Slashdot Mirror
SCOTUS Grants Guantanamo Prisoners Habeas Corpus
beebee and other readers sent word that the US Supreme Court has, by a 5 to 4 majority, ruled that the Constitution applies at Guantanamo. Accused terrorists can now go to federal court to challenge their continued detention (the right to habeas corpus), meaning that civil judges will now have the power to check the government's designation of Gitmo detainees as enemy combatants. This should remedy one of the major issues Human Rights activists have with the detention center. However, Gitmo is unlikely to close any time soon. The NYTimes reporting on the SCOTUS decision goes into more detail on the vigor of the minority opinion. McClatchy reports the outrage the decision has caused on the right, with one senator calling for a Constitutional amendment "to blunt the effect of this decision."
There's a difference between citizen's rights (voting, welfare) and human rights which are universally applicable (free speech, etc). My personal belief is that not being imprisoned without just cause, and being able to challenge your imprisonment is in the latter set.
I'm at a loss as to how anyone can be upset at this decision. Its not like we're turning known terrorists out onto American streets. We're just saying that the people being detained have a right to challenge their detainment.
I came here for a good argument
Is it possible to have POW's without a congressionally declared war?
These fundamental freedoms are MORE important, not LESS important, during times of national stress. It is those times when cowards like Bush are most prepared to sell our freedom, so hard-won over the centuries, for the promise of a little temporary security.
Guantanamo is Bush's Manzanar. In the hysteria of the time it might have seemed like the right thing to do, to a few frightened people. The judgment of history will be firmly otherwise.
I piss off bigots.
Several highly simmilar cases have come before the supreme court and all were very difficult decisions. The two most important ones were President Lincoln indefinitely detaining without trial citizens and press who spoke in favor of the confederacy. Unlike to day, where there is no declaration of war, Lincoln thought the consitution gave him the right to suspend Habeous. But the supreme court said it only applied in zones of conflict not the rear. And even under times of duress the constitution could not be switched off. Today's supreme court said almost exactly the same thing in the summary.
Then FDR also created the concept of "enemy combatants" for handling people who were spies captured inside the US boarders. While he should have treated them as Spies under war common law, instead he wanted their trials publicly suppressed and created a special tribunal outside the jurisdictions of any state but on US soil. The supremes had to argue about it. The argument was that clearly the US legal system can try people crimes so why not let it. And it would set a bad precedent for removing habeous for people captured outside war zones.
The book "In time of War" covers this an it's a great well written read. I recommend it highly.
I thought the following quote captured one aspect of the issue:
"But the real problem is the interminable detention period, which has no reasonable judicial excuse. The dissenters are quite right that America has offered a quite generous set of procedural protections for enemy combatants. But these are mocked when a detainee is an indefinite prisoner with indefinitely incomprehensible status. The problem is not the legal process but what happens when the federal government holds that process, at its whim, in open-ended abeyance. The federal government still gets a lot of leeway, and the benefit of the doubt, from the Court, especially in wartime. But ours is so nonobviously wartime, and the Bush administration has been so lax, opaque, and seemingly quite pointless in its interminable detention of a wide range of variably important prisoners, that todayÂs ruling seems to me to confirm the wisdom of both the majority and the dissent. I suspect the ruling will, if anything, cause most of these detainees to actually be tried, which would be nice, but not released, which would not be. And that strikes me as not only nice but just."
link
A good question is where does McCain stand on obeying the Constituional restrictions faithfully. Here's two articles from Reason Magazine (libertarian bent):
Longer and Shorter
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
1) Earier Supremes say it's okay for Bush to deny Habeous in US criminal courts so long as an alternative is provided that is substanially simmiar to the habeous right to contest incarceration.
2) congress provides an alternative tribunal system that fulfills this requirement
3) Said new tribunal turns around and refuses to hear any Habeous claims because it decrees the prisoners have no Habeous rights. (WILD!)
4) Today's court ruling reverses that saying they do have habeous rights.
The question then is Does it go back to the Kangaroo court or to a real crimminal court for hearing of habeous claims. I think this is the point of contention.
