Gitmo detainees have right of access to lawyers and Federal courts (CNN )

[pinto]

regardless of nationality. Rules Gitmo is under "US control" as per treaty with Cuba. All detainees thus have access to lawyers/courts.

Breaking news on CNN TV re: 2 USSC decisions handed down today.

ed spell
ed for CNN link


http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/28/scotus.enemy.combatants.ap/index.html

[orthogonal]

1. Yessssss!

Yessssss!

[hang a left]

2. That is great news.

sigh of relief.

[LittleApple81]

3. What's up? On GD, there is a News item saying gov. won a partial victory:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1878011

[pinto]

5. I think that was an early spin from Modesto Bee. USSC did not

address legality of original detainment of US prisoner, Hamdi, but upheld right of access (habeas corpus) for all detainees regardless of nationality.

[AP]

10. Totally guessing without reading anything, but it may be that they say

Hamdi and all other individual cases have to move up the system -- they need to get lawyers, file cases in trial courts, and move up to SCt.

Perhaps they're not saying that Hamdi and Padilla don't have rights. They're just saying the cases aren't ripe because they need to be aired from within the federal court system first.

[Scooter24]

4. It'll take me a while to read the full ruling..

but it doesn't give Bush much to be victorious about...

He can hold them without charges because Congress gave him that power...But the detainee have access to the court to challenge his treatment.

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court delivered a partial victory to the Bush administration in its war on terrorism Monday, ruling narrowly that Congress gave President Bush the power to hold an American citizen without charges or trial, but that the detainee can challenge his treatment in court.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5316401/

It seems to be a 50/50 compromise...I'll have to read the ruling to see what cases were cited. This seems like an access ruling.

6-3 Ruling on Hamdi's case (i.e., Guantamano case), Stevens for the Majority

8-1 Ruling on Padilla's case, lower ruling is void and is sent back...Thomas is the lone dissenter.

Edit: There were 3 cases ruled on...2 fell under the Hamdi ruling and the final one: The Padilla case's lower court judgement was thrown out and sent back to the lower court.

[pinto]

6. yeah, looks like a compromise. love the habeas corpus ruling, though.

and CNN reported it as more of a blow to Bushco claims than the other outlets, apparently......

[Zynx]

11. It is.

They said Hamdi had a right to a lawyer and a right to court challenge. *NOT* a win for Bush. It defeats the point of enemy combatent. IE no secret arrest.

CNN actually knows how to read SCOTUS decisions, unlike MSNBC or other hack outlets.

[Frances]

7. Thomas is an insult

to every U.S. citizen

When all else is forgotten, he will be remembered as Bush's legacy.

[bullimiami]

8. scotus is bushit.

they are supposed to apply the LAW as written.

Nothing allows Bush or the Congress to violate the Constitution or the Bill of RIghts.

They can try to amend it to allow for Imperial Imprisonment but for now it is illegal.

GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT. Of any justices that rule against the constitution and for politics. Starting with the felonious five and including any of the other justices that agreed to this bastardization of the law.

They have learned nothing from history. From McCarthyism from WW2 detentions.

[orthogonal]

9. Damn it

Oh, fuck. On closer reading, this sucks.

[Just Me]

12. Great news for "the people". Bad news for Busholini & loyalists. n/t

[KittyWampus]

13. This Is What The JAG's Rep'ing Gitmo Detainees Wanted

Legal standing in the courts.

There was an article in NYTimes magazine 2 weekends ago about the JAGs.

[sdfernando]

14. Foreigners have more rights

I just don't get it. The Supremes have ruled that the prisoners at Gitmo can have access to US courts, yet the President has the power to hold US citizens without a trial??? So now, foreigners have MORE rights than US citizens.

Time for all those neocons to pipe up. Aren't they always complaining about giving foreigners equal rights to US citizens??



On edit corrected "US citizens with a trial" to "US citizens without a trial"

[Just Me]

15. Why are you asserting that "foreigners have more rights"?

The SCOTUS refused to rule on the Padilla case which means the lower court's ruling that Padilla, a US citizen, was entitled to constitutional protections, still stands.

So, I find your assertion very,...confusing.

These SCOTUS decisions are a huge blow to the Bush administration.

[sdfernando]

18. Mis-read

Sorry, I mis-read the ruling, or rather the "partial" text of the entire ruling that I saw. I guess I should look before I leap.

[myrna minx]

16. OK--at first I thought this was a good thing...

but now I am soooo confused as the what this decision really means that I have erased my origional post. :crazy:

[Jim__]

17. A 6 - 3 ruling ?

Can I guess which 3 jackasses voted that the president can just hold people in detention indefinitely without charges or access to lawyers? Would these same 3 jackasses have voted that way had there been a democratic president?