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."

Comments

Ironic..

[FataL187]

Strange how the U.S. Soldiers have fewer rights then the terrorists we are fighting.

Re:More good reading on the decision

[Anonymous Coward]

So then a Constitutional amendment needs to be passed, clearly stating the Constitutional protections are not extended to non-citizens.

That won't change this decision, but will effectively prevent any future activist judges--including those who may be present in the US Supreme Court--from interpreting Constitutional protections for non-citizens.

Re:stupid, confusing war on terror...

[Collective 0-0009]

I think you missed the point of that question. he is asking if we, the US, can take a POW without declaring a traditional war. nobody said vietnam POW's aren't POW's. Damn, read and breath before replying.

Not enough evidence

[Orion Blastar]

300 people found with machine guns, bombs, suicide vests, trying to murder civilians and US troops and captured instead of killed. Not enough evidence for you? Dig up the bodies in Iraq and Afghanistan that they murdered and do autopsies on them and then give those 300 people a fair trial.

Re:Sudden?

[ArcherB]

How long have those guys been rotting down there? 6 years? I keep hearing terms like "rotting" when describing Gitmo detainees, when the fact is, by many reports, they are treated quite well. They are fed better than American prisoners. Hell, they are fed better than airline passengers! They are given more religious freedoms they they would in their home countries. Many have even asked NOT to be released as they prefer being a prisoner at Guantanamo over being "free" in their home countries.

Re:Sudden?

[Skye16]

Not only will I do that, but I'll make sure I photoshop a picture of you burning the Qu'ran while cavorting with naked islamic women and eating a BLT. Then I'll give him the directions.

Dick.

Re:Sudden?

[ArcherB]

Oh, and I hardly consider "Human Rights Watch" news.

I bet they will be absolutely _crushed_ to hear that.

The source is irrelevant, Cheney is widely quoted as making those remarks. He has never issued a correction/retraction/denial.

A dunk in water? IF IT SAVES LIVES? You can dunk ME in water if it saves lives! Hell, I've been dunked in water FOR FREE! To take that step a bit further, if it would save lives, I would gladly volunteer to be subjected to torture. That's a small price to pay so a little girl can see her daddy again.

You really don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about, do you?

Go and play with your toys, and leave the serious conversation to the adults...

No one denied that Cheney made those remarks. I don't understand what was wrong with them. If on 9-10-01, you knew, without a doubt of someone who knew of the attacks and was going to let them go forward without telling anyone, would you torture this one man to save the lives of 3000 Americans if you were President of Vice President if that were the only way to get him to talk?

I would. Sorry, I know it sucks, but I would in a heart beat. Like I said, if it would make things better, you could do the same to me, IF IT WOULD SAVE LIVES. It's math really. Torturing one is less than the deaths of 3000 + the torture their families had to endure.

Seriously, you wouldn't torture someone who knew of 9-11 and was willing to let it happen, in order to prevent it?

Re:Sudden?

[Das Modell]

If I didn't know, why would I say that we accomodate them? If you don't have even the slightest clue about the subject then there's no point in getting into it. I can't just wave a magic wand and make you absorb years of accumulated information in a few minutes, and I don't see why I should have to. In any case, even if I did go through the trouble of gathering links you'd just dismiss it all as xenophobic right-wing propaganda. As you people always do.

Re:Sudden?

[shanen]

So much stupidity, so little time.

Tell you what. Please take a couple of actual history courses and read a couple of books. And as a special favor, please designate me a foe. One can never have too many imbeciles as foes.