BREAKING: Supreme Court backs rights for Guantanamo detainees (AP)

[jefferson_dem]

Supreme Court backs rights for Guantanamo detainees 6 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - 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."

It was not immediately clear whether this ruling, unlike the first two, would lead to prompt hearings for the detainees, some who have been held more than 6 years. Roughly 270 men remain at the island prison, classified as enemy combatants and held on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaida and the Taliban.

The administration opened the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to hold enemy combatants, people suspected of ties to al-Qaida or the Taliban.

The Guantanamo prison has been harshly criticized at home and abroad for the detentions themselves and the aggressive interrogations that were conducted there.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080612/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guantanamo

[Squatch]

1. Good!

[weezy2736]

2. Good! One of the first steps to restoring haebeus corpus...

[Jim__]

3. Great news!

I wonder if bush will claim as the Commander-in-Chief, he's not bound by Supreme Court rulings.

[truebrit71]

4. ...thereby reinstating their habeus corpus rights....I am trying to pick my jaw up from the floor..

...I am STUNNED...:wow:

[babylonsister]

5. What, did they find a conscience? I'm surprised, but happy about this. I

wonder if this also means their trials can be televised. I'm sure this admin would fight that tooth and nail.

[jefferson_dem]

7. Waiting for the breakdown and opinions.

We know the Salia-Thomas two-headed monster is a lost cause. I wouldn't be surprised if this is a 5/4 ruling, with Kennedy swinging over to do the right thing.

[rurallib]

12. just looked - all they have is the headline

I figure 5/4. Would be nice if it was 7/2. Chimpy will be pissing his pants in Italy.

[Fridays Child]

6. Who dissented? Anyone?

[KoKo]

20. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the dissenting opinion ....ruling was 5 - 4

With the usual suspects dissenting.

[jefferson_dem]

21. It was 5-4.

So i'm sure it was the usual fucked-up suspects dissenting - Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and ... ... Thomas.

[Alcibiades]

8. WTF?

I had thought that the job of the SCOTUS was simply to rubber stamp whatever the Republicans want.

What is going on?

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. Independent branches of guv.ment, I know an old concept

of the America that once was

:-)

[Canuckistanian]

9. Whoa. Where did this come from?

I wasn't even aware there was a challenge before the SC.

Good to hear that the SC is actually, FINALLY respecting established law.

:thumbsup:

[bdamomma]

10. wow, a slither of justice.

[pdxmom]

11. Wow! Turn on your radio and listen to the sound of RW hate

radio hosts' heads exploding all over the airwaves.

[jefferson_dem]

13. Fucking good!

Justice wins. They lose. The way it should be.

[rurallib]

14. talking points need to be written, distributed and then read and

explained to the talking heads before they hit the air.

[dana_b]

38. those bastards hate America

and justice, and freedom.


Sound familiar?? :evilgrin:

[annabanana]

15. This is VERY good news. Does this mean that the torture evidence

will no longer be admissable? Are these kangaroo courts going to be shut down?

[spanone]

16. well no shit.

[rurallib]

17. Can't wait to hear McCain's reaction

he'll screw himself in the ground trying not to say anything.

[annabanana]

18. It SHOULD have been 9-0... Who is the swing on this?. . . n/t

[MiniMe]

24. I think Kennedy is always the swing.

There is one justice that is always on the "winning" side of 5-4 votes, it is either Kennedy or Souter. I think it is Kennedy.

[horseshoecrab]

25. Justice Kennedy

annabanana; Kennedy was the swing vote.

Reading the opinion now...
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/06-1195.pdf


halle-freakin'-lu-yah!


horseshoecrab

[blondeatlast]

33. See 32--the breakdown is just as you would expect. nt

[Virginia Dare]

42. We'll see few, if any, unanimous votes..

as long as Scalia and Thomas are on the SCOTUS.

[1776Forever]

19. Finally we have a stand for the Constitution! There is life on earth!

I love your Obama Webb graphic! I hope this is the choice!

[BattyDem]

22. They finally got one right!

Too bad it was 5-4. :( It should have been 9-0 ... though I would have expected 7-2.

In any case ... a win's a win, so YIPPEE! :woohoo:

[Jack Rabbit]

23. A victory for universal human rights

Nazis at Nuremburg were given due process. That was not the gift of a generous victor. That was a recognition that whatever they might have done, they were still human beings and had a universal right to due process.

Terror suspects at Guantánamo are no less human, regardless of what they might have done.

[FatDave]

45. Mr. Rabbit, may I emphasize your last sentence?

"Terror suspects at Guantánamo are no less human, regardless of what they might have done."

[horseshoecrab]

26. boumediene et al v. bush, president of the united states et a.

very much edited but hopefully a reasonable summary of the habeas declaration of the ruling. They include a plan also for getting people into the justice system quickly, without overwhelming the military system, but I'm not finished with that part yet. Here's a quick and dirty on that most basic basics

horseshoecrab


BOUMEDIENE ET AL. v. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 06–1195. Argued December 5, 2007—Decided June 12,

Held:
1. MCA §7 denies the federal courts jurisdiction to hear habeas actions,
like the instant cases, that were pending at the time of its enactment.
...