Also here's a link to a longer slashdot post that talks about this:
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Read the dissenting opinion.
Today the Court strikes down as inadequate the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants. The political branches crafted these procedures amidst an ongoing military conflict, after much careful investigation and thorough debate. The Court rejects them today out of hand, without bothering to say what due process rights the detainees possess, without explaining how the statute fails to vindicate those rights, and before a single petitioner has even attempted to avail himself of the law's operation.Bolding mine. How would anyone know if they've tried to use the courts if they haven't had access to them in the first place? And saying that Habeas Corpus isn't a "time-honored legal principal"?
Amazing, isn't it?
Quotes taken from here.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Tell this to the guy who was kidnapped, flown to Afghanistan, and Tortured for 5 months because he happened to have the same name as a suspected terrorist.
In 2003, Khalid El-Masri, a Kuwait-born citizen with German nationality, was detained by Macedonian agents in the Republic of Macedonia. While on vacation in Macedonia, local police, apparently acting on a tip, took him off a bus, held him for three weeks, then took him to the Skopje airport where he was turned over to the CIA.
El-Masri says he was injected with drugs, and after his flight, he woke up in an American-run prison in Afghanistan containing prisoners from Pakistan, Tanzania, Yemen and Saudi Arabia. El-Masri said that he was held five months and interrogated by Americans through an interpreter. He declared that he had been beaten and kept in solitary confinement. Participating in some of these interrogation sessions was an officer of the German foreign intelligence service (Bundesnachrichtendienst or BND) using the pseudonym "Sam", who has reportedly been identified by al-Masri as Gerhard Lehmann. Lehmann served on the UN Mehlis commission into the Rafik Hariri assassination before he was withdrawn in early February 2006, possibly to prevent the repercussions of his identification.[39]
Then, after his five months of questioning, he was simply released. "They told me that they had confused names and that they had cleared it up, but I can't imagine that," El-Masri told ABC News. "You can clear up switching names in a few minutes." Khalid el-Masri had allegedly been confused with Khalid al-Masri, wanted for contacts with the Hamburg Cell involved in the September 2001 attacks.
Khalid el-Masri was then flown out of Afghanistan and dumped on a road in Albania, from where he made his way back home in Germany. Using a method called isotope analysis, scientists at the Bavarian archive for geology in Munich subsequently analyzed several strands of his hair and verified his story. During a visit to Washington, German Interior Minister Otto Schily was told that American agents admitted to kidnapping El-Masri, and indicated that the matter had somehow got out of hand. Masri was held for five months largely because the head of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center's al Qaeda unit "believed he was someone else," one former CIA official said. "She didn't really know. She just had a hunch."
Massively Offtopic: In a very roundabout way, if the FBI hadn't acted exactly when they did and how they did, I would never have been born.
My grandfather was an Electrician in the US Navy, and an American of German heritage. He was scheduled to ship out from NY to Africa to lay cabling for airstrips during WWII, but as he was about to board his ship, the "G-Men" grabbed him for interrogation to see if, as a German, he knew anything about his U-Boat off the coast of Long Island. He didn't, of course, and wasn't involved, but by the time the Feds were done with him, his ship had already left port, and he had to be reassigned.
It turns out that his ship was sunk in the Atlantic by a Wolf Pack, and all hands onboard were lost. My Grandfather, of course, survived and went on to meet and marry my Grandmother, who gave birth to my Mother. Thus, I (and my Mother) owe my very existance to the odd actions and timing of the FBI at this point in history.
What gets me: the current cost of the Iraq fiasco is, what, 3 trillion dollars?
We could have easily taken 1% of that, had a sit-down with Saddam Hussein and said, "look, you and your family and your core leadership take this money and transition quickly out of power and set up in a nice Caribbean resort for the rest of your life, and we won't wipe you out," then gradually shifted to a more representative government, and still had 2.7 trillion to throw around for little things like rebuilding after Katrina, widespread environmental projects, and lap dances for every adult male in America and Iraq put together.