WASHINGTON, June 12, 2008
Supreme Court Sides With Gitmo Detainees
Bush Unhappy With 5-4 Ruling That Foreign Terror Suspects Can Challenge Detention
-
-
Photo
In this June 2, 2008 file photo, reviewed by the U.S. Military, part of a legal defense team walk at Camp Justice, part of the legal complex of the U.S. Military Commissions, at Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base, Cuba. (AP Photo/Brennan Linsley)
-
Photo
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times." (CBS/AP)
-
-
Play CBS Video
Video
9/11 Families On Justice
Family members of 9/11 victims express different views on what they hope the U.S. military court in Guantanamo Bay will accomplish. Russ Mitchell reports.
-
Video
Accused Terrorist Seeks Death
The military trial of alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed began in Guantanamo Bay with the accused terrorist welcoming execution as a "martyr". Bob Orr reports.
-
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.
Mr. Bush said he strongly disagreed with the decision - the third time the court has repudiated him on the detainees - and suggested he might seek yet another law to keep terror suspects locked up at the prison camp, even as his presidency winds down.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the 5-4 high court majority, acknowledged the terrorism threat the U.S. faces - the administration's justification for the detentions - but he declared, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."
In a blistering dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."
Mr. Bush has argued the detentions are needed to protect the nation in a time of unprecedented threats from al Qaeda and other foreign terrorist groups. The president, in Rome, said Thursday, "It was a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented." He said he would consider whether to seek new laws in light of the ruling "so we can safely say to the American people, 'We're doing everything we can to protect you.'"
Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., called the ruling a "dangerous decision" because in the middle of a war, military officers could be dragged into federal court, reports CBS News correspondent Wyatt Andrews.
"Never in the history or warfare have we allowed enemy prisoners to go to a federal court and sue our own troops to be released," Graham told Andrews.
Kennedy said federal judges could ultimately order some detainees to be released, but he also said such orders would depend on security concerns and other circumstances. The ruling itself won't result in any immediate releases.
The decision also cast doubt on the future of the military war crimes trials that 19 detainees, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other alleged Sept. 11 plotters, are facing so far. The Pentagon has said it plans to try as many as 80 men held at Guantanamo.
Lawyers for detainees differed over whether the ruling, unlike the first two, would lead to prompt hearings for those who have not been charged. Roughly 270 men remain at the prison at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. Most are classed as enemy combatants and held on suspicion of terrorism or links to al Qaeda and the Taliban.
"The lesson here, and it's a costly one for the administration, is that it can't try the terror suspects through Guantanamo Bay without creating procedures that the Supreme Court signs off upon - rules that give the men more rights than the White House has wanted to now for nearly seven years," CBS News chief legal analyst Andrew Cohen says.
Some detainee lawyers said hearings could take place within a few months. But James Cohen, a Fordham University law professor who has two clients at Guantanamo, predicted Mr. Bush would continue seeking ways to resist the ruling. "Nothing is going to happen between June 12 and Jan. 20," when the next president takes office, Cohen said.Andrew Cohen weighs in on the Supreme Court's ruling on detainees.
Roughly 200 detainees have lawsuits on hold in federal court in Washington. Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth said he would call a special meeting of federal judges to address how to handle the cases.
Detainees already facing trial are in a different category.
Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr said Thursday's decision should not affect war crimes trials. "Military commission trials will therefore continue to go forward," Carr said.
The lawyer for Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's one-time driver, said he will seek dismissal of the charges against Hamdan based on the new ruling. A military judge had already delayed the trial's start to await the high court ruling.
It was unclear whether a hearing at Guantanamo for Canadian Omar Khadr, charged with killing a U.S. Special Forces soldier in Afghanistan, would go forward next week as planned.
Charles Swift, the former Navy lawyer who used to represent Hamdan, said he believes the court removed any legal basis for keeping the Guantanamo facility open and that the military tribunals are "doomed."
Guantanamo generally and the tribunals were conceived on the idea that "constitutional protections wouldn't apply," Swift said. "The court said the Constitution applies. They're in big trouble."
Human rights groups and many Democratic members of Congress celebrated the ruling as affirming the nation's commitment to the rule of law. Several Republican lawmakers called it a decision that put foreign terrorists' rights above the safety of the American people.
The administration opened the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to hold enemy combatants, people suspected of ties to al Qaeda or the Taliban.
The prison has been harshly criticized at home and abroad for the detentions themselves and the aggressive interrogations that were conducted there.
