Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees

[kpete]

Source: MSNBC

Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees
Foreign terrorism suspects have right to challenge detention, court rules

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court says foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the U.S. Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25117953/

Court gives detainees habeas rights
Thursday, June 12th, 2008 10:08 am | Lyle Denniston

In a stunning blow to the Bush Administration in its war-on-terrorism policies, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign nationals held at Guantanamo Bay have a right to pursue habeas challenges to their detention. The Court, dividing 5-4, ruled that Congress had not validly taken away habeas rights



Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25117953/

---

UPDATE: From the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represented defendants in these cases: "The Supreme Court has finally brought an end to one of our nation’s most egregious injustices,” said CCR Executive Director Vincent Warren. “It has finally given the men held at Guantánamo the justice that they have long deserved. 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. This six-year-long nightmare is a lesson in how fragile our constitutional protections truly are in the hands of an overzealous executive."

http://ccrjustice.org/

[sweet baby jesus]

1. Breaking: Guatanamo Prisoners have Constitutional Rights

Source: MSNBC

will post article when I see one -

No link yet.

[LynnTheDem]

2. A wee bit too late. But not too late for

war crimes charges against the bush regime.

Coz fact is, Gitmo prisoners always had constitutional and GC rights.

[napi21]

3. On CNN too! They called it a MAJOR BLOW to the Shrub admin!

I must say, I'm surprised by that SCOTUS ruling!

[rurallib]

7. had to be a 5-4 ruling

Guessing Kennedy just couldn't believe this one.

[harun]

13. It was 5-4

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7451139.stm

[TheDebbieDee]

4. Aw, $hit! Maybe this Supreme Court isn't as whacked out, neo-connish

as I thought.

They have Constitutional Rights - I can't wait to hear the Dana Perrino spin on this.

[Jack Rabbit]

5. Habeas Corpus isn't just a constitutional right

It is a human right.

[melissinha]

8. thats right

Hallelujah!!! Back to life, back to reality!

[lovuian]

38. Habeas Corpus is a fundamental right in Justice

we have gotten back to the days where the king just locked you up in jail cause he didn't like you

thats where we have progressed too

and the Supreme Court knows damn well Gutanamo is ilegal

[damntexdem]

51. And a bare majority of the SCOTUS can see that.

Four moral defectives will occupy those seats for years to come.

[Jack Rabbit]

52. The other four are tainted with association with the war criminal

Two were appointed by him and the two other were instrumental in getting him appointed to his present position.

[jwirr]

64. Established in the Magna Carta as a gift to us today when we most

need it.

[knixphan]

68. Amen, baby.

[The Stranger]

6. There is a god.

[UpInArms]

9. Reuters Article: Top court allows Guantanamo prisoners' appeals

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSWAT00965420080612

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that Guantanamo Bay prisoners have the right to go before U.S. federal judges to challenge their years-long detention, handing a stinging setback to the Bush administration.

By a 5-4 vote, the high court overturned a ruling that upheld a law President George W. Bush pushed through the Republican-led Congress in 2006 that took away the habeas corpus rights of the terrorism suspects to seek full judicial review of their detention.

"We hold these petitioners do have the habeas corpus privilege," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court majority in the 70-page opinion.

He said that Congress had failed to create an adequate alternative for the prisoners held at the U.S. military base in Cuba to contest their detention.

<snip>

Kennedy said the court did not address whether Bush has the authority to detain the prisoners.

[woodsprite]

17. I especially love this part ---

... a law President George W. Bush pushed through the Republican-led Congress in 2006 ....

[UpInArms]

66. I'm always happy to read news articles that clearly follow the money

right into the pockets of the thieves.

:hi:

[Bigmack]

10. Yet another reason for an Obama win....

in November. Imagine what the court would look like with a couple of McSame nominees.

I'm glad the SCOTUS ruled this way, but I'm disappointed that they found that humans have rights by a 5-4 decision.

[lark]

49. Not suprising to me

Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito would rule Bush dictator for life if they ever got a chance, they are total partisan hacks and a disgrace to the name "judge".

[knixphan]

69. Agreed!

[Mad_Dem_X]

79. Yep, not surprised one bit by their votes. nt

[a la izquierda]

81. Scalia's comments that...

people will die because of this ruling had me almost peeing in my pants.:rofl: He's such a tool.
This about a minute after almost driving into a ditch while listening to the broadcast on NPR. It was a rough day in the car.