2. Petitioners have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus.
They are not barred from seeking the writ or invoking the Suspension
Clause’s protections because they have been designated as enemy
combatants or because of their presence at Guantanamo.
---

5. In considering both the procedural and substantive standards
used to impose detention to prevent acts of terrorism, the courts must
accord proper deference to the political branches. However, security
subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom’s first principles, chief among
them being freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the
personal liberty that is secured by adherence to the separation of
powers. Pp. 68–70.
476 F. 3d 981, reversed and remanded.

[formercia]

27. McLame will fix that

"Finish the job." as he put it. Stack the Supreme Court with members of Opus Dei and other right-wing reactionaries.

It's all up to you, folks.

[treestar]

28. Good and one more reason why McLame must not be elected!

Even with the right wing bozos they have now, the Court still retains its sanity.

[chill_wind]

29. ACLU: "Remember this day: it’s the beginning of the end for Guantánamo."

Gitmo Detainees have Habeus Rights, A BAD NEWS day for BushInc.


ACLU's write-up:

http://blog.aclu.org/2008/06/12/boumediene-decision-gitmo-detainees-have-habeas-rights/


SCOTUSblog:

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. If Congress wishes to suspend habeas, it must do so only as the Constitution allows — when the country faces rebellion or invasion.

(...)

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-gives-detainees-habeas-rights/



Kick and rec!

[Irishonly]

30. I am shocked

I am happy but I didn't think they have enough moral fiber to do it.

[chill_wind]

31. Here's the first NYT writeup:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/washington/12cnd-gitmo.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1213283116-b2QSrhTOD2zdISr07MC/oQ&oref=slogin

[blondeatlast]

32. Why SCOTUS is crucial; here's the opinions from the NYT:

“The costs of delay can no longer be borne by those who are held in custody,” Justice Kennedy wrote, assuming the pivotal rule that some court-watchers had foreseen.

Joining Justice Kennedy’s opinion were Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter.

The dissenters were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, generally considered the conservative wing on the tribunal.

Just what you would expect.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/washington/12cnd-gitmo.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1213283116-b2QSrhTOD2zdISr07MC/oQ&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[progressoid]

34. "The dissenters were ..." Yeah, no big surprise there. n/t

[foo_bar]

36. impeachment was practically designed for them

They swore an oath to "impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent ... under the Constitution and laws", and:

In addition there is a second oath that federal judges must take--(which includes the justices of the Supreme Court). 5 USC 3331:

An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

http://www.yuricareport.com/Law%20&%20Legal/JusticeDenied_RobertsCrt.html

Not to mention false testimony to congress:

"I am not an ideologue," Roberts said in closing.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:mgnCvfKhnlgJ:usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2005/Sep/19-188571.html

[Jim__]

51. I disagree with one point. Scalia and his ilk are not conservative.

The Constitution is explcit on this point:

Article. I.


Section. 1.


All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

...

Section. 9.

...

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

They ignore the Constitution whenever it suits their politics. Scalia et al are just plain assholes.

[slampoet]

35. So Right to a Speedy Trial TAKES 6 GODDAMN YEARS?

[dana_b]

40. and passes by one vote

scary

[Echo In Light]

37. Guantanamo detainees = poor farmers from Afghanistan

[dana_b]

39. I'm really happy that this passed but

it's sad that it was so close! 4 people voted against the right to a fair and semi-speedy trial- wtf?? Oh, I know, "enemy combatants". right.

[Lex]

41. kick

:kick:

[libodem]

43. Those poor tortured souls

I don't care who you are, it's wrong to cause such suffering and permanent mental damage to human beings. This is a noteworthy break-through in the name of Justice for all.

[mzmolly]

44. Our nation is inching it's way back to sanity.

Thank goodness.

K and R

[FatDave]

46. As good as this news is...

...I find it shocking that 4 out of 9 supreme court justices thought that the president could strip rights by uttering the magical phrase "enemy combatant".

[seasat]

47. I wonder how this will affect the scheduled show trials during the election?

Shrub Inc "coincidentally" scheduled trials at GITMO of terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks for just before the general election. All of them have already admitted they were guilty. With this decision, I wonder if the defendants will delay the tribunals using this ruling to thwart the show trials that Shrub Inc has scheduled to boost Repub chances in November?

[malaise]

48. This is excellent

The Supremes are waking up.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

49. Chimpy Chimp Chimp looked stunned this morning over the news

but then he's always looked like someone just hit him in the head with a sledge hammer.

[csorman]

50. The scariest quote comes from, no surprise, Scalia:

What a jackass:

Scalia said the nation is "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Is that a threat, Mr. Scalia?

:banghead:

[MiniMe]

52. Since when has the status of war had an effect on the constitution?

He should be removed from the court just for that statement.

[Disturbed]

53. Scalia is a RWing Fascist Asshole.

:grr:

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. I guess those amicus briefs are having an effect GOOD

[davidlynch]

56. FUCK Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas YOU FUCKING FASCISTS

I'm sick to death of these motherfuckers.