At its heart, the 70-page ruling says that the detainees have the same rights as anyone else in custody in the United States to contest their detention before a judge. Kennedy also said the system the administration has put in place to classify detainees as enemy combatants and review those decisions is not an adequate substitute for the right to go before a civilian judge.
The administration had argued first that the detainees have no rights. But it also contended that the classification and review process was sufficient.
Chief Justice John Roberts, in his own dissent to Thursday's ruling, criticized the majority for striking down what he called "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants."
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas also dissented.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens - the court's more liberal members - joined Kennedy to form the majority.
Souter wrote a separate opinion in which he emphasized the length of the detentions.
"A second fact insufficiently appreciated by the dissents is the length of the disputed imprisonments; some of the prisoners represented here today having been locked up for six years," Souter said. "Hence the hollow ring when the dissenters suggest that the court is somehow precipitating the judiciary into reviewing claims that the military ... could handle within some reasonable period of time."
Scalia, citing a report by Senate Republicans, said at least 30 prisoners have returned to the battlefield following their release from Guantanamo.
The court has ruled twice previously that people held at Guantanamo without charges can go into civilian courts to ask that the government justify their continued detention. Each time, the administration and Congress, then controlled by Republicans, changed the law to try to close the courthouse doors to the detainees.
The court specifically struck down a provision of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that denies Guantanamo detainees the right to file petitions of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is a centuries-old legal principle, enshrined in the Constitution, that allows courts to determine whether a prisoner is being held illegally.
The head of the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents dozens of prisoners at Guantanamo, welcomed the ruling.
"The Supreme Court has finally brought an end to one of our nation's most egregious injustices," said CCR Executive Director Vincent Warren. "By granting the writ of habeas corpus, the Supreme Court recognizes a rule of law established hundreds of years ago and essential to American jurisprudence since our nation's founding."
Mr. Bush has said he wants to close the facility once countries can be found to take the prisoners who are there.
Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama also support shutting down the prison.
© MMVIII, 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
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 17
- next
See all 829 Comments--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by guyfrompa45 at 10:33 AM : Jun 12, 2008"
Only if it''s a sheraton somehwre other than the US.........US hotels are like the US generrally.....disgusting cesspits
Bravo! Well said! If any-one''s rights are denied by this corrupt regime in power right now, then they can deny every-one''s rights! Our Constitution is stronger then their fear and hate!
Posted by shingles1 at 10:37 AM : Jun 12, 2008
I agree.
Posted by vbnvbn at 10:43 AM : Jun 12, 2008
This is a victory for all people. It means our Bill of Rights is still intact, in spite of the Bush regime''s attempts to hobble it.
Posted by vbnvbn
Not exactly, but at least now justice will be served.
Posted by guyfrompa45 at 10:49 AM : Jun 12, 2008
They are not supposed to be executed until AFTER they are found guilty in a court of law! THAT is the Bill of Rights!
Posted by LibH8er
But that''s the problem. Which of the detainees are terrorists and which ones are innocent folks who were snagged in the process after 9-11?
The Bush administration has already released many individuals who were determined to be innocent. Don''t those remaining deserve to have their day in court?
Do neocons really use the Constitution as toilet paper? They sure talk as if they do.
Posted by ddhinnyc at 10:52 AM : Jun 12, 2008
All human beings held by the US government have the same rights! PROVE they are guilty!
Posted by shoebox119 at 10:53 AM : Jun 12, 2008
They look at the Bill of Rights as a minor annoyance. Something to be ignored or gotten around. They are un-American.
Posted by guyfrompa45 at 10:54 AM : Jun 12, 2008
PROVE they are guilty and I''ll happily be the one to throw the switch! But just having Bush say they are guilty is NOT good enough! He is not a King or dictator who can order someones death or punishment without a trial!
They might suddenly have a change of heart.
When liberals are faced with personal responsibility, they fall to pieces.
Posted by Quetzal666- at 10:55 AM : Jun 12, 2008
They''re ignorant and wouldn''t get what Orwell was saying. They''re blindly following their leader without questioning. They are un-American.
Whether one is a terrorist or not remains to be PROVEN. They have been housed at Gitmo for over 6 years without a trial or any kind.
Proceed with the trials and get it wrapped up so justice can be served already. Everyone deserves a speedy trial and the right to due process. Even scum of the earth Khalid Sheikh Mohammad.
It Proves we are humane after all.
Posted by Quetzal666- at 10:59 AM : Jun 12, 2008
And it proves we are Americans! Not neocons!
It Proves we are humane after all.
Posted by Quetzal666- at 10:59 AM : Jun 12, 2008
And it proves we are Americans! Not neocons!