[MrScorpio]

11. Sounds like the Bushies got bitch-slapped by the Supreme Court

The Separation of Powers comes to some fruition

[williesgirl]

12. Here's the Washington Post article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/12/AR2008061201695.html?hpid=topnews

[OneAngryDemocrat]

14. The downside to this ruling should be obvious to all...

The downside to this ruling should be obvious: If President Obama decides to incarcerate the Bush administration for War Crimes, they'll be able to contest their imprisonment.

Please visit my amateur (but I try!) anti-war website, www.shockedandawful.com

[uncle ray]

29. yeah, except we have actual evidence against bushco.

no need to hold then indefinitely without charge.

[OneBlueSky]

15. so . . . what happens if BushCo just decides to ignore the ruling . . .

which, based on their past record, is a distinct possibility . . . the more fundamental question is --

when the executive itself breaks the law, who does the enforcing? . . . since the executive is the branch that's supposed to enforce the law, what happens when a rogue executive defies the legislative or, in this case, the judicial branch? . . . do they call upon themselves for enforcement? . . .

could lead to an interesting Constitutional showdown, no? . . .

[klyon]

37. that is why we have impeachment

When the Congress is bought and paid for or held hostage by the Executive branch then we have a problem. Like now.

[DUlover2909]

76. Impeachment is off the table, except that they are going to table it.

Confused yet?

[izzybeans]

16. Holy shit. Color me surprised.

Awesome.

[Poll_Blind]

22. I hear ya there! n/t

PB

[OwnedByFerrets]

18. K and R

[DeepModem Mom]

19. Truly historic -- K&R!

[Tesha]

20. Dissenting, the usual "strict constructionists"/"non-activists"...

Dissenting:

o Chief Justice John Roberts
o Justice Samuel Alito
o Justice Antonin Scalia
o Justice Clarence Thomas

Who prove, once again, that they read the Constitution
any damned way that's convenient for their NeoCon friends.

Tesha

[Tesha]

21. (Nevermind -- removed by author)

[otherlander]

23. Huh. It's in the news...

but it's not bad.

Well, how about that, folks?


:toast:

[Sam Ervin jret]

24. 5-4 way too close. What the hell is anyone thinking voting for McShame?

[texshelters]

25. Oh, but McCain has "experience"

and Obama is not us (white, female, uneducated).

It's insane. We need to hammer home McCain's real record to our "McCain is a maverick" friends. Change one vote, and you are a hero!

Tex Shelters

[Tesha]

26. Justices Rule Terror Suspects Can Appeal in Civilian Courts

Source: AP via the NYTimes

Justices Rule Terror Suspects Can Appeal in Civilian Courts

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that
foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have
rights under the Constitution to challenge their
detention in U.S. civilian courts.

The justices handed the Bush administration its third
setback at the high court since 2004 over its treatment
of prisoners who are being held indefinitely and without
charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The vote was 5-4,
with the court's liberal justices in the majority.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said,
"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive,
and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

<snip>

The court said not only that the detainees have rights
under the Constitution, but that the system the administration
has put in place to classify them as enemy combatants and
review those decisions is inadequate.

The administration had argued first that the detainees
have no rights. But it also contended that the classification
and review process was a sufficient substitute for the
civilian court hearings that the detainees seek.

<more>


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Scotus-Guantanamo.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[no_hypocrisy]

27. Look at the four dissenters. Remember the Supreme Court in November.

The candidate elected to the White House will determine ALL of our futures by his choice to the Supreme Court.

[pleah]

28. K&R! Thugs lose again! YEAH!

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[liberal N proud]

30. I am sure the bu$h regime will condemn the decision

Somehow they will declare the ruling null and void.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

31. Without even reading the article,

I surmised that the dissenters would be Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia. And they were. So one more reason to be sure McCain doesn't have an opportunity to appoint any more like-minded, anti-constitutional asshats.

[Bleacher Creature]

32. 53, 58, 59 and 72

The respective ages of Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia.

Those four (even Scalia at 72) aren't going anywhere for a LONG time. If they get one more Justice to join their crazy block, everything this country stands for goes straight to hell.

Anyone who doesn't affirmatively vote for Obama this November should think long and hard about it.

