A blow for King George !

[wvrevy]

The Supreme Court decided today that the president is not empowered to detain and hold citizens indefinitely without giving them access to the courts to defend themselves. While the court did hold that he may detain and hold them, they decided 6-3 that the detainees must have access to the courts to protest their status and seek redress.

Whily hardly a grand victory for basic rights in this country, this should, at least, send a message to the white house that the president is not a king, and cannot "on his say so" lock people up without probable cause and with no oversight by the courts.

 

[Eeyore1954]

I agree with the Court's ruling on this, but am troubled by this one comment from the AP story: "The high court's ruling applies only to Guantanamo detainees, although the United States holds foreign prisoners elsewhere." I wonder why this applies only to Guantanamo detainees only.

 

[AirForceRocks]

I disagree with the decision, but as always, we just play the cards we're dealt. I guess the next step will be that we have to pay for the lawyers for the terrorists held in Cuba.

It's obviously a mixed bag - the President still has the right to designate whomever he chooses as an enemy combatant, but they can fight the designation. I'll be interested to see how many of the detainees get slapped down by the court and told to shut up and color.

 

[Arabella Figg 2003]

I don't know why it only pertains to Gitmo -- I'll hve to read the decision when it becomes available.

Brenda, I suspect the Gitmo prisoners will file their pleadings in a circuit most likely to be sympathetic to their claims -- and it's not likley that the case will go up to the Supreme court again.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by Arabella Figg 2003

Brenda, I suspect the Gitmo prisoners will file their pleadings in a circuit most likely to be sympathetic to their claims -- and it's not likley that the case will go up to the Supreme court again.

I'm sure they will, and I'm just as certain that the government will appeal when the 9th Circuit (because we all know that's where they'll go) starts releasing terrorists left and right.

I noted that Justice O'Connor talked about courts taking care to take national security concerns into account when deciding cases. If and when it becomes obvious that the courts are not doing that, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the court take up the issue again.

 

[AirForceRocks]

I wonder why this applies only to Guantanamo detainees only.

I haven't read the decision, but I imagine it has something to do with the fact that Gitmo is sovereign American territory, at least so long as we continue the lease.

 

[Arabella Figg 2003]

According to MSNBC, you're right -- it applies only to Gitmo because Gitmo is under US control.

the practical effect of the ruling is that each and every enemy combatant will file a habeus corpus petition -- and the government will be compelled to charge them or release them.

let freedom ring.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by Arabella Figg 2003
According to MSNBC, you're right -- it applies only to Gitmo because Gitmo is under US control.

the practical effect of the ruling is that each and every enemy combatant will file a habeus corpus petition -- and the government will be compelled to charge them or release them.

let freedom ring.

Freedom for terrorists - what a great idea!!

 

[AirForceRocks]

Now I'm curious - if the US moves the detainees out of Gitmo before the writs are filed, then what?

Hopefully, the US will be smart enough to not move any more detainees to Gitmo, but can they move the ones that are already there?

 

[dmadman43]

so... a couple of things.

The court basically punted on Padilla, so your handstands are premature there.

The court didn't say the President didn't have the right to declare people enemy combatants, but they did have a right to counsel. So, I'm not sure how that means they need to charge them or release them.

I'm confused on why the court would allow non-citizens being held outside of the US the protections of the Constitution.

The mistake the Administration made was not having Congress declare formal war on Afghanistan. That would have given the Adminstration more power in this space.

 

[AirForceRocks]

The mistake the Administration made was not having Congress declare formal war on Afghanistan.

Yep. And the second mistake was moving the detainees to Gitmo. Hopefully, that's a mistake we won't make again.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Yep. And the second mistake was moving the detainees to Gitmo. Hopefully, that's a mistake we won't make again.

Yeah,. because what we really want is for the president to find away to ignore the law and do whatever the hell he wants ! By not bringing the detainees to Gitmo, he can ignore the laws of this country and behave like the king he knows he should be...

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Yeah,. because what we really want is for the president to find away to ignore the law and do whatever the hell he wants ! By not bringing the detainees to Gitmo, he can ignore the laws of this country and behave like the king he knows he should be...

How would he be ignoring the laws of this country by not bringing detainees to Gitmo?

There is no law that says detainess MUST be brought to Gitmo and there is no law that say detainees held in foreign countries outside of Gitmo must be allowed the same rights as those at Gitmo.

So which law(s) would he be ignoring?

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Yeah,. because what we really want is for the president to find away to ignore the law and do whatever the hell he wants ! By not bringing the detainees to Gitmo, he can ignore the laws of this country and behave like the king he knows he should be...

Give us a break. I suspect the reason you're celebrating this decision is not because you're a champion of the Constitution but because of the contempt you hold for President Bush. I feel pretty certain you would gladly burn the Constitution if you thought it would help get President Bush out of the White House.

Just one man's opinion.

Richard

 

[Van Helsing]

let freedom ring.

Let it ring out loud and clear

In a separate but related ruling, the Supreme Court decided that US citizens designated as "enemy combatants" could be detained without trial - but that those held also had the right to challenge their detention in US courts.

In that case - which centres on US-born detainee Yaser Esam Hamdi - Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that a state of war was "not a blank cheque for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens".

AirForceRocks what law gives G bush the right to detain people overseas ????

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
How would he be ignoring the laws of this country by not bringing detainees to Gitmo?

There is no law that says detainess MUST be brought to Gitmo and there is no law that say detainees held in foreign countries outside of Gitmo must be allowed the same rights as those at Gitmo.

So which law(s) would he be ignoring?

If he is doing it, as you suggested, for the explicit purpose of avoiding the results of today's court decision, then he is "ignoring" it by doing everything he can to circumvent it.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Circumventing and ignoring are two completely different things.

The President has an obligation to do anything within the law to protect this country. If that means keeping detainees in Afghanistan where they can't be released to fight another day, then that's what he should do.

 

[acepepper]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
I guess the next step will be that we have to pay for the lawyers for the terrorists held in Cuba.

The missing word in this sentence is "suspected", as in "suspected terrorists". Unless you have intimate knowledge of every detainee and the terrorist crime he's committed that you're keeping to yourself?

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by richiebaseball
Give us a break. I suspect the reason you're celebrating this decision is not because you're a champion of the Constitution but because of the contempt you hold for President Bush. I feel pretty certain you would gladly burn the Constitution if you thought it would help get President Bush out of the White House.

Just one man's opinion.

Richard

This coming from a supporter of the man who wants to amend the Constitution to include the denial of rights for a portion of the U.S. population?

Keep on talking, bud. If anyone holds contempt for the Constitution it would be w, his administration, and, of course, those who support him. yourself included if that description fits.

Just one man's opinion.

 

[beattyfamily]

Yes, let freedom ring for those terrorists. Let's free them, let them go back to their country and fight our troops.

I remember quite well a story a couple of months ago about how they let a bunch of prisoners go that said they were lawyers or doctors (of course, not terrorists) and then our troops met them again at the Afghanistan battlefield. Isn't that great? At least this time our troops killed them.

I care more about the safety of our troops then I do about the freedoms of terrorists that were arrested because they were trying to kill our troops.