they should take up these issues," said Washington attorney David Remes, who represents 18 detainees.

"The court's decision to hear the cases brings the detainees one step closer to receiving their day in court," said Remes.

The operation of Guantanamo Bay has brought global criticism of the Bush administration and condemnation from Democrats on Capitol Hill.

The cases are Boumediene v. Bush, 06-1195, and Al Odah v. U.S., 06-1196.

[speakinup]

"I'd like to offer some facts. Almost none of the detainees at Gitmo were caught red-handed doing anything." - firststate

Yeah - They are all innocent Ballet students like Ruslan Odizhev killed in a shoot out for being a Chechen separatist. He was also suspected as involvement in the 2005 attack on security and government buildings in Nalchik, capital of Kabardino-Balkaria that left more than 100 people dead. But he was really not guilty, his toe shoes accidently got shocked, and since they as well as his tutu are made of C4, well, the show was a bang. 100 thought it was to die for. Ruslan Odizhev is SO innocent.

[firststate]

formrusmcsgt
Good to see you on here, I hope all goes well for you.

I agree with you, wholeheartedly. The court could have simply left their decision in place. Refusing to hear a case is as definitive as hearing a case and issuing a ruling. It's equivalent to ruling against the party bringing the action. In April, the court said there's nothing for us to consider, but in June they said we'll have to hear the case. Such a major reversal in one term of the court is unusual, to say the least.

The white house was delighted with April's refusal to hear the case. Nobody at the white house asked them to change their minds and hear it. The reversal doesn't bode well for the white house's position. The Supreme Court have never been fans of the process, but decided in April to let it play out in the Court of Appeals. Time is of the essence in habeas corpus cases and the Court's reversal seems to indicate that they've decided that time is more critical. Having the case heard, at all is a loss for the white house. Their position has been that these individuals have no standing to pursue judicial relief in the federal court system, as provided in the latest bill on the detainees' commissions. The court seems to disagree with the administration on that fundamental issue.

[radiob-2009]

From the London Times

Cyber-bullies who plague internet chat rooms with obscene and insulting comments will be banned under the first national scheme to strip them of their anonymity.

People going online will be forced to provide their real names and social security numbers under a new law that makes internet portals responsible for policing message boards and weblogs.

The law has been introduced in South Korea, and is certain to be closely monitored by other countries where there is concern over online abuse.

The move, which is decried by some as an overly fierce infringement of online liberties, aims to curb the most damaging excesses of so-called %u201Ckeyboard warriors%u201D %u2013 people who concoct ***-scandals, fraud allegations and other libels that chiefly target figures in the public eye


Welcome to "1984"

[brianbwb-2009]

The Court will hear the case, then decide against the human rights of the victims. Bush wants this matter closed as soon as possible, and made the requisite phone calls, why else the change in attitude by the court, that previously refused to hear the case?

[firststate]

Are you all nuts, or only me?
Posted by doctorwho4

I'd like to offer some facts. Almost none of the detainees at Gitmo were caught red-handed doing anything. Most, who've been there the longest were taken there from Afghanistan where they were turned in by enterprising Afghanis getting a bounty for each "combatant." It didn't matter if the bounty hunter turned in a neighbor whose wife or farm he wanted, or if he had a long-standing grudge with the "combatant," or had already turned over several "combatants."

The people being held are seeking some kind of fair hearing, instead of a kangaroo commission who says they must be combatants because they're there. There's the affidavit from the officer involved in determining their status says that the process was corrupted. The choice to submit that affidavit was likely a reserve career-ender, but the truth was important. If I were imprisoned because my neighbor had turned me in as an enemy combatant or terrorist to get both a bounty and get to take over my house because my pool was nicer than his and on a bigger lot, I'd want to have a fair hearing, wouldn't you?

It's the country is nuts, our politicians play to extremist whack jobs from the fringe on either end, and the voices of the sane, moderates are ignored.

[SIDNEYWILLIAMSMD]

Lets get this straight:these guys at gitmo who were caught red handed killing americans will be set free...most previous wars we keep the combatants indefinitely to the conclusion of the hostilities or trade them for our POWs. Where are the POWs who are American, or British. We would like to swap? None..what did they do with the Americans or the Brits? Oh yes they cut their heads off...did they feed them, give them medical and dental care and a Bible to read? How about a trial. What about the Geneva Convention? Oh, yes I forgot, they do not have to follow that but we do? Yes...now I understand. HELL NOT. HELL NOT. IF THE SUPREME COURT LETS THESE LITTLE KILLERS GO , THE NEW MESSAGE WILL BE TO KILL THEM SHORTLY AFTER THEY ARE CAPTURED, OR BEFORE THEY CAN SURRENDER. IN OTHER WORDS IF THE COURT FORCES US WELL WILL DISH OUT WHAT THEY DISH OUT TO US. Are you all nuts, or only me?

[kansas1946]

"Let them struggle, until they return to their senses. Let conservatism reign, it is the liberal's own doing."
****************
Ain't that the truth. The left went so far left and sounded so crazy that it was only inevitable that the pendulum would swing way-far to the right. Of cours, now the looney right went so far that it swings back. Maybe we will have a little respite from looney fringe politics when the momentum wears down and swings in the middle for a while.

[dan9111]

We need Bush to protect us. Not from Al Qaida, but from the Democrats. Besides, the Democrats can never be forgiven for betraying Joycelyn Elders. Let them struggle, until they return to their senses. Let conservatism reign, it is the liberal's own doing.

[bareemperor]

Bu$hWorld is starting to crumble...
At least that crook Nixon had the sense to step down.
This one will have to be impeached and imprisoned.

[ioweign]

During WW2, we had 666 POW camps state side. Below is one.

http://www.pwcamp.algona.org/