[Hawkeye-X]

60. All 4 are impeachable, FWIW

And we'll have the numbers to kick 'em out in '09 - BTW, What would Asshat Clarence do without Scalia if he got kicked out - would Asshat Clarence learn to THINK for himself????? Naaaaahh...

Alito and Roberts are clearly impeachable.

Hawkeye-X

[Midwest_Doc]

33. This is NOT Good News

There are 4 justices who voted AGAINST this decision. 5 to 4 votes make me very nervous.
Disgruntled Clinton supporters, think about this when if you are considering voting against Obama.

[Mad_Dem_X]

80. Exactly - one of MANY reasons

not to vote for McSame!

[nebenaube]

34. yeah

And the supreme court over-ruled Jackson's removal policies too. Didn't help my ancestors much.

[Phoonzang]

35. If McCain wins we're screwed

He'll be able to appoint a completely conservo court that we'll be stuck with for decades.

[Judi Lynn]

36. Guantanamo inmates suffering mental damage: report

Guantanamo inmates suffering mental damage: report
Tue Jun 10, 2008 8:27am EDT


BERLIN (Reuters) - Over two-thirds of the detainees in the Guantanamo Bay prison are suffering from or at risk of mental problems because they are kept isolated in small cells with little light or fresh air, according to Human Rights Watch.

~snip~
"Guantanamo detainees who have not even been charged with a crime are being warehoused in conditions that are in many ways harsher than those reserved for the most dangerous, convicted criminals in the United States," said Jennifer Daskal, senior counterterrorism counsel at Human Rights Watch.

~snip~
Nineteen cases are now pending, including some that have been delayed repeatedly amid challenges to the legality of Guantanamo war crimes court set up by the administration of President George W. Bush.

Both U.S. presidential candidates, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, have pledged to close the prison, which has been denounced by human rights groups and foreign governments for years.

~snip~
Several are reportedly suffering depression and anxiety disorder, and some have reported having visions and hearing voices, Human Rights Watch said.