Posted by SgtRDS-E4 at 11:00 AM
Exactly.
I believe in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. If you torture or kill any of my relatives for no reason, then I have the right to do the same to you.
Posted by guyfrompa45 at 10:54 AM
Then why didn''t we invade and occupy Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq? 17 of the 19 killers on 9-11 were Saudis, Osama bin Laden os Saudi, and Saudi Arabia is the worst of the worst monarchies in the Middle East.
Yet, we''re buddy-buddy with them, why???
The libs aren''t saying their innocent, they''re just saying - MOVE IT ALONG ALREADY! Get the *** show on the road and wrap this up!
Eat hot death, you braindead Bush zealots. This is another nail in your coffin. Your days are OVER.
Posted by kayaker1963 at 11:04 AM : Jun 12, 2008
Apparently to them a liberal is someone who believes in the Bill of Rights and the rule of law. I''m proud to say I do and I am a Liberal.
Posted by kayaker1963 at 11:04 AM
They resort to that because they can''t really do anything else, and because Rush Limbaugh has taught them it''s an insult. Of course, nothing could be more complimentary, so, really, the joke''s on them. I laugh a little every time they do it. 8-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by guyfrompa45 at 11:02 AM : Jun 12, 2008
In what way are you "more" american? You sound like a KKK''r to me and that''s not the image of an american that most of us have.
supreme C. is totally wrong on this.
these people hurt us then come here and insult us some more and we give them carte blache to continue and we wonder why we get stepped on?
Posted by fenner at 11:06 AM : Jun 12, 2008
Why do you hate the US Constitution? Why do you hate the Bill of Rights?
Roberts, Alito, and Scalia went right down hardline conservative lines, but I guess that is expected, Bush owns two of them. Scalia has no scruples and he makes up his interpretations as he goes to suit his hair-brained view on the country. Shame on these poltically "activists" judges.
Republican = rock hard ***!
Get Some!
Posted by vbnvbn at 11:09 AM
I''m not sure what he was trying to say, but it sounds illegal.
supreme C. is totally wrong on this.
these people hurt us then come here and insult us some more and we give them carte blache to continue and we wonder why we get stepped on?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by fenner at 11:06 AM : Jun 12, 2008
fenner, if these people have indeed hurt us, then we should be able to prove it. Once it is proven, I''ll lead the firing squad, OK?
But let''s PROVE it first, in a public trial, with proper representation; that is the American way.
Depriving an alien of their civil rights is a crime.
The detainees were citizens of Afghanistan, before we overthrew their government. After the overthrow of Afghanistan, the new government acquired the right to request custody of their citizens and prisoners. If it can be proven that the Afghan request for prisoners held or detained was formally made to the USA and denied, then it can also be proven that we violated the civil rights of the detainees.
This is a mess, because the category of "Beligerents" is not a constitutional loophole to detain prisoners indefintely, as the Former Secretary of Defense - Donald Rumsfield had stated.
The best thing to do is to recognize the constitutional rights of the prisoners. The Supreme Court ruling has broken another vertabrae in the Republican Backbone for their conduct in the use of Military Forces under the Bush Administration.
Obviously, this person isn''t clutching their crucifix/gun hard enough.
fenner: We are a society of laws. Your ability to determine, without any knowledge whatsoever, that every single one of these people is guilty is nothing short of amazing. Maybe we should replace our entire judicial system with your willingness to play God.
If these guys are terrorist, then go to court and prove it. As of now, they are not convincted. They haven''t seen a court yet. That is BS. If you accuse you must be ready to back it up. We are not formally at war. Congress has not declared war since 1941. This is officially and technically peacetime.
People in this country dont want a constitutional govt. They want a make-it-up-as-we-go govt.....then they complain later about a govt that has no principles.....when they sit in jail for years being persecuted by the system.
The former DA in my community spent years prosecuting people severely for any *** crime....then he got busted himself for a *** crime. It was not Spitzer. Now he is feeling the heat and he is crying on TV about how abusive the system is and how he is being railroaded. Well, he created that standard.....for someone else. He never thought it would be him facing the axe.
Whose side are they on? Geesh!
Posted by DaVicar2 at 11:07 AM : Jun 12, 2008
America''s! They are on the side of the Constitution, just like they''re supposed to be!
The anger and fear-mongering we see from the Bush apologists is to be expected. But just because we are fighting terrorism doesn''t mean we have to climb into the gutter with them. The US''s best weapon is the higher moral ground - which we lost under the Bush administration.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 17
- next
See all 829 Comments