More:
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL1073082620080610

~~~~~~~~~~
HRW warns of Guantanamo mental health fallout
1 day ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) — A significant portion of the 270 detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba are held in unnecessarily harsh conditions that could result in long-term psychological damage, Human Rights Watch said in a report Tuesday.

As many as 185 of the detainees at the US "war on terror" facility are isolated in cells for 22 hours each day, with limited contact with others and nothing to occupy their time except for a Koran, the report said.

The detainees' two hours of recreational time takes place in "single cell cages" and is sometimes allotted during the night, HRW said.

More:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iXgzQK3wEs1WxwJOhEKNh2J4vN-g

[Oak2004]

71. nothing to occupy their time except for a Koran?

"As many as 185 of the detainees at the US "war on terror" facility are isolated in cells for 22 hours each day, with limited contact with others and nothing to occupy their time except for a Koran, the report said."

Most of the detainees are completely innocent. But I'll bet that after years of torture and isolation, with only a Koran for company, they're all Islamic radicals by now.

Mission accomplished?

[Lex]

39. kick

:kick:

[ashling]

40. Justices Rule Terror Suspects Can Appeal in Civilian Courts

Source: NYT

WASHINGTON — Foreign terrorism suspects held at the Guantánamo Bay naval base in Cuba have constitutional rights to challenge their detention there in United States courts, the Supreme Court ruled, 5 to 4, on Thursday in a historic decision on the balance between personal liberties and national security.

“The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court.

The ruling came in the latest battle between the executive branch, Congress and the courts over how to cope with dangers to the country in the post-9/11 world. Although there have been enough rulings addressing that issue to confuse all but the most diligent scholars, this latest decision, in Boumediene v. Bush, No. 06-1195, may be studied for years to come.


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/washington/12cnd-gitmo.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[watrwefitinfor]

41. “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times”

Squeaked through. Unbelievable - it was a 5 to 4 decision. Damn.

Wat

[librechik]

44. AMEN!

beaten, but not yet dead (Our Democracy)

[Igel]

50. I think I want to read the decision.

Details are going to be important here, very, very important.

[PSPS]

42. "dangers to the country in the post-9/11 world"

The ruling came in the latest battle between the executive branch, Congress and the courts over how to cope with dangers to the country in the post-9/11 world.

Nice little editorializing there, NYT. The fact is that there were no more "dangers to the country" on 9/12 then there were on 9/10. It's Bush's crimes against humanity that has made the US the most reviled rogue nation in the world.

Oh, and that 5-4 decision? Pretty amazing such a basic constitutional question would divide the supreme court, isn't it? If we're saddled with a president McSame, his supreme court appointments will make sure such a question in the future will fall the other way.

[dailykoff]

75. The NYT is up to their bunghole in Bush-Cheney 911 chicanery

and that's putting it politely. For one thing they started construction on a snazzy new office tower the minute the towers fell so they're making a real estate killing off the terra bonzanza along with Bloomberg, Time Warner, Hearst, and the other NYC media trolls who whadaya know, had gigantic midtown highrises in the works before the rest of us had even heard of Osama bin Laden.


New York Times Headquarters

:mad:

[Kablooie]

43. Oh Damn. And I was hoping it was the beginning of the end for the Constitution.

That annoying document gets in way of anyone having real fun.

Oh pooh.

[johnlal]

45. Must vote for Obama!

If this no-brainer was a 5-4 decision, I can't imagine what McCain would do to the Court.

[dailykoff]

46. The times they are a-changin.. FAST!

I have no doubt that the recent change in political winds had a big influence on this otherwise cowardly court.

[Dark]

47. This is why we need to win the GE. With only one swing justice, we need to secure the bench.

n/t

[jody]

48. JUSTICE SOUTER’s concurring opinion on Page 79 of the opinion's pdf is worth reading.

BOUMEDIENE ET AL. v. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

67. I just noticed you sig line.

Democratic Party says "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms" ------ Will it?

Care to elaborate?

[jody]

73. The Dem Party Platform says "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms,

and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do."

See http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

We have several prominent Dem senators however who do not support our party platform but wish to ban handguns and other firearms used by law-abiding citizens to exercise their natural, inherent, inalienable right to defend self and property.

SCOTUS says government is not obligated to protect an individual unless she/he is in custody, therefore self-defense is a personal problem.

Handguns are the tool of choice for self-defense by over 800,000 sworn law enforcement officers.

[treestar]

53. How long before the M$M starts calling this a "defeat in the war on

terror?"

[Life Long Dem]

54. They just did a piece on this on Headline News...

They had what Bush said. He wants another law made to override the court decision. They had a McSame statement but nothing from Obama.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

57. Wouldn't he need a consitutional amendment to legitimately abolish Habeus Corupus?

How is going to find a way to overrule this ruling and will he be able to ram it through like he did with the MCA? I know how Bush/GOP will spin things so that not passing a new law will supposedly reflect bad on the Dems IN AN ELECTION YEAR but do you think that there would be enough time/momentum for something that would overrule and/or invalidate the court's decision in this matter?

[Igel]

58. Yes, he would need an amendment.

But that's not what was done, and there won't be one.

Bush won't avoid this.

One way out would be to declare the prisoners POWs. I think that might do the trick; maybe not, I'm only about half-way through the decision. The way I think they'll go is to allow the habeas petitions to be filed in absentia, and then argue that the writs should be denied on various grounds. This is problematic, for a few reasons. One is evidenciary: What kinds of evidence can the government use, because in some cases it's going to be inadmissible; in other cases, the government may not want to divulge the evidence; in other cases, the accuser or people involved won't be available. Does the judge decide to deny the writ in the case of poor, inadmissible, or unchallengeable evidence or grant it? Does the judge have to worry that the evidence, though inadmissible, is damning; does it matter that, formally speaking, the government has to make the case and the court isn't to concern itself with issues of security and practicality (sort of a strong position, but one many here would take)?

The only other ways out are to move the defendents beyond where the write of habeas corpus can practically or prudentially be applied, or to get Congress to rewrite the law and frame the issue in what would have to amount to an explosive and confrontational way, challenging SCOTUS and defending *. The former would generate incredibly bad PR, the latter is impossible with a dem-controlled congress. But what would the issue be?

SCOTUS framed it as a separation of powers issue, and, were the Congress of a mind to, this could be a full-blown constitutional crisis. SCOTUS has basically ignored a Constitutional right given to Congress, and taken that power to itself.

Constitution article III, sect. 2, par. 2: "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. "

Presumably this functions as a restraint on the power of the Court. The Court is not all powerful; the Executive vetoes Congress, but can be overriden; the Court can rule, but have something removed from its jurisdiction. The Court--under Marsbury--can void Congress' pronouncements and certainly void Executive decisions. In principle, the Executive could simply fail to implement a court decision, with the judge squealing helplessly and ineffectually; or, the Legislative and the Executive could join forces to stack the court. The powers are separate, but certainly restrain each other.

However, in this case (p. 43-44), they write: "Abstaining from questions involving formal sovereignty and territorial governance is one thing. To hold the political branches have the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will is quite another. The former position reflects this Court’s recognition that certain matters requiring political judgments are best left to the political branches. The latter would permit a striking anomaly in our tripartite system of government, leading to a regime in which Congress and the President,not this Court, say “what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803).

"These concerns have particular bearing upon the Suspension Clause question in the cases now before us, for the writ of habeas corpus is itself an indispensable mechanism for monitoring the separation of powers. The test for determining the scope of this provision must not be subject to manipulation by those whose power it is designed to restrain."

Do you see the problem? The Suspension Clause is critical in determining separation of powers: Neither the Legislative nor the Executive are permitted to decide when the Constitution is or is not to be implemented; that is the Judiciary's jurisdiction. However, the Constitution, under a fairly naive reading, says that Congress, while not voiding a law, can simply declare some Law or Fact to exceptionally not be under the Judiciary's jurisdiction.

So while it's a separation of powers case, it seems to be arguable that SCOTUS has decreed that it has a certain authority, and is jealous of that authority. Notably, Const. III, sect. 2 par. 2 is nowhere cited in the opinion, even though the legislative history has that as a strong motive for the law that they're voiding. Had they cited it, however, the paradox of their decision would probably have been too great.

The potential crisis is this: SCOTUS is the sole arbiter of what the Constitution means and where it applies; it's not clear this was so, early on, but since the early examples a are ambiguous and can be interpreted in the light of later, unambiguous decision, so be it. It has decided that one of the few (or the only) instance in which the Judiciary's had an exception made to its jurisdiction is, in order to avoid a separation-of-powers problem, unconstitutional: If the Judiciary is told it has no say, then it's a stunning repudiation of separation of powers. In other words, "The test for determining the scope of this provision must not be subject to manipulation by those whose power it is designed to restrain." Why must it be so? Because to hold otherwise is unthinkable, and would mean that SCOTUS/judiciary does not have unbridled authority to interpret the Constitution.

This sentence is wrong, I think: "To hold the political branches have the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will is quite another ... (it) would permit a striking anomaly in our tripartite system of government, leading to a regime in which Congress and the President,not this Court, say “what the law is"." Now, I don't like Congress carving an exception to the Constitution and blindfolding SCOTUS; but I don't like SCOTUS being misleading. The exception clause doesn't say Congress decides the law (except to the extent they write it), per se, because that leads to tyranny; it says that there may be instances in which SCOTUS does not say what the law is, leading one to wonder who, then, would decide those matters of law and fact. SCOTUS has decided that since there can be no other, this part of the Constitution is not to be argued with, it is to be ignored. However, that can also lead to tyranny. This strikes me as a kludge: The Constitution and Laws must be applied and applied properly, however there are circumstances in which the Judiciary may be prohibited from evaluating whether or not they're applied properly. The kludge can be abused, but is (theoretically) important not in providing accountability by the Judiciary, but keeping it reined in.

Now, SCOTUS likes kludges. It cites a few in this case. There are instances where it's clear that precedent and legal language imply unambiguously that the Constitution and its provisions must be applied, there being no legal justification for not applying them in some instances; however, SCOTUS ruled that for "prudential" and "practical" matters, non-application is perfectly ok, because, well, it just has to be, and the Judiciary (and only the Judiciary) has to decide this issues on a case-by-case basis. The Constitution and Laws must be applied and applied properly, however there are circumstances in which the Judiciary may decide that it doesn't matter whether or not they're applied properly. SCOTUS could have said that this means the Judiciary can decide "to switch the Constitution on or off at will" and didn't bother to use that language. It's certainly language that most would take issue with. Note that this is not deciding the law, sensu structo; it's deciding where the law applies, in other words, keeping the Constitution from "seeing" individual cases and situations and shielding them from it. SCOTUS makes the distinction in one place, and tacitly denies in another that such a distinction is even possible. Why? Because it's a separation-of-powers dispute, SCOTUS thinks, and nobody is willingly going to relinquish power that they think they rightly have unless they are humble or so rule-bound that they'd rather follow rules that weaken and harm them.

I'm not all the way through the decision, so my opinion might change in the next 50 pages. So far, I think they could have used a bit of ironic detachment and self-contemplation.

[Life Long Dem]

62. Bush suggested new legislation may now be needed to keep the American people safe.

"We'll abide by the court's decision," Bush said during a news conference in Rome. "That doesn't mean I have to agree with it."

"It was a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented," Bush said. "And that dissent was based upon their serious concerns about U.S. national security."

Bush said his administration will study the ruling. "We'll do this with this in mind — to determine whether or not additional legislation might be appropriate so we can safely say to the American people, 'We're doing everything we can to protect you.'"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080612/ap_on_re_eu/bush_europe_68

Edit: added link

[Proud Liberal Dem]

65. Yeah, noticed that

I'm reasonably sure that nobody has died under the Bush (mis-)administration or any other administration BECAUSE of Habeus Corpus and, as such, it stands to reason that nobody will now or in the future. Of course (unfortunately) I don't expect anybody in Congress or among the punditry to point out that obvious fact. Didn't we try the 1993 WTC bombers in civilian courts and how did that work out????


*sigh* I just KNOW that that's NOT how any so-called "debate" over new legislation is going to go.

[happyslug]

77. Bush will NOT declare the Prisoners POWs. then the rights of the Geneva Convention clearly kicks in

Furthermore then the purpose of the imprisonment is detention NOT punishment. Being detained mean the prisoners have all and any right that does NOT interfere with their detention, access to Friends, relatives, political supporters etc. Given today's society I see no reason why phone and computer access should be denied to them.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

The key article is as follows:
Chapter II

QUARTERS, FOOD AND CLOTHING OF PRISONERS OF WAR

Article 25

Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favourable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area. The said conditions shall make allowance for the habits and customs of the prisoners and shall in no case be prejudicial to their health.

The foregoing provisions shall apply in particular to the dormitories of prisoners of war as regards both total surface and minimum cubic space, and the general installations, bedding and blankets.

There is a right to visits from a Neutral country (Generally Switzerland, but others have done it) and other rights but the key is treatment must be equal to what a country is providing its own soldiers. The cells are NOT what we are providing our own soldiers and thus clearly a violation of the Geneva Convention.

Notice, the requirement is the same as US soldiers have in Guantanamo. That is NOT the case given the limited confinement area each has. Thus a whole new prison system has to be built

[MannyGoldstein]

55. Why Isn't This On The DU Front Page?

It's a very, very big deal.

[MannyGoldstein]

56. Nevermind - It Just Showed Up

[UndertheOcean]

59. 5-4?

[frickaline]

61. I'm stunned. Completely. K&R

[jwirr]

63. This is a red-letter day. And it was the SCOTUS - not congress that

did it.

[Generator]

72. Yeah I noticed

And with a tear shed, an e-mail saying our six year nightmare is finally over from CCR-well yes-it's so close to the abyss.

I will never trust a politician again. ANY politician. And I will never forgive any of them for their weakness. They are supposed to protect us and all many of them protect is their fucking job. I'm still angry. It's the angriest I've ever been on DU and it's not going away. Because certainly it could as well be you or I held with no rights.

[jwirr]

74. I also think the vote 5-4 is the same ratio they used to put *ss into

the presidency. They owed us.

[Kaleko]

70. An email from Senator Patrick Leahy

says in part:

"In today's 5-4 Boumediene v. Bush decision, the Court ruled that stripping habeas corpus rights from detainees at Guantanamo Bay was unconstitutional. In so doing, the Court reaffirmed the fundamental right of habeas corpus -- the right that all Americans, and those prisoners under American control, have to challenge the government's reasons for imprisoning them -- a fundamental American right that underpins our individual freedoms and liberty.

Now, in three separate decisions, the Supreme Court has rejected the Bush-Cheney Administration's erosion of fundamental rights. It is these very protections and rights that set America apart from our enemies and make our nation a beacon of freedom and justice for the rest of the world."


This is great. Cause to celebrate.

[meowomon]

78. Freedom is hanging by a thread

Obama must win.